- cross-posted to:
- fediverse@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- fediverse@lemmy.ml
Over the past year or so I’ve been playing with the idea of a decentralised social platform based on your location. By putting physical location at the centre of the experience, such a platform could be used to bring communities together and provide a source of local information when travelling. Please let me know what you guys think.
I spent several weeks thinking about this exact idea.
Federation is cool. You could set up each instance to only federate with instances for nearby towns and cities. Maybe a “2 district” radius. Users would only see content for their local communities. Local news stays local. Local government could officially participate if they wish. People you talk to are actually neighbors you might see in person. Larger regions like counties, states, provinces, or even countries, could also have dedicated instances and federate similarly. I think this is the big appeal and it sounds awesome!
There are a few problems 🙂
First is a little bit of confusion with posting. Let’s say that I see a post about a cool new restaurant in my town. I share it with a friend who lives a few towns away and that’s outside the “federation radius”. I can’t share the post with that friend very easily. Maybe the tools could be enhanced to make this viable?
Second is a matter of privacy. How do you know that new accounts belong to people associated with the geographic location of each instance? If you don’t validate, the system will certainly be abused. If you do validate, then users need to supply some real info! Home address, ID, etc. that’s a big deal for users and instance admins.
Third. What happens if you move? Do you have to abandon your old account and start over? Again, the system itself can be developed further to solve this. But that’ll take time and money.
Next is the operating costs. You would need to build thousands of instances to build this system up. And each one would have to be tied to a geographic region. You need new features to handle signups this way. You have the simple cost of running these servers. You probably need a lot of staff to manage it all. This is an expensive platform for one party to run. Alternatively…
It doesn’t have to be one party running this entire system. That’s the point of the Fediverse, right? The operational costs go way down if anyone can run their own instance. But how do you enforce the rules of federating with instances for geographically nearby locations? I don’t see a reasonable way to solve this one.
I could probably keep listing issues. But these are the big ones IMO. If you solve these, the system is viable and could be amazing.
Hey, it’s good to know that others have been considering this sort of thing.
My article does detail solutions to some of the issues you’ve raised here, but I’ll go over them each just to see where our visions differ:
All posts will have a publicly available URL. I don’t think it would be good to create closed communities, only solutions that would show the user local posts.
I don’t believe we should validate that people actually live in the community. I think administration of blocking malicious users should work just like Lemmy, but I don’t think the potential for abuse is quite as high, given that the reward for a spammer would be to spam to such a small amount of people. There’s less work in spamming to a larger group by choosing just about any other type of community.
You don’t, just like Lemmy and Mastodon, your account on one instance could be used to interact with other instances. The Connecting Instances section of the article details how this could work from a technical point.
Distributed cost and administration is exactly how I see it. I would only care to host my local instance.
After reading your responses, it seems like we’re describing two different methods of building this system.
Your ideas seems to depend on having many instances for various regions, where all instances are federated with each other. So my local instance somewhere in the US would still be federated with for example, an instance in Germany. But the content I receive would be heavily focused on “nearby” content. Interesting
My ideas are based on an important difference. An instance for my town would only federate with instances for the surrounding towns. Maybe one or two more “hops” away. So sharing content between my local instance and one in Germany would be impossible. Content on my local instance would only be accessible to users in nearby instances. Local content enforced by local federation.
Yes, what I’m describing is federating with all instances, unless of course, you decide to block one. Using the method I’ve described, there would be only one hop necessary from your local to the instance relevant to your location. I can’t picture the benefit of a solution in which you would only federate with local instances, given that the downside would be that you would be restricted to posting in your own location. Let me know if I’m missing something. I appreciate all of this feedback.
I’m generally not a big fan of big social media like e.g. Facebook where you might have many thousands of followers, purposefully grow the numbers, etc. I personally think these things are an everyday evil. Yes, it’s a bit melodramatic 🙂but that’s how I feel. Reddit, and now Lemmy are about as far as I like to go with it.
So the isolation of geo-local-only federation is a feature. The feature, actually. I want an entire social media platform that isn’t capable of focusing on single accounts. Where you are near guaranteed to interact with your local community only. Where it would take a dramatic effort for a single actor to influence global opinions. I want a social media platform that isn’t so easy to manipulate. I could go on and on.
Hey, thanks for this. I think I want the same. I don’t think the idea of being able to follow a profile to see what else someone has posted, or to even be able to private message someone on the platform. The focus being only the place of interest.
Yeah what if you plan to go on holiday, can you peak into that country or state’s instance ahead of time to see what things are happening? Can you join that instance while you’re physically on vacation?
I detail that the benefit of this idea is that you can do exactly this using the Nearby feed.
asdfasfasf
I think automatic device location data can certainly help to create a smooth experience, but I wouldn’t rely on it to choose the location of a post in any instance. The user should always have the option of dropping a marker on a map or specifying a post code etc. This won’t only help with situations involving a VPN, but also when posting about a specific location, such as a local library when you’re at home.
asdfasfasf
Maybe I’m a bit too much of an optimist, but I’d hope that distributed administration would help with that sort of thing. But I don’t know, do Mastodon users seem to be more racist than Twitter users? Perhaps an important difference would be that it might be a bit more difficult to block an intolerant user if you knew he’d come knocking on your door!
It boils down to moderators dropping the internalized mandate of “protecting free speech” as well as not being so literal with rules/enforcement that they can be used against the community.
If someone is consistently disrupting the community, ban them. If they’re using obvious dog whistles and arguing they didn’t technically break the rules, ban them.
With any luck, federated platforms will have an increasingly prevalent role on the internet, and affective moderation will become more of a science as more of us are provided situations in which we need to moderate.
I think part of the issue is the churn burn of mods. New mods all assume everything can be “peacefully resolved” and get taken advantage of OR they truly don’t give a shit and give safe haven to the disrupters by telling squeaky wheels in the community “they don’t break the rules so it’s impossible to ban them.”
Older mods drop the ban hammer typically more and get harassed until they’re tired of it and move on.