this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023

48 points (86.4% liked)

sh.itjust.works Main Community

7648 readers

21 users here now

Home of the sh.itjust.works instance.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

TheDude@sh.itjust.works

manifex@sh.itjust.works

biela@sh.itjust.works

imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works

Do you guys think local only communities should be a thing? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 1 year ago by KyRoLen@sh.itjust.works to c/main@sh.itjust.works

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm talking like communities exclusive to an instance where only instance members can participate in. This would be great for communities like The Agora.

top 22 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Little8Lost@feddit.de 62 points 1 year ago (3 children)

not really, it would make some content very centralised which feels like against the idea of the fediverse.
But there could be some use cases like status reports of server but i dont really think it bothers people on other servers to see it.
Maybe for some chats of the server with the admins it could be useful but there i feel the matrix/mastodon/email option they offer is for that use case better, for the drawback of the need to change the platform.

I know that my POV is very negative about your idea so i would be happy about everyone arguing against me.

[–] OrnateLuna@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One use that I can think of is if the instance is for a small irl local community. There isn't much of a point for non locals to see banter or events happening within a small specific area.

[–] Little8Lost@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

there i can argue that people would get forced to be local on the server too for every village in the area who wants to "shut down themselfes".

But from your comment i got the idea that post/communities could be marked as "not all" where people still can subscribe or maybe have it in local but has the option to target less to no random people

[–] OrnateLuna@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago

I guess it would really depend how it is implemented. You do however seem to get the gist of what I was trying to say.

[–] KyRoLen@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What if it's read only access instead?

[–] PupBiru@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

kinda makes a very “us vs them” mentality though… seems like it could easily lead to people being required to have accounts on big instances, or ad supported instances having “premium content” or something like that: basically everything we want to avoid

[–] med@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Communities limited to local participation could still be perfectly visible to other instances. I don’t see many downsides.

The only question is, is there a point? Anyone can sign up and post, it’d just be a kind of rate-limiter for remote instances that don’t police their own sign-ups well

[–] jeena@jemmy.jeena.net 22 points 1 year ago

Yes, we have that in PeerTube already and it's awesome for private communities like a school, a company, a extended family, etc. where you want to be able to share some stuff mostly with this inner circle.

On my PeerTube instance 90% of the videos are only for internal use of my extended family and friends because we post videos of our Children there which we don't want to post on the open internet but still want to have the convinience of all the metadata with thumbnails, tags, search, subscribtions, etc.

[–] GoodKingElliot 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Well, it's useful to have local communities, but I personally find it nice to still be able to join, read, and post from another instance without having to make another account. For instance, I'm subscribed to lemmy.world's "local" community, which is where I found out about old.lemmy.world and mlmym.org. Likewise, if I lived in a geographic locality like Seattle, I might want to join a Seattle community on a Seattle instance, but I'd still prefer to be able to do it using an account from another instance rather than being forced to make an account on the Seattle instance.

[–] OrnateLuna@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago

Perhaps you could have a system where you can link different accounts together, as in you have your main account from which you view and post from and a secondary account that just transfers the permission to view and interact with a walled off community. Obviously it would still require you to make a new account and link it but after the initial setup it would be fine.

As to how feasible that would be I have no idea

[–] Rottcodd@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

In the fediverse, there is no should or should not. There's only can or cannot.

[–] PupBiru@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

i mean, that’s a sentiment but there’s plenty of should and should not outside the bounds of can and cannot… that’s what the whole meta defederation debate is about

can we defederate? absolutely… should we defederate? definitely undecided

[–] Rottcodd@kbin.social -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

can we defederate? absolutely… should we defederate? definitely undecided

Who's this "we" you're referring to?

[–] PupBiru@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

the fediverse community at large, but i’m guessing you got that and you’re asking the question for other reasons, so what are you actually asking?

[–] Rottcodd@kbin.social -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What authority does "the fediverse community at large" possess?

[–] PupBiru@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

authority? none… but instance admins can defederate, and that has the potential to be powerful

this, however, has nothing to do with the original point:

where there is a can there is always a should or should not… the fediverse has plenty of should or should nots

[–] Rottcodd@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

Yes - in the broadest, simply practical sense, there are always shoulds and should nots.

But just as you knew that I wasn't simply asking for a clarification regarding the makeup of that "we," I know that you don't actually believe that that broadest sense of the terms "should" and "should not" is the one I intended when I used them.

[–] Jdreben@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Is this possible by just not federating? I guess that will make the whole server private rather than just a community. So it would have to be a server dedicated to that community.

[–] ShadowAether@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Interesting concept, might be a good mod tool too to be able to limit instance interaction on a community level

[–] Yarla98@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

personally, I would love to see it happen.

[–] Pxtl@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it should be a thing, but only allowed to be created by the admins of the community that they can use for creating tech-support and modmin discussions and whatnot. Not for normal users to create.

[–] KyRoLen@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

This is a really good point. I originally supported it for those purposes. There really are few reasons for the average user to need to make such communities

load more comments