[HN Gopher] How to run a small social network site for your friends
___________________________________________________________________
How to run a small social network site for your friends
Author : quaintdev
Score : 325 points
Date : 2021-12-07 09:28 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (runyourown.social)
(TXT) w3m dump (runyourown.social)
| Nerada wrote:
| I miss how every hobby had a forum running on phpBB,
| SimpleMachines, Invision, etc.
|
| HN is great, but it's very point in time. If I find an
| interesting topic posted over a day ago, it's never getting new
| replies. It's a snapshot of the thoughts on that topic for that
| single day, nothing more.
| account42 wrote:
| As much as I like threaded discussion like on HN I think it
| makes following discussion over a longer period of time almost
| impossible as you need to look all over the tree for new
| replies. Even reddit's highlighting of new posts does not
| really fix that and is s paid feaure anyway (except in the subs
| you moderate) so won't have any effect on the nature of the
| community. Maybe having both a threaded view for the first time
| you want to read through a thread and a more linear view for
| updates would make sense.
| Alex3917 wrote:
| Scoop places a [new] tag next to comments that have been
| posted since the last time you refreshed the page, so that
| you can just Ctrl-F. So there have been popular sites doing
| this for 20+ years, e.g. Kuro5hin and DailyKos. HN just
| hasn't had features like this due to being limited by single
| threaded compute for various reasons. Although if the
| comments were served via an API, this could now be down in
| the front end with just the timestamp of when each user last
| refreshed each page.
| rtpg wrote:
| Yeah honestly forums counteract soooo much of the weird
| incentives that lead to a lot of yelling (yes there is still
| yelling in forums)
|
| I've been in two "tiny forums" in the past and honestly I
| prefer that to the idea of a Twitter clone. Let's people put in
| more effort, have real topics (like about events) and isn't
| just streams.
| sjg007 wrote:
| It definitely stops the seagull effect where people Just fly
| in and shit uninformed opinion all over stuff. Not to mention
| downvotes by the flock.
| usrusr wrote:
| I'm on a number of "large niche" forums (think posts-per-
| minute not minutes-per-post) and yeah, lots of yelling. But
| I'm also on a large Facebook group aiming at the same
| audience (actually a spin-off of the most ancient of those
| forums), and it's a night and day difference. On the Facebook
| group everybody with even the tiniest trace of control is
| self-censoring themselves into total silence, leaving only
| the chattiest voices outdoing each other with irrelevant
| posts. The forums are terrible in their own way, but still so
| much better.
|
| But it's very noticeable how the forum audience is aging,
| even compared to Facebook which is already the retiree home
| amongst corporate social media. I can't imagine how lopsided
| interaction must be on the "influencer platform" generation
| of social media must be..
| joe_the_user wrote:
| I am still on two different extremely niche forums, one running
| phpBB (wild skins and all). I sometimes go to other existing
| forums also. This stuff exists.
| worldofmatthew wrote:
| GDPR and the upcoming online safety bill and the EU's digital
| economy regulations makes it nearly impossible for almost
| anyone to run a forum. That is now only possible by big tech.
| Zababa wrote:
| I don't understand why that would be the case. GDPR is mostly
| about personal data (that you don't really need for a forum).
| The online safety bill would at worst get your forum get
| blocked in the UK, but I haven't been able to find clear
| expectations for a forum outside of what I would call
| "regular moderation". I also didn't find much about the EU's
| digital economy regulations. Would you mind expanding on why
| it's nearly impossible for almost anyone to run a forum now?
| worldofmatthew wrote:
| People can post a lot of personal information to an
| internet forum without asking the owner and even email
| addresses count as personal information.
|
| Labour and the Tories are trying to extend The online
| safety bill to put forum owner in prison if found to be
| causing harm (whatever that means) and you would have to
| pay for staff to monitor the forums 24/7 (no one is going
| to help out if they risk going to prison). All with a fuck
| ton of vagueness that can millions of pounds of fines.
|
| That will make it impossible for anyone but big tech to run
| online forums.
| Zababa wrote:
| Thank you for the explanation. From what you said,
| blocking the UK looks like the most sane thing to do if
| you run a forum, though I'm not even sure if that would
| be enough for them.
| Grumbledour wrote:
| People posting their PI on their own in public is however
| not something the GDPR really covers and so would not
| affect a forum operator. Leaking users email addresses is
| another thing of course, but was undesirable before there
| was GDPR. (Though it might be totally possible to run a
| forum without requiring email if one is really worried)
|
| You are not wrong though that running forums or any
| website with user generated content is becoming
| increasingly difficult for individuals, though the real
| culprits here on EU level are the recent copyright reform
| which requires you to remove infringing content quickly
| and the upcoming Anti-Terror regulation which requires
| removing content in one hour. Though it might be true,
| that many of these laws might be toothless against
| individuals or non-profits, even though they do not
| specially exclude them. But it really seems lawmakers
| don't think much of the internet beyond facebook, twitter
| and google.
| kingnothing wrote:
| Why would a non-European forum operator care about GDPR?
| voakbasda wrote:
| Exactly. If my US-based sites get a GPDR complaint, GeoIP
| blocks will go up and the entire EU can suck a lemon.
| upofadown wrote:
| Couldn't the person running the forum simply not abuse their
| users by not exploiting their personal data for commercial
| gain? How hard is that?
| worldofmatthew wrote:
| GDPR is harder than that, there is a bunch of legal stuff
| and having to have someone legally responsible to follow
| the more vague parts of the GDPR.
|
| GDPR is not just "not exploiting their personal data for
| commercial gain" but a lot of busy work with massive fines
| if you make any mistakes. How is most community forums
| going to work with that?
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| I don't buy it -- GDPR is about protection of PII. Don't
| collect it, you're done.
|
| OK, slightly flippant might take half an afternoon of
| training for all staff.
|
| https://gdpr.eu/checklist/
| pjc50 wrote:
| Fines are proportional to turnover, and you don't get
| fined if you don't have any turnover. People are very
| scared of GDPR in a way that doesn't reflect the actual
| enforcement!
|
| You do have to avoid leaking, though; it's effectively a
| requirement to do information security.
| worldofmatthew wrote:
| Its a max amount or a percentage of turnover, whichever
| is higher.
| donmcronald wrote:
| If I don't collect any PII, even to the point of not
| bothering with analytics, and the only cookies I use are
| for auth or other absolutely necessary functionality, are
| there GDPR rules I need to worry about?
| hosteur wrote:
| Why is that?
|
| Don't you basically just need to stop collecting any data
| that is not put up there by the user itself? At least with
| regards to gdpr.
|
| I am in the process of starting a forum so I am quite curious
| to know if I am wrong in this?
| Alex3917 wrote:
| > I miss how every hobby had a forum running on phpBB,
| SimpleMachines, Invision, etc.
|
| A lot of sufficiently niche hobbies still do. E.g. if you get
| into rare fruit growing, a lot of the best information is in
| various Discourse forums.
| godshatter wrote:
| This is exactly what I want. I don't want something federated,
| I just want to host a small site on a particular topic and have
| some moderation control. I don't need it to connect to every
| other social network, I just want it to be a small island that
| like-minded people can congregate on to talk that also has more
| modern features than the old phpbb did.
| streamofdigits wrote:
| Small social networks is the _real_ "web3" opportunity. The
| contours and requirements to reach that next stage are still
| somewhat blurry:
|
| * how to make them ubiquitous (easy hosting, maintenance,
| moderation)
|
| * how to federate flexibly and effectively (private/public
| boundaries, social graph discovery, integrate different media,
| polymorphic clients)
|
| * how to nudge behavior, extract people from their digital
| prisons and reboot them into more sane behaviors - not trivial,
| some real social scientist input required
|
| * how to make them self-financing without creating distorted
| incentives for any stakeholder
|
| etc. there are lots of things to work out but its clear we've
| been through an centralized web / walled garden aberration period
| that inflicted untold damage to the broader "digital
| transformation" enterprise and legitimized / rewarded abusive
| practices that can not persist as a permanent pattern
| [deleted]
| chasd00 wrote:
| May be an oversimplification but I have a group iMessage on my
| phone with a handful of college buddies. It works pretty much
| perfectly as a private social network.
| rpmisms wrote:
| This is Discord. I have several small friend groups who meet and
| talk through Discord without having to deal with running our own
| service.
| gandutraveler wrote:
| Who do you prefer to share your personal data with? A friend or a
| large tech. No more gossips or sleeping with your friends partner
| [deleted]
| andreyk wrote:
| I actually tried to do this with Diaspora and a couple dozen of
| my closest friends. We tweaked it to not have like buttons, and
| like other fun stuff. The idea being that it'd be our own little
| space and we could be weird on there and design it as we felt
| like.
|
| Sadly, it just did not catch on, people were not invested enough
| in it. These days, I'm not too sure there is a point to this kind
| of thing instead of a group WeChat/FB or Discord or what have you
| chat.
|
| I do wish the community of HN had a forum kind of site, not quite
| social media but something with more persistent interactions on
| topics and perhaps among users.
| bertil wrote:
| A lot of people criticise the Growth efforts are social media
| company --and they tend to do some shady things-- but their
| work leads to large groups of people being active and findable
| on the same platform. That's hard, requires a lot of effort and
| in genuinely valuable. If people included that in discussions
| about whether the bad habits was worth it, we could have more
| meaningful conversation about the role of social media.
| DarylZero wrote:
| It's only hard because it's zero sum competition against
| others doing the same. It seems to happen quite naturally.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I set up an SMF site, about ten years ago. It has about a
| thousand members. A number have passed away, during its tenure.
|
| And tumbleweeds and dust bunnies.
|
| Facebook killed it.
|
| I keep it going, but no one really uses it.
| arvindamirtaa wrote:
| Takes me back to the hay days ning.com days!
| smm11 wrote:
| Blogger has always been the way.
| amacbride wrote:
| The BBS lives again!
| [deleted]
| known wrote:
| WhatsApp, if it's really a small group
| kody wrote:
| I wish there were a way to broadcast "I am a <hobbyist> in
| <area>" and generate a decentralized forum (i.e. phpbb 15 years
| ago). Growing up, all online friends lived hundreds of miles
| away; as an adult, all my friends have wildly different
| interests. Nowadays Discord is The Answer but it's not nearly as
| intimate as a good message board. Maybe that's a function of
| growing up, but I can't help but feel disillusioned that $someone
| hasn't come up with a good enough solution for my use case (San
| Diego retro computing/HAM/etc.) that isn't instantly inundated
| with real-life politics.
| jimmygrapes wrote:
| Not affiliated nor currently active, but I want to plug Aether
| for its moderation and discovery systems. I wish it wasn't a
| dedicated app, but that's also part of what makes it tick, for
| now. Trigger warning: there is a blockchain element to it; one
| of the very few useful cases for it, imo.
| grishka wrote:
| My project[1] will have discussion boards in groups at some
| point. But not exactly "broadcast", it's more like Facebook
| groups that you join and do things in.
|
| [1] https://github.com/grishka/Smithereen
| Kaotique wrote:
| I spend a lot of time on forums before and recently I googled
| those communities again and all has been lost. Forums contained
| very valuable information and function as a history archive.
| Too bad most of that has been replaced with temporary solutions
| that get pushed down timelines never to be seen again.
| mariusor wrote:
| I'm not really there yet, but I'm working on having something
| close to this possible in the near future. It's not exactly in
| a forum format, I am partial more to old reddit's interface
| paradigm, but it will allow a person or a community to easily
| bootstrap a discussion platform that speaks ActivityPub (the
| same thing Mastodon does) and that can be plugged into the
| bigger Fediverse ecosystem.
|
| An example instance is at https://littr.me
| cocoflunchy wrote:
| Quick feedback: that name is not very inviting...
| mariusor wrote:
| Thank you. The name doesn't matter that much for me, I
| wanted to make a pun on littering and it stuck over time.
|
| The same content can be found at brutalinks.tech (but I
| doubt this domain is much better :D)
| zimpenfish wrote:
| Much as I don't want to promote them (it was a toxic hell
| working there), Kalido were trying to do this kind of "match
| interest<X> in area<Y> and generate introductions".
|
| https://www.kalido.me
| skinkestek wrote:
| I tried looking at it briefly and the first thought that hit
| me is if someone except MeWe[1] is finally trying to recreate
| the great parts of the social network part of Google+.
|
| Would this be correct?
|
| Edit: I searched HN and the only reference I could find to
| Kalido was your comment(!).
|
| It looks so promising yet from the comment it doesn't seem
| like either something I shouldn't want to touch (like
| Something Awful) or something that wouldn't survive long.
|
| Is there anyone here either you or anyone else who wants to
| share some lore?
|
| Edit 2: It seems on a closer look to look more like a weird
| enterprise cross breed between linkedIn and Google+, not a
| general social network. Still interested to hear more about
| it, I feel I am reasonably well informed about such software
| and yet this has slipped by.
|
| [1]: I had great hopes for MeWe, but last I checked they were
| still lacking a great deal IMO, especially in that they don't
| seem to see the value of not broadcasting my actual identity
| to everyone.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > It looks so promising yet from the comment it doesn't
| seem like either something I shouldn't want to touch
|
| I can't speak to the communities on there - I just worked
| there, never really used it myself (but the founders and
| others who work there do use it to make connections, I
| believe.)
|
| > more like a weird enterprise cross breed between linkedIn
| and Google+, not a general social network
|
| Yeah, the main thrust is that it's an "AI powered LinkedIn
| for generating communities" but there was good support for
| "find people who like <X> near <Y>" and get suggestions if
| people appeared near you with similar interests ("<A> also
| likes <X> and is near you in <Y>").
|
| > this has slipped by
|
| I don't think they've got around to making a big publicity
| push yet.
| bcherny wrote:
| Have you tried Facebook Groups?
|
| eg. a quick search found a Ham radio group in SD:
| https://www.facebook.com/groups/856599821517281.
|
| More Ham radio groups in San Diego (you can do a similar search
| for retro computing):
| https://www.facebook.com/search/groups?q=ham%20radio&filters...
|
| Meetup also has some retro computing groups, though I don't see
| one in San Diego (why not start one?):
| https://www.meetup.com/topics/retro-computers/
|
| (Caveat: I work on FB Groups)
| numair wrote:
| > (Caveat: I work on FB Groups)
|
| You and your team members do really great work -- it's one of
| the only reasons many people still use Facebook. If you bail
| and create something that is more decentralized and web3, but
| with the same quality and consumer accessibility, it'd be a
| hit. And, you'll replace one super-voting-share emperor with
| a large community of crazy but well-meaning stakeholders, who
| are a _lot_ more fun to work for.
| bcherny wrote:
| Hey, that's really kind. Thank you!
|
| Web3 is super interesting, and I'm excited to see it grow.
| kody wrote:
| I have not because I've deactivated my Facebook account and
| generally detest centralized services and miss the old days
| of user-run forums, but I'll give the SD HAM group a fair
| shake. I've had poor experiences with Meetup so I'll pass on
| that platform. Thanks for the rec :-)
| rapnie wrote:
| It is a bit OT to 'run _your own_ social ' and 'decentralized
| forum' though.
| mikeodds wrote:
| As much as it's popular to hate on Facebook, I've found the
| niche groups that form are great.
| joconde wrote:
| Moderated groups and personal pages are the only sane places
| on Facebook. It's the only feature I use along with
| Messenger.
| esses wrote:
| Facebook Groups have almost completely replaced some internet
| automotive aftermarket bulletin boards where no one ever
| searched anyways. If there's one major positive to the
| normalization of FB Groups it's the absence of inane "did you
| search?" comments. Though I do wish people would search.
| :lol:
|
| I used to be a "forum junkie", but FB Groups has completely
| replaced that behavior. I don't know if it's better or worse,
| but at least I am not checking 5 different forums anymore.
| The forums come to me.
| deanc wrote:
| I'm not going to be the commenter that goes on and on about
| the negative impact Facebook is having across the world, as
| this is disruptive to genuine arguments.
|
| To give a clear counterpoint to the idea of using Facebook
| groups - forums had anonymity. You could be a different
| version of yourself - for better or worse. It's not possible
| to do that on Facebook without accountability.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > It's not possible to do that on Facebook without
| accountability.
|
| Sure it is. Our local town Facebook groups have a wide
| variety of clear sockpuppet accounts. Facebook's detection
| and processes for this are laughably bad; quite a few
| people have reported the "Count von Brokenhymen" style ones
| to no avail.
| mellavora wrote:
| Yes, well, my son cannot get a facebook account because
| his first attempt was a sock puppet account (photo was a
| gecco, username "Gordon". Kid has class). He's tried 4
| times since and usually gets shut out within 30 seconds.
|
| so sock puppet might not be as easy as it once was.
| mayregretit wrote:
| Space Twitter is like that if you follow carefully, mute
| ruthlessly and say things that others in the community agree
| with enough to follow you back.
| mitchdoogle wrote:
| It's not decentralized, but doesn't meetup.com satisfy some of
| those ideas?
| acomjean wrote:
| meetup.com I think does. I know a couple people that
| organized groups and myself was a member 10 years ago. Its
| business model was to charge the organizers of groups a
| yearly fee, which is nice for the members (to not get ads..).
| A lot of the groups were quite good and some of the tech ones
| are still going.
| vegetablepotpie wrote:
| > Friend Camp is anti-free-speech, at least in the sense that
| freedom of speech is commonly understood as a value. This is
| repulsive to some people on both the left and the right, and it's
| important that people with that core value find somewhere other
| than Friend Camp to set up their online home
|
| I like this perspective because free speech is considered
| fundamental to the point that if you don't uphold it, you're
| considered a totalitarian. Not having an absolute view of free
| speech is what we would call a more _nuanced_ view. Although I
| wouldn't want a University, the ACLU, or Facebook taking this
| view, I think it's fine for a small community to take it and is
| one of the things that can attract people to small social
| networks.
| [deleted]
| fartcannon wrote:
| Nuance is where all the bullshit is. That's where soft power
| thrives.
| lolsal wrote:
| Why is a nuanced perspective bullshit?
| fartcannon wrote:
| No, that's where the bullshit is, not that nuance is
| bullshit. Nuance is great for certain things, like art.
| But, like art, there's a lot of room for interpretation,
| misunderstanding, impersonators, and even deceptive
| dishonesty.
|
| Nuance requires everyone is on the same page. What looks
| like a masterwork to you, might look like something a child
| could paint to the teeming millions.
| voakbasda wrote:
| > Nuance requires everyone is on the same page. What
| looks like a masterwork to you, might look like something
| a child could paint to the teeming millions.
|
| I suspect they mean Jackson Pollock:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Pollock?wprov=sfti1
|
| I personally lack sufficient "nuance" to appreciate his
| work.
| long_time_gone wrote:
| > Not having an absolute view of free speech is what we would
| call a more nuanced view.
|
| There is no such thing as absolute free speech. We know of the
| many nuances like "fighting words", incitement, libel, child
| pornography, slander, etc. I would like Universities and the
| ACLU to respect these exceptions to absolute free speech.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
| mayregretit wrote:
| Don't forget espionage
| mattowen_uk wrote:
| What I really want to see is a guide on:
|
| 'How to convince all your friends to jump ship and join you on a
| platform you built, and abandon their friends in the process.'
|
| /s
| scubbo wrote:
| This, but unsarcastically.
| fiatjaf wrote:
| Every now and then I see this kind of post here. "Friends",
| they say. "Run software for your friends", they tell.
|
| I always wonder who are these people who have so many friends
| and who are these friends who are willing to try experimental
| social networks with no one else in them.
| sneak wrote:
| You can come meet us, the link has been in my profile for
| months. ;)
| the_other wrote:
| I"m the one that wants to try experimental social tools, in
| my circles.
| sneak wrote:
| Why does using an additional platform require abandoning
| anything?
|
| Having a forum account doesn't delete your Twitter.
| bertil wrote:
| I'm not sure that many people would want to share what they put
| on social networks with their local computer enthusiast. Talk
| about hobby, neighbourhood questions, lost child--sure. But a lot
| of conversation on there are gossiping, private information, the
| occasional password.
|
| A lot has been said here about privacy and how social media
| company might abuse it; the reality, is that they don't care much
| about your private conversation, unless they can target ads based
| on this, or grab your attention. They don't have the time or the
| inclination. Your colleague who can see all private message on
| Slack without notification and probably does religiously (yeah,
| that's a thing) on the other hand...
| grishka wrote:
| You can't guarantee privacy in a federated system and it's
| important to understand. I'm working on my own ActivityPub
| project and I don't even support any kind of non-public content
| for now. I'll be exploring the options for e2e encrypted
| instant messaging later tho.
| eevilspock wrote:
| One-to-many messages can be encrypted with end-to-end
| encryption by encrypting a copy for each recipient using
| their public key.
|
| Apple essentially does this with iMessage, both for sending a
| message to each of your devices as well as to each recipient
| in a group chat.
| grishka wrote:
| The problem with _that_ is that you now have to have a
| "client" to decrypt and display those posts. And it has to
| manage keys. And you have to shift some of that burden onto
| the user because otherwise the key could be accessible to
| the server.
|
| People do somewhat expect this stuff for messaging, but
| it'll get really messy really fast for posts and photos and
| similar long-lived content. It'll get even messier when you
| consider that privacy options in this style of social
| network are the likes of "friends only", so they include
| dynamic collections of users.
| the_other wrote:
| Can't all that be modelled with keys/signing? Can you
| elaborate more on the risks around automated key
| management?
| high_5 wrote:
| How about just having Signal groups?
| olah_1 wrote:
| Agree. If they're really your friends, you already have their
| phone numbers.
| nhumrich wrote:
| Uh. I personally hate signal groups. If you ever lose your
| phone, you loose all history. The desktop app works, but won't
| show any history. I know in signals eyes this is intentional,
| but it's also silly. I had access to all that information, it's
| not any less safe on a new device that I have to prove I own.
| sneak wrote:
| You don't have a logged history of all of your in-person
| chats with your friend groups, either.
| darcys22 wrote:
| The best social network these days is a smallish closed group
| chat on your favourite platform.
|
| There are apps that exist already to keep these private if you
| wish. But the key is curating the chat so there is good signal
| from friends who arnt starting flame wars.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| This, I think this is really why Facebook bought WhatsApp..
| Because they buy everything they view as a threat and it kinda
| is.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| _In my admittedly limited experience as a human being on this
| planet, you are not going to be able to form and maintain a
| cohesive group of more than about 50 to 100 people who all
| basically agree on values and moderation rules and that sort of
| stuff._
|
| I run a FB group with 5,000 members. It's active daily, on a
| controversial topic but I don't do a moderation actions more than
| a couple times a week. I'm in reddit with a million members that
| does fine too. Clear direction is really helpful. "No trolling at
| all, none" is much better than "don't do much trolling".
|
| Otherwise, I like the instructions.
| captainmuon wrote:
| For me this kinda misses the point of social networks. I don't
| need a special site to stay in contact with my actual friends
| (nor could I convince them all to join my site). I also don't
| need something to talk with total strangers.
|
| I want something in the middle, a site to explore the fringes of
| my social graph. Look up people that I barely know. Understand
| who is connected to whom, who is a friend of a friend. And have a
| low-key way of staying in touch with people who are not in my
| closest circle.
|
| I think this was realized with Facebook in the late 00s (or in
| Germany, StudiVZ). It was literally a _people 's directory_ where
| you would enter information you wanted to publicly share, and
| basically "everybody" was there.
| olah_1 wrote:
| > I want something in the middle, a site to explore the fringes
| of my social graph. Look up people that I barely know.
| Understand who is connected to whom, who is a friend of a
| friend. And have a low-key way of staying in touch with people
| who are not in my closest circle.
|
| This is what Iris is going for.
| https://github.com/irislib/iris-messenger
| lcnmrn wrote:
| That's was the initial purpose of Subreply.com just for friends,
| but it evolved past that and now I have to review each new
| account. It's still great because everyone it's verified.
|
| I wish there was a service to allow only real people to sign up
| on small sites / forums.
| nith3n wrote:
| I used to run a "for friends only" social network on ning.com a
| decade ago. Was fun till Ning changed direction.
| kingcharles wrote:
| God, I hadn't even thought about Ning for a decade. I had to
| check it still existed. I remember when it was 24 Hour Laundry.
| hayley-patton wrote:
| All the complications with federation and fitting poorly-defined
| "communities" into well-defined servers, and the author's idea of
| "neighbourhoods", are incredibly prone to failure. From
| experience, I only got along with a few people in such small
| "communities", and, at best, felt no connection whatsoever with
| the rest; thus I can only reject the idea that having a small and
| rigid community is ever a good idea. I seriously think that
| having to pick just one community, and then manage everything via
| a community, is the cause of most
| moderation/administration/management/etc disasters on the
| Fediverse.
|
| Servers should just be public utilities, and no further
| associations should be given to them; leave the people who use
| them to decide what a community is!
| oxymoran wrote:
| " As an example, Friend Camp is anti-free-speech, at least in the
| sense that freedom of speech is commonly understood as a value.
| This is repulsive to some people on both the left and the right,
| and it's important that people with that core value find
| somewhere other than Friend Camp to set up their online home.
|
| For those wondering, the RationalWiki definition of freedom of
| speech is exactly the kind of freedom of speech we take issue
| with on our server. Again, you may find this abhorrent, but you
| don't have to join our server, and we're never going to house
| more than a few dozen people."
|
| Lolololololololooololol. Even rational wiki is too moderate.
| wishinghand wrote:
| This reminds me of a blog post that I can't find anymore. I sort
| of remember the title being a riff on "Cooking for One" but it
| might have been "Programming for One". It was about the author
| making a little photo sharing app just for their family. Kind of
| like a snapchat clone, but invite only for friends and family, no
| public feed at all. Does this ring a bell for anyone?
| ents wrote:
| [An app can be a home-cooked
| meal](https://www.robinsloan.com/notes/home-cooked-app/)
| wishinghand wrote:
| Thank you so much! This has been itching my brain for a
| while.
| [deleted]
| dsizzle wrote:
| >If you have some programming experience, this is for you.
|
| >If you have no programming experience, this is for you.
|
| I can't tell if there's a typo here, or if the "Who is this for?"
| section could be shortened to simply "everyone", haha.
| resonious wrote:
| I think you're right: this can be shortened to "everyone". I
| imagine the author is just trying to make it very clear, in a
| humorous way. Non-programmers can use this to learn, but
| programmers can still use this to have fun.
| dmje wrote:
| Really great perspective from a community point of view (if you
| want a good read, check out the 20-year-old "Design for
| communities" book - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Design-Community-
| Derek-Powazek/dp/0...).
|
| From a software pov I'm less convinced. Seems to me that "just
| make a Telegram / WhatsApp / whatever" group is where most online
| communities seem to be coalescing...?
| jkepler wrote:
| Problem is, Telegram stores all conversation data in their
| cloud with homemade encryption, and WhatsApp is proprietary,
| owned by Facebook, and has been target of numerous security
| breaches... So, something encrypted via open standards and
| self-hostable (matrix anyone?) does a better job guarding data
| privacy and security.
| dmje wrote:
| Yeh, agree in theory. In practice (sadly) I don't think most
| local groups care about privacy or security...
| scionthefly wrote:
| At first glance it seems like people are reinventing the BBS.
| karaterobot wrote:
| I agree with all the problems they note about large social
| networks: not being in control of the software, the data, the
| rules, and so on. I think this approach solves many of those
| problems. But, some of other the problems with systems like
| Twitter and Facebook are inherent to the style of communication,
| and are not solved by just hosting your own Twitter and Facebook
| clone.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| >The reason I can make these modifications is that Mastodon is
| open source
|
| the pedantic me would like to point out that mastodon is "free
| software" more than anything "open source" because that terms can
| mean a lot of things that free software isn't but i get the
| point. yeah.
|
| there is this amazing software called pleromaPi.
| https://github.com/guysoft/PleromaPi/
|
| so you simply install it on a raspberry pi and you are good to go
| with your own social network. this is by far the easiest way to
| dip your toes into free software social networking via the
| fediverse.
|
| then there are https://fediverse.party/ , which if you get
| started with pleromapi can be much easier to understand and you
| will have a good time learning about technology and stuff.
| spurgu wrote:
| What makes Pleroma different from for example Mastodon? Why
| would one choose one over the other?
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| it is much easier to host with lesser resources
| spurgu wrote:
| Thanks! I had been considering Mastodon for a private (non-
| federated) little community. But from a quick look it seems
| Pleroma doesn't have any mobile apps? That's a dealbreaker
| for many people.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| oh. pleroma does. there is tusky and fedilab. they are
| all intercompatible so it works wonderfully. just login.
| vpzom wrote:
| Pleroma emulates Mastodon's API, so most Mastodon apps
| also work with it
| spurgu wrote:
| Thanks! That's interesting. Looks like I have some
| research to do.
| opan wrote:
| In addition to the apps mentioned already, the mobile
| browser UI is actually well-liked by many.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| mastodon needs like 4gb ram to properly work while pleroma
| can work on a 1gb ram vps/pi without any trouble. it is also
| easier to manage because there are less moving parts
| egypturnash wrote:
| My experience as a Mastodon admin is that Pleroma is popular
| among people with anime girl avatars who like to post
| swastikas, ethnic slurs, and right-wing propaganda.
| olah_1 wrote:
| So you'll stick with more inefficient software for the sake
| of political ideology? The thought of that is very funny to
| me. It highlights everything wrong with software design
| today.
| egypturnash wrote:
| Mostly I stick with it because life's too goddamn short
| to try and get something else up and running, never mind
| kludge together some way to import the existing accounts
| and posts, it's what was there when I was willing to
| spend a couple of weeks making a place for my friends to
| talk.
| olah_1 wrote:
| That's fair. I don't see why you need to knock a more
| efficient implementation though.
| egypturnash wrote:
| My experience of Pleroma is primarily looking at the
| timelines of people who have been reported by my users. A
| large percentage of those reports come from white
| supremacists with anime girl avatars who are using
| Pleroma. After several years I am increasingly inclined
| to get a report, look at the offending user, see that
| they're on a Pleroma, and just block the whole site then
| and there without any further investigation.
|
| I am pretty sure I am not the only Mastodon admin who
| feels this way; anyone coming to the Fediverse should
| probably be informed that this is a reputation this
| particular software has.
|
| If this bugs you then do something to clean up Pleroma's
| overall act and make the racist trolls know they are no
| longer welcome to use it.
| bencollier49 wrote:
| Why's that then?
| egypturnash wrote:
| Hell if I know. But it's a definite trend I've noticed.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Anyone remember Opera Unite,
| https://web.archive.org/web/20091120143058/http://my.opera.c...
|
| I was all-in on it being a new decentralisation of the web, that
| Facebook et al. would become syndicators of our broadcast
| content. We'd publish the content from our own computers and
| online services would cache it for access, but it would always be
| available as long as there was a direct route from my home
| computer to yours.
|
| Still, I see that this sort of system could happen, basically a
| web-mesh.
| dpeck wrote:
| It would be tough to get any adoption at larger than a small
| handful of people scale, and most of that already happens over
| private chat platforms.
|
| I help curate networks for my fraternity (US, college for those
| of you not familiar with it). Many of us are in the same or
| related career fields, and there's a few hobbies that are common
| to find in the group (sports, music, etc). These are people who,
| for the most part, genuinely enjoy spending time with each other,
| meeting up a few times a year as at larger events like our
| colleges homecoming and our founders day. Many spouses are close
| friends too and people who live near each other often hang out
| together, kids play sports on same teams, etc.
|
| But even with those things going for us, it is damn hard to
| curate any sort of social space with continued interaction.
| People have become accustomed to things being so niche, that
| groups with wide-ranging topics are dead. If people want to talk
| guitars, they'll do that on a subreddit, or find the Facebook
| group for their cars. People self-select into hyper-specified
| conversation groups. I have been unsuccessful in finding a way to
| successfully foster wider, continuous conversation in a group
| setting.
|
| The closest I've seen to that is in larger family text threads
| where aunts/cousins/etc will occasionally share pics of what
| they're doing or share that they got a promotion at work or
| something. It seems rare outside of a family dynamic.
|
| I hope the OP, or someone figures out a good way to build
| community that isn't just laser focused on a specific thing, or
| built around a cult of personality, but I fear that's more or
| less human nature, at least in current US culture.
| btbuildem wrote:
| > It would be tough to get any adoption at larger than a small
| handful of people scale
|
| I think that's exactly the point. OP wants a human-sized
| community, without the cancerous mandate of growth. It's meant
| to be a bulletin board for your immediate community, around
| dozens of people in size on average.
| dpeck wrote:
| I guess we have different ideas of small handful. I'm not
| thinking continuous growth, I'm thinking things in the range
| of Dunbars number.
|
| Personally I haven't seen anything work for more than about
| 5-10 people, and group chat really works fine at the < 10
| scale in my opinion.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| Every time this article shows up on HN I give mastodon a shot.
| I've tried to launch mastodon multiple times over the past few
| years. It is non-trivial for someone who doesn't know the dozen
| components involved, and not just the docker image. I hope
| someone makes a better docker container that is a little more
| plug-and-play with AWS or DigialOcean.
| tenkabuto wrote:
| Have you checked out Pleroma? I've heard that it's much more
| light-weight, and it interoperates with Mastodon.
| taccie wrote:
| Not really meant for friends, but for organizations and companies
| we have build Open Social as open-source platform:
| https://www.drupal.org/project/social and SaaS at
| https://www.getopensocial.com/
|
| We are happy to have the backing of orgs as the UN and the
| European Commission. Goal is to go fully decoupled using React
| and GraphQL next year.
| nhumrich wrote:
| Open social looks really awesome, but also looks intentionally
| hard to find the source code to, and figure out how to run it.
|
| There are no pricing information or demo videos on the website,
| so it's hard to know if the saas pricing is even feasible, and
| no video to help engage interest. It just says "request a
| demo". Why can't I watch a pre-recorded demo?
| ubermonkey wrote:
| I have this problem now, or, at least, I have a problem that
| might be solved with such a site.
|
| However, the trick would be convincing NON-technical people to
| use it rather than ad-hoc group texts or (ugh) Facebook.
| hemloc_io wrote:
| I have what I think is a unique perspective on this.
|
| Private small self run social media already exists. It's personal
| Minecraft servers.
|
| When I was younger I ran a Minecraft server out of my toaster of
| a PC. Friends hopped on, made their own little houses, built
| stuff and talked. Friends would pass in and out and in order to
| get in you had to be invited! I'd say max there were 10-20 people
| on there somewhat consistently.
|
| It was great, and better than social media or even game for
| hanging out with your friends IMO because it emulated synchronous
| human interaction instead of just setting up feeds where
| everything has to be "perfect".
|
| It was easy enough for a 14 year old to setup, and administer.
| Mods made it hackable and fun.
|
| I guess the metaverse was already a thing back then huh?
| countvonbalzac wrote:
| i did the same thing, minecraft servers were an amazing social
| experience for kids
| hemloc_io wrote:
| 100% and it got me into tech too :)
|
| Learn a lot with spare time on your hands and wanting to
| build something for your friends!
| shepherdjerred wrote:
| +1, I never would be where I am today if it weren't for
| running a Minecraft server.
| moooo99 wrote:
| Me too! If it wasn't for Minecraft I probably wouldn't be
| where I am now. Pretty much the first time I wrote code was
| because I wanted to build a Minecraft mod. It was
| (unsurprisingly) absolutely horrible, but it was the start
| of a long learning journey.
| Zababa wrote:
| Same thing for me, Minecraft servers were part of my "social
| media usage" when I was younger. I like how they offered
| different degrees of interactions. You have basic chat and
| private messages, but you can also go on Skype/Mumble/etc and
| talk to people.
|
| These days I kind of have the same thing with a private Discord
| server (5 people including me) and Twitter. My Twitter account
| is private, most of my friends (~10 people) are also in
| private. I can have a window on the "outside world" by
| following stuff from the outside, but interactions are limited
| to me and my friends.
|
| We usually set up a new Minecraft server every year and play a
| lot for a month or two (most of us are still students), and
| having a 3D world that we can modify at will is always very
| special. I've thought a lot about what the future could look
| like for us. I have this idea of a "3D coworking space", though
| for now frequent Discord calls and Twitter interactions are
| enough. I do miss the feeling of building something together
| and living in a (virtual) space together. Just like it's easier
| to remember things with a mental palace, it's easier to
| remember the memories we made together while visiting our
| Minecraft servers.
| snakeboy wrote:
| I've heard some positive reviews about gather.town[0] for
| virtual co-working, though I've never used it. The demos look
| cool though. It lacks the creative element of Minecraft
| though. I'm not sure to what extend the worlds are
| customizable. Curious if anyone has used it and has an
| opinion.
|
| I've tried FocusMate, though that is along the "match-making"
| model, and I didn't get much out of a random pairing for 1
| hour at a time.
|
| [0] https://www.gather.town/
| Zababa wrote:
| For me the real lack of gather.town is not the creative
| element but 3D. I have great immersion in 3D spaces, but
| really poor immersion in 2D spaces. From what I see and
| from my point of view, it's a very small improvement over a
| Discord server with multiple vocal channels.
| danaris wrote:
| With no sarcasm or irony whatsoever, this is a _fantastic_ way
| to stay connected with people-- _if_ you can be online at the
| same time as them regularly and they all actually want to play
| Minecraft.
|
| The advantages you get with a more traditional-style private
| social media site are accessibility and asynchrony.
| endisneigh wrote:
| You can't even send photos with Minecraft though. It's
| certainly a social experience but in no way comparable to say,
| Facebook or instagram like Friendcamp in the article
| jeffparsons wrote:
| That sounds like a feature to me.
|
| If I was hanging out with a friend in person and they kept
| showing me pictures of other stuff in their life I'd get
| bored pretty quickly. If I'm hanging out with someone, I want
| to be talking with them and doing stuff with them, not
| getting a slideshow of their most glamorous recent moments.
|
| Each to their own, I guess, but I find the normal mode of
| interaction on "social media" (including all that photo
| sharing and commentary) to be super weird and undesirable.
| pawelmurias wrote:
| Showing pictures of stuff we talk can be pretty
| interesting. Having friends show me a video of how the
| procedurally animated spider created walks, some crazy
| place they visited or how the new girl they are dating
| looks like isn't boring.
| nextlevelwizard wrote:
| People don't really "hang out with their friends" on social
| media.
|
| If you don't realize interactions with people are different
| when you are: face to face, in same VoIP call playing same
| game, playing same game with text only, in same VoIP but
| not actively doing same thing, and on a website like
| Facebook or Twitter there really is nothing to even start
| conversation on.
|
| Yes, of course, if I play Minecraft with someone there
| usually no photos shared, but we probably are on Discord
| for VoIP and use the screen sharing function if we want to
| show something.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| The advantage of Minecraft (or any other game for that
| matter) is that you are focused on the game. You can enjoy
| playing it with people even if you otherwise have nothing in
| common and/or disagree with their views/opinions.
|
| When it comes to _photos_ specifically, not being able to
| send media is also a huge advantage when dealing with creeps
| or other malicious people. Spam is pretty much non-existent
| in most games because you generally can 't click on links,
| and the worst "malware" incident is typically a troll telling
| you to Alt+F4 to fix a bug.
| kortilla wrote:
| Next you'll tell me you can't look at ads!
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| It depends what you're looking for. If it's a relationship,
| you _probably_ will do better looking for another medium, but
| for pure fun, it 's a perfect setup.
| orangepanda wrote:
| How meta
| mocheeze wrote:
| Did the same thing in a Minecraft predecessor called Blockland.
| Even ran a big mod pack that was all about social stuff like
| having IRC inside the game client. And what you say about
| invite-only is totally true. I used to run a fansite about an
| Xbox game that was still "unannounced" and the community was
| very non-toxic because I started a private forum on the IGN
| message boards where it was only full of people that mentioned
| the game elsewhere. What a time!
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| I had that experience as well but with Tibia instead of
| Minecraft. It was essentially IRC with an embedded MMORPG.
| Everyone I knew played it. We'd gather somewhere to train our
| characters and chat. Good times. At some point I started
| hosting Open Tibia servers for my friends, even opened it up
| for strangers later. Lots of fun and was my first programming
| experience with C++ and Lua.
| kome wrote:
| i feel old... wasn't minecraft released like yesterday? like in
| 2012? how can you be an adult person now?
| hemloc_io wrote:
| Haha you should probably feel ancient!
|
| I feel old knowing people in college now were born in the
| 2000s.
| sokoloff wrote:
| "I can see the 1 from here..."
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aE12n2yFU-s
| jrm4 wrote:
| Yup. A bigger point on "small social networks" that it's taken
| years for me to learn; I've always dabbled in the idea of
| social networking as its grown up, hacking together a little
| thing that looked like twitter before twitter for my friends,
| etc.
|
| Here's the thing that may save you if you're trying to pull one
| of these together: You _can 't_ do it without _something else._
| Meaning, the idea of a "local" Twitter/Facebook killer is
| great but (if you're me) no one will see the value and you
| won't be able to onboard ANYONE without some sort of "social
| carrot" separate and apart from the mere idea of "hey, new
| social network."
|
| (This is one of those ideas that nerds like me just have
| trouble digesting, so hopefully it helps someone get through
| this. I've tried and failed this many times over. Will probably
| do it again :) )
| drorco wrote:
| This has been like that with many multiplayer games to some
| extent before the age of matchmaking. Someone sets up a
| dedicated server with certain mods/game configuration, and that
| would be yours and other randoms favorite server. Over time,
| you'd actually become a community.
|
| I've gone back to play Unreal Tournament 2004 this past year in
| such dedicated servers, and it made me realize how badly
| matchmaking ruined the sense of community in MP games.
| np- wrote:
| That's actually interesting--I used to really be into
| multiplayer games when I was a teenager into my early 20s,
| and have some great memories of virtual hangs with friends
| both real and offline. My interest in online gaming basically
| dropped to zero (or even negative) after that, which seems to
| coincidence with when matchmaking started becoming a thing. I
| think it was it Halo 2 that was the first big matchmaking
| game that I played and I just really couldn't get into it at
| all, I just more or less assumed I was just getting older and
| losing interest in childhood hobbies but never connected it
| to the loss of community in my head. Thinking about all those
| multiplayer lobbies from yesteryear gives me pangs of
| nostalgia.
| hellojesus wrote:
| I used to play on a specific cod multi-player server back
| when cod was only a single title. Knew handles of people on
| the server even though I didn't socialize much (would say
| hi and the like but nothing much more than that).
|
| My second year of college my roommate and I were chatting
| and found out we both frequented that server and knew each
| other by our handles.
|
| Even though I didn't use the dedicated servers as a social
| mechanism, just hanging out and playing with/against each
| other for countless hours was enough to seed a lasting
| friendship when we did meet irl.
| carimura wrote:
| I follow the same arc. I grew up lugging network cables
| around to setup LAN parties for Warcraft and Command and
| Conquer. Then went to college and setup a Halflife server
| that our entire dorm got into. Even the non-gamers got into
| it creating their own characters (some of them naked... the
| characters not the players although you never know what's
| going on down the hall), and it was a source of bonding
| that I'll never forget.
|
| Pretty soon after that World of Warcraft was introduced and
| games started getting more "massive" and I lost all
| interest in endless games with people I didn't know
| personally.
|
| Almost 20 years later and when I'm able to sneak a game in,
| I only play single-player mode to follow the storyline.
| mitchdoogle wrote:
| Interesting, I was just thinking Halo 2 was great for that
| sort of thing. I have some fond memories of joining private
| parties and goofing around for hours hunting for glitches
| np- wrote:
| Maybe it was Halo 3? The one that focused heavily on
| matchmaking play (I played on Xbox if that makes a
| difference)
| brnt wrote:
| Perhaps it isn't surprising that when interaction is designed
| to be disposable and replaceable, i.e. matchmaking, no real
| community can form.
| iriri8 wrote:
| i.e. social media
|
| All big tech is selling is mindless churn
|
| Reality TV has become life
|
| Why? Because we're destroying the planet consuming it so we
| need to build rockets to escape!
| pjc50 wrote:
| This is rather bad news as an implication for Tinder.
| toyg wrote:
| All dating sites have effectively two sets of users:
| people who use it until they get a long-term partner (A),
| and people who can use it forever because they are
| unlikely or unwilling to get a long-term partner (B).
| That is effectively intrinsic to the activity they are
| born to serve (dating). This said, there are enough
| people belonging to the B set to keep them in business
| pretty much forever.
|
| There is also the option to provide ramps for people in A
| towards some other form of socialization (double dates?
| dinner parties?), but I don't think anyone really tried
| it yet.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| There's also an influx of (A)s of course because it
| doesn't always work out :)
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| Even if it did work out, both (A)s and (B)s are
| constantly born and growing up.
| MayeulC wrote:
| Well, that's only true when you consider matchmaking for
| short interactions, which surely prevents community
| bonding. Longer interactions do not prevent bonding.
|
| As for Tinder... I'm pretty sure you can find the
| equivalent of "dedicated servers" where to form a
| community, but I don't think that's what most people
| would want.
| dustymcp wrote:
| This is what killed wow classic when dungeon signup was
| introduced
| Glide wrote:
| Successful, pleasant dungeon run? Added to friends.
| danieldevries wrote:
| Surely you meant UT99... ;-)
|
| A sprawling list of servers to join. Ahhh the memories.
| headshots jumping off the upper area of deck16. Console
| gaming and auto joining servers like in CoD. Bleh. Zero sense
| of community. Before we all met on IRC quakenet in random
| clan channels.
| thegeekpirate wrote:
| Speaking of UT99... it's still getting patches
| https://github.com/OldUnreal/UnrealTournamentPatches
|
| > OldUnreal took over maintenance of the Unreal Tournament
| code base after reaching an agreement with Epic Games in
| 2019.
| danieldevries wrote:
| Thank you for the heads up!
| MisterTea wrote:
| > I've gone back to play Unreal Tournament 2004 this past
| year in such dedicated servers, and it made me realize how
| badly matchmaking ruined the sense of community in MP games.
|
| I used to enjoy playing TF2 until 2013/14 or so. I settled
| into the No Heroes servers and after a while you get to know
| people. You pop on, see familiar names, say hello and you'd
| have a good time. It was like a small town which had a lot of
| other people passing through keeping things lively yet
| familiar.
|
| Recently I tried to play TF2 again just for kicks. The
| community is dead. I played for maybe 30 min before exiting
| uninstalling and never looking back. Good job valve.
| raspyberr wrote:
| I still really like TF2 but you've got to stay away from
| the official servers. Community ones are still great e.g.
| https://uncletopia.com/servers, https://creators.tf/servers
| bee_rider wrote:
| In Valve's defense, not a ton of games make it past a
| decade with a healthy playerbase, right?
| MisterTea wrote:
| This is true, the game felt like it was waning in
| popularity around 2014. But I attribute that to the then
| new instant play and other UI changes which favored
| valves servers over community servers which were
| effectively on "page two". The communities dried up as a
| result.
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| Unreal Tournament is the best example I've seen of this too.
| I played on a server for a while before realizing a good
| chunk of the people were there just to socialize and the game
| was really secondary.
| rumblerock wrote:
| Ah, the earlier days of Counter Strike were my version of
| this. Custom maps galore created by the community, custom
| game modes. WarCraft mod was my favorite, building XP for
| abilities on the server - definitely had a good community as
| the skills for use in game were earned and contained on the
| individual server.
|
| A shame this vibrant and creative element of the game was
| stamped out.
| gurleen_s wrote:
| This used to be the case with TeamSpeak/Mumble too back in the
| day. Some of my favorite memories as a teenager was setting up
| Teamspeak servers on a Linode box and setting up everything.
| I'm glad Discord is making that easier for kids today.
| mitchdoogle wrote:
| I can't help but think that kids today are doing something like
| this in their own way. And that the real thing people miss when
| they wax nostalgic is youth.
| michaelbrave wrote:
| I see kids today doing this a lot with "Among Us", Fortnite
| and Minecraft still. Among us basically functions like a chat
| room but you can control who enters, password protect it, set
| rules for the game etc
| EamonnMR wrote:
| I wonder if minecraft's sticking to private servers as the
| first class multiplayer helped keep it relevant.
| INTPenis wrote:
| Yes games have been a social forum for over 2 decades. But
| they're not federated like ActivityPub nodes are.
| indigochill wrote:
| IMO this is what a metaverse should be: just a federated
| game.
|
| Actually, Open Simulator (an open source implementation of
| Second Life's protocol) is kind of already that, although one
| might debate whether it's a game and the tech is pretty dated
| by this point.
| iriri8 wrote:
| Yeah they don't want you to realize that it can all be done
| locally much more easily now
|
| Wireguard or similar simple VPNs would make file sharing
| 1:contacts makes everything easier now.
|
| Kubernetes + Kilo obsoletes cloud DCs.
|
| But you won't get to participate in agency manipulating big
| business that way.
| donmcronald wrote:
| > can all be done locally much more easily now
|
| > Kubernetes + Kilo
|
| How is maintaining an app on top of a Kubernetes cluster
| easier than setting up a Minecraft server on an old PC back
| in the day? Who pays for that and maintains it?
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| Yes, but look at the audience. My elderly parents and inlaws
| and cousins aren't going to play minecraft. I want to give them
| a Facebook clone that isn't a Facebook spyware product.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Have private Slack. It is good.
| sneak wrote:
| "private Slack" is a contradiction in terms. Slack is not e2e
| encrypted and the people at Slack can read all of your messages
| and DMs.
|
| Being a US company, there are a fair number of circumstances
| where they have to turn the contents over to the government
| without a warrant or probable cause, too.
| vaylian wrote:
| Did you read the article?
| smolder wrote:
| Yeah, although Privacy as a Service is never guaranteed to be
| private.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-09 23:02 UTC)