[HN Gopher] Show HN: Haven - Run a private website to share with...
___________________________________________________________________
Show HN: Haven - Run a private website to share with only the
people you choose
Author : mawise
Score : 421 points
Date : 2021-02-03 14:13 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (havenweb.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (havenweb.org)
| turtlebits wrote:
| Not to downplay what you've built, but what differentiates this
| from using basic auth + HTTPS on a static site host?
| mawise wrote:
| I actually tried building it that way first. I made a tiny
| static site generator and had Apache enforce basic auth.
| Creating new users required ssh-ing to the server and modifying
| the account list. I didn't see that as an approach that would
| be accessible to less-technical people.
| turtlebits wrote:
| I know Netlify supports basic auth via a config file when you
| publish. Unsure of other hosts.
| macca321 wrote:
| The thing people like about Facebook is looking at other peoples
| photos, safe in the knowledge that they don't know you are
| looking at their photos.
| andrewzah wrote:
| ...there is no facebook replacement. You can't replicate social
| groups via software. Facebook is not anything special other than
| most people use it, so the network effects are immense.
|
| You could have the greatest software in the world and it would
| not be able to replicate fb's markets and groups functionality.
| Craigslist is the only one that comes close for replicating fb
| marketplace.
|
| If you want a small private blog, just host a single user
| mastodon or pleroma instance. That way you're part of the
| fediverse but maintain control of your own personal instance.
| wintermutestwin wrote:
| >Craigslist is the only one that comes close for replicating fb
| marketplace.
|
| FB marketplace is an incredibly weak attempt to replicate
| craigslist and its only advantage is that FB polices its
| userbase so you are a bit more likely to know who you are
| dealing with. Nextdoor polices the userbase more.
| andrewzah wrote:
| "and its only advantage is that FB polices its userbase"
|
| I find the biggest advantage is the network effect. In my
| experience I have found a lot of things through marketplace
| and fb groups, in addition to craiglist.
| fiores wrote:
| > ...there is no facebook replacement
|
| Facebook itself probably doesn't believe this.
| andrewzah wrote:
| Other platforms have different communities and users. There
| is absolutely no facebook replacement at this time. Whether
| or not it'll continue to be used in 10 years is another
| question. To clarify, I use neither facebook* or twitter.
|
| My point here is that you cannot solve a human and social
| problem from a technical standpoint. It doesn't matter how
| good your product is if no one uses it. Mastodon will never
| be a facebook replacement, etc.
|
| * Aside from marketplace and local buy/sell groups.
| teeray wrote:
| I think beyond Family and Friends, there's another use-case here
| that you may not have thought of. I can't think of the number of
| times that I've encountered various HOAs and other small orgs
| that want some online presence, but also want strict access
| control. Like, they want a directory of everyone's name, email,
| and phone, and a place to post some updates like "trash is
| delayed because of the holidays this week," "reminder: annual
| meeting on the 5th," "minutes from the last meeting available
| here."
| ttul wrote:
| And the commercial SaaS that's available for this userbase is
| horrendous...
| Terretta wrote:
| Do you mean Squarespace?
|
| https://www.squarespace.com/ecommerce/membership-sites
|
| What about OOS, like BuddyPress?
|
| https://buddypress.org/
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| Doesn't every open source blog software allow you to self-host?
| How is your solution superior to the battle-tested Wordpress or
| dozens of other options?
| 2pEXgD0fZ5cF wrote:
| From the webpage:
|
| _Haven is about sharing privately with friends and family.
| There is no option to make your blog public to the world. You
| get to create an account for anyone you want to have access.
| When they connect to your site, they use https encryption
| between their web browser and your server. That means nobody
| can intercept and read your posts. Since you create accounts
| for people, there is no place for spammers or internet bots try
| creating accounts.
|
| If you want a public blog to build a base of followers, or
| promote a product, or try to profit from your blog--this isn't
| the right service for you. I suggest you use Wordpress
| instead._
| eternalny1 wrote:
| I fail to see how this is different than a Wordpress private
| blog.
|
| > Private. Select this option to make your site private. If
| you want specific people to be able to view it (and add
| comments, if you've enabled them), you'll need to invite them
| to be a viewer.
| qznc wrote:
| I have no experience with that private mode. The creator
| says, he tried WordPress though:
|
| > I tried using WordPress but it took too many custom
| plugins and configurations and I still got bombarded by
| spam signup requests.
| Natfan wrote:
| Based on what eternalny1 said, private mode doesn't
| require "many custom plugins and configurations" as it's
| baked right into the product.
|
| One could reduce that amount of spam signup requests that
| one gets by simplying adding a captca such as
| recaptcha[0] or hcaptcha[1]
|
| [0]: https://www.google.com/recaptcha
|
| [1]: https://www.hcaptcha.com
| hartleybrody wrote:
| What a perfectly obtuse, technical solution. Is grandma
| going to solve a captcha in order to sign up on a
| wordpress blog to view photos of her grandchildren?
|
| Dropbox is "just" a private s3 bucket with s3cmd on a
| cronjob -- or a million other technical solutions -- but
| they're a successful business because they nailed the
| user experience for average joes.
|
| The point of OP's product is that you don't have to
| cobble together a bunch of hacks to replicate the desired
| user experience, it's supported out of the box.
| dataexporter wrote:
| Wordpress lets admins create accounts and set passwords
| for the users as well. One can quite easily disable
| public signups (to prevent spam) and manually create an
| account for one's grandma.
|
| For public signups it is a perfectly valid solution to
| use captcha!
| x86_64Ubuntu wrote:
| So how do people connect? The good thing about your social
| media networks such as FB, LinkedIn, IG is that I can meet
| someone in real life, and then connect digitally. Or I can
| connect to the people who are important to the people who are
| important to me (friending my cousin's fiance). Does this
| provide a similar solution?
| [deleted]
| mawise wrote:
| Hey HN,
|
| I'm the author, Haven has been my side project for a little
| while. The core idea is that we should be able to make it easy
| for anyone to host their own private webpage as an alternative to
| centralized social media.
|
| A lot of the decentralized community seems to have chosen
| federated models as the solution to "self-hosting is hard". I'm
| trying something different. With core web technologies as the
| foundation, my mom or my wife's grandmother can visit my site
| with any web browser and I'm still able to exclude the rest of
| the world. For technical people, self-hosting is made easy with a
| one-line AWS deployment script, and an install script for the
| Raspberry Pi Zero W. I'd like less-technical people to be able to
| use this too so I'm exploring providing paid hosting as a
| service.
|
| I think of Haven as a Facebook-alternative, but probably not a
| Twitter alternative. I see Facebook as selling itself more as
| "stay in touch with your friends and family" where Twitter is
| more about "see what interesting people are saying". The latter
| has discovery as a core component. With Haven everything is
| private so discovery wouldn't make any sense.
|
| There's nothing new here in terms of technology--server-side
| rendered web pages using Ruby on Rails, no javascript frameworks,
| RSS using HTTP basic auth. But also no analytics libraries or ad-
| tracking. Pages are lightweight and load really fast. I've even
| provided a limited ability to add custom CSS so you can really
| make your page your own.
|
| I would love any feedback you want to share. Both from a
| technical or installation side, feedback on the public webpage,
| as well as thoughts on communities that might be interested to
| learn about Haven.
|
| Thank you!
| [deleted]
| mnd999 wrote:
| I had exactly the same idea, and I've implemented it for myself
| but haven't productised it as yet, and I'm not sure I will.
| Love the self hosting part, and it's not that hard but the
| security part I found problematic.
|
| I used Oauth for signup, which made it easy to share links to
| galleries via e.g. Facebook and then click through using
| Facebook login. I also went for a more open model where anyone
| could log in but I could block people later on if I didn't want
| to share. Depending on how sensitive a particular piece of
| content is, both models would probably better. It seems
| important to minimise friction as much as possible or people
| just move on. Come back later when I've approved you is not a
| good model, I found people simply lost interest.
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| How do you handle RSS using HTTP basic auth? Do RSS feeders
| have support for basic auth built in, or is that via embedding
| the username and password in the url?
| mawise wrote:
| I embed username and password in the URL; each user gets
| their own dedicated RSS Url. Support for this among feed
| readers is admittedly spotty, for example Inoreader requires
| you to be on a paid plan and Feedly doesn't support it. If
| there's traction/interest I plan to build a lightweight feed
| reader right into Haven.
| llarsson wrote:
| Could TinyRSS or whatever it's called help there?
| wintermutestwin wrote:
| My suggestion: add a "circles of trust" feature, where you
| categorize your users into different levels like: acquaintance,
| co-worker, friend, family, special friends. Each post would
| have a simple bullseye icon to select how far in to the circle
| of trust you must be to see the post.
| doggosphere wrote:
| Google Plus circles
| Jtsummers wrote:
| That was _the_ feature I loved about Google Plus, I used it
| extensively when the service was growing. But no one else
| went to it regularly enough. CS Friends, Video Game
| Friends, RPG Friends, Soccer Buddies, Family, Immediate
| Family, Colleagues (several for several different jobs). I
| could easily post things across circles that would appeal
| to that circle. Vacation photos go to family and some
| friends, most don 't care (or need to see it). My nerdy
| tabletop RPG posts went to those friends who cared about
| it. CS/programming topics went to those friends who cared
| about it.
| SCNP wrote:
| You just made me realize that this is implemented in
| Discord but very poorly. I have difficulty deciding where
| I should post a meme to get it to the people that will
| like it. Maybe I'm just on too many Discord servers...
| Jtsummers wrote:
| Well, the other problem with Discord is that people have
| to opt-in to the groupings. Circles were publisher
| driven. If you were in my CS Friends circle, that was
| just where I categorized you. It was not akin to a FB
| group or a Discord server. In those, you have to accept
| some kind of invitation into the grouping, and you're
| made to communicate with everyone in the group/server.
| Circles were one way, from me to the circle. For a circle
| member to publish to all the same people they'd need to
| be connected to all of them directly in G+ and create an
| identical circle.
|
| This is the same issue as group messaging in most instant
| message type systems (including SMS/MMS). It's forcing a
| full connection between all participants, when really we
| may only want a fan-out structure.
|
| I haven't used it much (not as many people on it in my
| social circles) but WhatsApp's broadcast lists are like
| G+ circles in this regard.
| eitland wrote:
| Well, the circles feature as implemented and documented by
| Google managed to confuse even me and I thought I
| understood it early on.
| rakoo wrote:
| XMPP roster groups
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| xmpp lol. Great protocol, terrible clients.
| treeman79 wrote:
| Google tried this. Google+
|
| You setup your circles for various topics.
|
| Neat idea. Complete failure.
|
| I've set up social interactions for major companies.
| Basically any restriction on who can see what will kill the
| feature.
| hmsimha wrote:
| I don't believe Google+ let you self-host, or fully control
| your data, which seems to be the primary value proposition
| here. Google+ also wasn't open source, so for example, you
| couldn't see that deleted posts were actually deleted on
| the server (they likely weren't)
| OkGoDoIt wrote:
| Facebook also had it long before Google+, called friend
| lists. The UI was not great but it was incredibly useful
| and I'm super frustrated they have been phasing it out over
| the years. There are some things I want my super liberal
| theater friends in San Francisco to see, and some things
| that are only appropriate for my conservative family and
| friends from back home in Georgia to see. Some things are
| appropriate for professional contacts and some things are
| only appropriate for very close friends who understand my
| sense of humor. Facebook used to handle all these scenarios
| beautifully but not so much these days, and as a result I
| only share things that I'm comfortable everyone seeing,
| which is a very small percentage of what I might otherwise
| share.
| ufmace wrote:
| It was only a failure at what Google wanted it for -
| displacing Facebook as the dominant social media company.
| IMO, they failed primarily due to network effects, as in
| they can't bootstrap without some killer feature to get
| people to switch over from Facebook. Circles probably
| didn't help here, since the ultimate effect is to reduce
| engagement, when they need to maximize it to have a chance
| of displacing Facebook.
|
| Probably the big risk for this thing is that nobody wants
| to keep track of separate websites for dozens of
| individuals, most of whom only post something they can see
| once a week at most. You need to aggregate all of those
| updates from dozens of people you know into a single
| website and build a feed, then you have something that
| probably always has something the user might find
| interesting, and all in one place, so they'll actually
| check it regularly.
| 3np wrote:
| I do not think this is the reason Google+ failed miserably.
| It's been rehashed enough that I won't list my top picks :)
| samstave wrote:
| For me, google+ added zero value to my life, thus I
| dropped it post-haste
| munificent wrote:
| _> Basically any restriction on who can see what will kill
| the feature._
|
| I think that's likely true for social media apps where the
| product is "free" in that users are the product and
| advertisers are the customers that fund it. In that
| business model, your number one goal is to maximize
| eyeballs.
|
| But Haven doesn't have that business model at all, so it's
| not clear to me that a way to control who sees what posts
| would harm success.
|
| By analogy, farmers want to grow as many plants per acre as
| they possibly can to maximize revenue. The idea of potting
| their plants individually makes no sense. But if I just
| want a plant on my windowsill and don't want dirt
| everywhere, a pot is what I want.
| treeman79 wrote:
| Tangent.
|
| Any talk of tech people and farmers seems to always
| change to pot.
| frakkingcylons wrote:
| Uhhh read that sentence again. I think you're projecting.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| They were just being self-fulfilling.
| rrauenza wrote:
| Facebook actually has this as well... But hardly anyone
| uses it?
| cutemonster wrote:
| All the time with G+ but never with FB. At FB it's not
| easy to find the feature, but was simple with G+
| gowld wrote:
| Facebook has the same thing so that's not the deciding
| factor.
| 1234letshaveatw wrote:
| It seems to work well enough in nextdoor interestingly- but
| the circles are location based
| gowld wrote:
| You cant choose your circles in nextdoor
| samstave wrote:
| nextdoor pissed me off - when I moved, they sent out a
| postcard to people I knew telling them of my new address
| - and I didn't ask them or authorize them to inform
| people of where I moved - as there were people whom I did
| not want to know where I lived.
|
| That seriously pissed me off.
| Judgmentality wrote:
| IANAL but isn't that doxxing? That definitely sounds
| illegal, and I would seriously consider consulting an
| attorney.
| teeray wrote:
| I think there's some unspoken stress about building and
| maintaining a taxonomy of your relationships. Whether someone
| is an acquaintance or a friend or a good friend can be fairly
| dynamic. Being constantly confronted with rearranging people
| into different "circles" feels a bit like explicitly deciding
| if people can sit at the cool kids table today or not.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| They can be like tagging. In what context do I know Jack?
|
| I met him through church and at work. Maybe we have some
| other mutual interests.
|
| How do I know Joe?
|
| Coincidentally also through church and work, but we're both
| programmers (Jack is an engineer with different technical
| interests), we play soccer together, we enjoy seeing movies
| in the theater, and we participate in team trivia at
| restaurants and bars together.
|
| By tagging people (or placing them into circles in the G+
| sense), I can select which group to communicate something
| to based on selecting a tag or set of tags. "Hey soccer
| peeps, I'm going to take my ball and some cones down to the
| field at Central Elementary this Saturday if you want to
| come out and practice with me." directed @soccer_peeps.
|
| Maybe throw a few groups together that aren't fully
| overlapping in general: @soccer_peeps @trivia_teamsters
| "Party at my place this Saturday, here's a link to RSVP and
| sign up to bring something."
|
| I'm not forced to put everyone into a _distinct_ category
| or circle, but can use loose taggings effectively.
| tyingq wrote:
| I like the bullseye idea, but aren't circles often venn
| diagrams? That is, you might not want work posts to go to
| family, and vice-versa as well. Doesn't fit the bullseye idea
| naturally.
| wintermutestwin wrote:
| Yeah - maybe there needs to be a "customize" option for
| posts that don't fit into the bullseye. I think venn
| diagrams would be too complex in the interface.
| SamBam wrote:
| It seems pretty straight-forward to me:
|
| Who can see this: x Family x
| Friends 0 Co-workers 0 Quiddich team
| (custom group)
|
| Why over-complicate it?
| watmough wrote:
| Tiny bug: Under Features > RSS, the bottom of the page still
| mentions Simpleblog instead of Haven.
| mawise wrote:
| Thank you!
| krmmalik wrote:
| It would be nice to have some sort of viewership stats. You've
| come at a brilliant time with a solution like this just as my
| facebook following is growing but so is my fear that they could
| delete my account anytime for any arbitrary reason. Twitter
| just isn't conducive to longform content and not everyone is a
| pro with threads so this is an idea solution, but seeing how
| many people liked a post, commented on it etc helps with the
| feedback loop.
|
| I realise you're doing this primarily for people to share
| personal content, but there's plenty of people out there that
| want to share personal thoughts to a large part of the world
| but just don't want to get censored by FB and your solution
| could work well for them.
| dublinben wrote:
| >share personal thoughts to a large part of the world
|
| Have you considered a blog, or even a newsletter?
| krmmalik wrote:
| Yes but I like that it's simple and self-hosted with the
| privacy aspect.
| freedomben wrote:
| > _I realise you 're doing this primarily for people to share
| personal content, but there's plenty of people out there that
| want to share personal thoughts to a large part of the world
| but just don't want to get censored by FB and your solution
| could work well for them._
|
| It's probably worth asking OP what their position on
| censorship is before suggesting this. It's shocking to me,
| but many in the tech community are very pro censorship
| (though they will call it "moderation" since it's not
| happening to them).
|
| Also if a customer of OP's got big enough and was
| controversial enough, AWS could threaten their account if
| they don't terminate that user's pages. So even if OP is a
| free speech absolutist, it still may not be a solution to the
| problem of big tech censorship.
| montroser wrote:
| Anyone can spin up a website for negligible cost and put in
| place whatever legal content they so choose. If government
| interferes with that, then you have a claim to censorship.
|
| Short of that though -- if a private company like Facebook
| or Twitter declines to host your content, that is entirely
| their right. It's not a public utility.
|
| Free speech means you can say whatever you like. It doesn't
| mean you have a right to a platform and an audience.
| nomdep wrote:
| > Anyone can spin up a website for negligible cost and
| put in place whatever legal content they so choose.
|
| And host it where exactly?
| montroser wrote:
| GitHub Pages, Firebase will do free static hosting, Wix
| has a free plan, etc, etc
| nomdep wrote:
| Except those are also private conpanies that can and will
| kick you out if what you say is inconvinient in any form.
|
| And so my question.
| mawise wrote:
| Censorship is a tough topic. As long as Haven is restricted
| to private posting, then it should be able to operate with
| 100% freedom of speech. When you send an email to your
| friend, you get 100% freedom of speech. Private, access
| restricted posting should be equivalent.
|
| If I were to explore public posting on Haven, then
| censorship/moderation becomes an issue. Public posting is
| outside of the focus I want to have and this would just
| make it more complicated for Haven so I'm not planning to
| explore anything that lets you "grow your audience"--I'm
| focusing on private sharing with your existing community.
| jrexilius wrote:
| Thanks for putting this out there, I've been thinking about
| building almost exactly this for myself and my friends. Happy
| to pay you to host it for us and support development. Looking
| forward to testing it!
| detritus wrote:
| Small typo on your hosting page
|
| > For these reasons we're offing to host a Haven for you
| mawise wrote:
| Thank you!
| phkahler wrote:
| Why AWS? I want to plug a pi into my cable modem and host it
| there.
|
| On a related note, We need something like bit torrent for
| video. Where the chunks would come approximately in order and
| watchers effectively host a copy for the entire time they are
| watching. So we can all self host arbitrary length videos to
| all our friends on that same Rpi.
| Djvacto wrote:
| Not sure if maybe their comment was edited in the last
| minute, but > For technical people, self-
| hosting is made easy with a one-line AWS deployment script,
| *and an install script for the Raspberry Pi Zero W.*
| [deleted]
| titanomachy wrote:
| Unless you have pretty restricted bandwidth, or a huge number
| of friends, you should be able to do that pretty easily with
| a basic HTTP server on your pi; no torrents needed.
| virgil_disgr4ce wrote:
| "For technical people, self-hosting is made easy with a one-
| line AWS deployment script, and an install script for the
| Raspberry Pi Zero W"
| didibus wrote:
| How is it secured and made private?
| cratermoon wrote:
| Found the code. Looks like basic auth. And, I can't find any
| password hashing -- are they being stored in the clear?
|
| Also the author checked in a credentials and a master key to
| github
| hanniabu wrote:
| Yikes, huge red flags....
| bovermyer wrote:
| The only bit of feedback I'll offer at the moment, having not
| yet seen Haven in action, is regarding the website.
|
| Have a designer give the site a distinctive visual identity,
| including a logo. Once it's ready, expand that visual identity
| into the Haven application itself.
|
| At the moment, the site feels a bit generic. That's not meant
| as a slight; just an observation.
| softwaredoug wrote:
| Wow neat! I do something similar with Jekyll for family photos.
| I have thought a lot about "private social media". My core
| requirements sound similar to yours:
|
| - It should be able to easily upload photos and videos from my
| phone
|
| - everything is link-private, not on Google.
|
| - it has to be very easy for the least tech savvy to view
| photos/videos. Needs to work on many devices, even old browsers
| on older PCs out there. Possibly even to the point of printing
| and mailing people the images.
|
| - photos/videos need to be long-lived, I want to view these 30
| years from now
|
| - space for kids to post messages to their family. Family can
| respond easily
|
| - I own everything and grant no rights to a giant mega Corp
|
| - it should be possible to notify family members via email when
| new content is posted.
|
| I don't have all those, but these are my ideal.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| i,m working on a project which hits all your points,
| including compatibility back to netscape 2.0 and ie 3.0.
| jtvjan wrote:
| You mean your qdb.us project? It's cool, but I don't think
| it's very user friendly.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| i agree, i,m still working on the ui. qdb will be
| upgraded to a newer version soon.
| newswasboring wrote:
| I find it curious why you are supporting such old browsers.
| Apart from "its cool" is there any market reason for it?
| Like are there really people out there using netscape 2.0?
| Or is it a side effect of your minimal technology? But that
| sounds limiting unnecessarily, you know?
| random_kris wrote:
| I think that poster was being sarcastic
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| no, i was not being sarcastic, and i have the screenshots
| and demo videos to prove it.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| a. i believe in the any browser philosphy.
|
| b. i think every browser is worth it, and some of these
| classics are very nice.
|
| c. it,s not very limiting because html and js allow for
| progressive enhancement.
|
| i started out wanting to just be accessible. then i saw a
| cool exhibit at mfa with beige boxes, win95, netscape 3,
| and older web creations.
|
| i realized it wouldn,t be that hard, i wanted to support
| nn3 for classic retro reasons.
|
| then i realized that with a few tweaks, i can cover the
| whole range.
|
| i really want to be able to say, yes, it will work with
| your device.
|
| i have older ipads i can still use for writing now.
| [deleted]
| mplewis wrote:
| Hi OP, I'm glad you're tackling this space. But I am not
| willing to install social network software until I can see some
| screenshots of what the UI looks like. I need to know what to
| expect, and what my users can expect.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| This seems like an oxymoron. What is your definition of a
| "private" website and what are the technical controls Haven
| implements that make it so?
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Say you've never used Twitter without saying you've never used
| Twitter.
|
| > Twitter is more about "see what interesting people are
| saying".
| kodablah wrote:
| It can be hard for people to self host due to local router
| settings and what not of course. You should consider an option
| to auto configure as a Tor onion service so their desktop
| website is immediately available to all (that use a Tor browser
| of course). I do this all the time to bust NAT for simple
| sites. And you get encryption and anonymity mostly for free
| (performance cost often negligible for these kinds of sites).
| newswasboring wrote:
| I have read the site and some comments here. First, your site
| does not explain well what do you mean by private blog which is
| shared. From the comments I understood that you have to create
| accounts for people who you want to view some content. I am
| guessing that would give them either a email/password or some
| type of secure link. If its the former I would definitely find
| it tedious, and if its the latter I would like to know how are
| you securing this link.
| judge2020 wrote:
| Magic links are fairly common (slack does them), although
| some people have a bad habit of forwarding emails which can
| be considered a security issue if links work multiple times.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| > I tried using WordPress but it took too many custom plugins
| and configurations and I still got bombarded by spam signup
| requests
|
| I understand the Wordpress pain. My solution was to pay
| Wordpress.com $35/year to give me a hosted Wordpress instance.
| There is just one switch you need to flip to make the whole
| thing private. Family members have access through their own
| usernames.
| mahastore wrote:
| Why can't someone simply go to any hosting service (like
| bluehost) and do a point and click webpress installation on
| their purchased domain to host their own website. Webpress also
| has a bunch of add-on modules for authentication. I just don't
| understand why this post is the top on HN ATM. I imagine there
| are bunch of more worthwhile posts. Or maybe we are just too
| obsessed now with big tech etc?
| wtvanhest wrote:
| This is like the classic DropBox comment [1]. The activities
| you describe seem easy to you, but are really hard for the
| average person. Authentication in Webpress? I imagine that is
| more than a 10 minute activity.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863
| sxates wrote:
| To be fair, I think setting up a raspberry pi or an AWS
| instance isn't 'mom friendly' either. Still more friction
| than Facebook, which this is positioning itself against.
| wtvanhest wrote:
| The real service is their hosting:
|
| "If running it yourself is too daunting, we can host it
| for you on your own dedicated virtual server for as
| little as $5 per month."
| distantsounds wrote:
| Can we maybe get an example of a running instance somewhere?
| There isn't even a screenshot of the UI on the home page, just
| a bunch of marketing clipart. And that one minute video only
| shows cropped screenshots.
| 3np wrote:
| I was assuming the linked product site is built with Haven
| ropeladder wrote:
| This looks great. I was looking for something similar to get the
| word out about a private event recently and the options for non-
| public minimalist website hosting is surprisingly limited. (I
| ended up just doing a password-protected simple nginx server, but
| this looks potentially much nicer to set up and use.)
| krmmalik wrote:
| This is a bloody brilliant idea! I think the privacy aspect, i.e.
| creating a wall around the content in the way you have done here
| is what has been the missing piece between other self-hosted
| blogging/content solutions and this.
|
| A very elegant solution.
| kareemm wrote:
| Love the idea. We've got kids and try to keep their likenesses
| off the public / data-slurping internet (Google, FB/WA/Insta,
| etc) by sending photos to friends and family via Signal.
|
| The downside is that everything's ephemeral. I've long thought
| there was room for a private network where you can pub/sub to
| people you care about. Sort of a simple and private Livejournal /
| Blogger.
|
| FWIW I think the self-hosting bit isn't where the opportunity is.
| It's in hosted private sharing. One thing I'd do is create
| landing pages for people who want to share privately and have $$.
| Parents are the first group that comes to mind.
|
| I wish you success - the world needs what you're doing!
| rakoo wrote:
| Movim sits on top of XMPP, which handles a lot of these already
| https://movim.eu/
|
| It's also federated, so people not using your instance can
| still interact from where they are
| izacus wrote:
| I mean... if you don't want to self-host, what's the actual
| difference between your service and Google Photos then?
|
| You're still giving photos to someone else with a pinky swear
| they won't do share them further.
| Benjamin_Dobell wrote:
| If setup correctly, the hosting provider ought to be
| incapable of decrypting the photos.
| ncallaway wrote:
| Presumably the contents of the privacy policy would be
| different.
|
| Google doesn't give you a pinky-swear that they won't do
| anything further with the images.
| paxys wrote:
| But an anonymous person on HN is perfectly trustworthy?
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Incentives, law and outside attestation.
|
| Google gives you a lot of things for "free". I trust someone
| who I pay $9/mo to if they promise to not share my photos. If
| they share my photos, they'll stop getting my $9/mo.
|
| Legally, the host can include protections for your data
| including not reselling or sharing your data even in cases of
| acquisition. If it's in the contract with the host, it's
| binding both ways.
|
| Third, by allowing audits. There's a cost here and auditors
| are still human, but they provide outside assurance -
| especially when their findings are published independently.
| mawise wrote:
| You're right. This is a trust issue that's difficult to
| reason about. I'd like to encourage people to self-host as
| much as possible and I plan to be as open as possible about
| how I'll do hosting. Paid hosting means the revenue model is
| clear--there isn't a need to sell data to keep the lights on.
| I'm also using the same AWS deployment process for paid
| hosting as I make available in the open source repository--so
| every Haven gets its own dedicated EC2 instance, with a
| database installed right on that instance. This makes broad
| querying of everybody's data much harder.
|
| I think my biggest fear is that that this idea takes off, but
| some competitor makes a free offering by selling data and
| including ad targeting and most users don't know the
| difference.
| kareemm wrote:
| I don't think you have anything to fear. The reason people
| would buy is privacy. If someone gives it away for free
| they are the product and their privacy is at risk.
|
| Plus the market is enormous. Probably room for a handful of
| good sized competitors.
| nlitened wrote:
| I suggest you make a private Telegram group. Everything is
| synced across all members and devices, photos and videos are
| stored in full resolution. You can hop into the group's voice
| chat any time.
| ruste wrote:
| Someone has already suggested mastadon, but I think Scuttlebutt
| is a much better solution for what you want. Totally
| decentralized, persistent, no need for a hosted server. You can
| set it up in a few minutes and if you're only using it for your
| small group there's no need to connect to anyone else.
| jamesgeck0 wrote:
| The problem is that SSB isn't really private. Anything you
| share in an offline circle of friends becomes public if any
| member of the group ever connects to a pub server. There is
| encrypted messaging, but IIRC last time I tried to use it,
| the threads maxed out at eight people in the client. There
| are seven people in my immediate family, so I hit limits very
| quickly.
| kevincox wrote:
| This is possible in the Fediverse. For example Mastodon lets
| you approve your followers manually and post so that only
| followers can see.
| kareemm wrote:
| There's value in making private only and anything you post is
| seen by followers the default case. Mostly when marketing: if
| I don't ever want to publish publicly a landing page that
| says this:
|
| > Haven is about sharing privately with friends and family.
| There is no option to make your blog public to the world. You
| get to create an account for anyone you want to have access.
|
| Is more compelling than one where grandparents have to
| register, find my blog, I have to approve them, and for every
| post I have to set permissions levels.
| treis wrote:
| >We've got kids and try to keep their likenesses off the public
| / data-slurping internet (Google, FB/WA/Insta, etc) by sending
| photos to friends and family via Signal.
|
| We use Tinybeans for this
| drcongo wrote:
| Yeah, there's loads of these. We used to use BackThen which
| used to be called something else, got bought by Canon and
| then sold back to the founders. It's decent enough, but now I
| just use iCloud shared photo albums as none of the people I
| share with use Android.
| knz wrote:
| > long thought there was room for a private network
|
| MyFamily.com was essentially this in the pre Facebook era. IIRC
| there was a modest annual fee for a private site/feed that let
| you share posts, photos, and recipes with family members.
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| ActivityPub / Mastadon maybe or just a good old RSS feed.
| didibus wrote:
| Facebook and Instagram both let you do this, that's how I use
| them. All my information is private and only shared with my
| direct followers that I've approved.
|
| What's different about what you envision then that?
| jstrieb wrote:
| On the other hand, if you want to password-protect static sites,
| you can make the path unguessable and use Link Lock to share a
| password-protected link to the page. All encryption/decryption is
| done fully in the browser.
|
| https://jstrieb.github.io/link-lock/
|
| (Disclaimer: I made Link Lock)
| eitland wrote:
| Brilliant idea and nice, honest business model it seems:
|
| Share the code, offer hosted solution for a reasonable price.
|
| The only thing I can't remember seing covered is data export.
|
| I might very well sign up tonight to test it out a bit to put the
| money where my mouth is (I have been a long time paying
| customer/supporter of a couple of other projects with kind of
| similar business models but it might be time to change now soon.)
| mawise wrote:
| Thank you!
|
| Data export is important, and it doesn't exist yet. Exporting
| the users table and the text content of posts/comments will be
| straightforward, but extracting all the images is going to take
| a little bit more work.
| sasquacz wrote:
| My family needs a private place like this. I put a non-federated
| Pleroma instance on a free tier Google Cloud VM. Pleroma is a
| lightweight alternative to Mastodon and it requires very few
| resources to handle ~10 users. It's compatible with more popular
| Mastodon so there is a lot of available clients apart from the
| web version.
|
| Highly recommend you give it a try. https://pleroma.social/
| gnud wrote:
| Sounds good - and looks interesting. I have two wishes/requests
| for my use:
|
| - Clear size limits for photo/audio/video content in your hosted
| solution. And clarify if/how they are backed up. Do I need an
| additional backup, or can Haven be my backup?
|
| - Different visitor groups. I basically have some videos I only
| want certain visitors to see. A handful of levels would be fine,
| I don't need fine-grained control over everything. Maybe this is
| already possible?
| mawise wrote:
| Right now I don't have any size enforcement included in the
| hosted solution. And individually uploaded object can be up to
| 25mb (IIRC). If users start blowing out the S3 usage, then I
| might have to revisit this.
|
| The hosted solution (and the self-hosted on AWS which uses the
| same deployment methods) automatically backup every night by
| dropping a database dump on S3. There's some manual work
| required to restore from the backup but I haven't had any
| issues with it so far. All the images live on S3 which I'm
| treating as durable. If you self-host on a Raspberry Pi then
| you're on your own for doing backups.
|
| I've thought about the different groups feature. I haven't
| decided if it's one I want to implement. It might be the top of
| the slippery slope of adding too many features.
| powerlogic31 wrote:
| I think it's more of an internal company tool rather than a
| family one.
|
| Needs of most family are pretty basic. and not this complicated.
| fgreinus wrote:
| https://www.haven.org/haven/wiki/
|
| Seems like perl is not having a good day there.
| piaste wrote:
| About halfway down the code: sub
| ProcessTemplateText { local($text) = @_;
| $oldtext = $_; $_= $text; # Truly
| frightening stuff s/\[eval (.*?)
| EVALEOF\]/eval $1/geo; $outtext=$_;
| $_ =$oldtext; return $outtext; }
| unkeptbarista wrote:
| Just so it's clear, that truly frightening stuff is on
| haven.org, and not on the OP's havenweb.org site.
| olav wrote:
| OP is at https://havenweb.org/, not https://haven.org/
| fgreinus wrote:
| Oh - you're right. My bad!
| bicx wrote:
| [insert meme] Is this hacking?
| tootie wrote:
| Wow, copyright 1995. Was this borrowed from Matt's Script
| Archive?
| kristopolous wrote:
| It's the c2 code https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiWikiWeb
| scary-size wrote:
| Nice work! I setup a private page for sharing baby photos with
| friends and family too. We only post photos with a small
| description, so I opted for e-mail as my "api". The server runs a
| script periodically and just rebuilds the full "feed" as a single
| html file based on those mails. It also does some image and video
| optimization/normalization, but it's all statically served via
| nginx.
| daitangio wrote:
| There is something similar for chats? I need a secure chat for my
| children & their friends
| gnicholas wrote:
| Reading this made me wonder if one could use Substack in a
| similar way, and it appears that they do have a 'private' option
| that is available for free or paid authors. [1]
|
| I imagine that limits what you can do with layout/formatting, but
| eliminates some of the complexity around helping grandma log in
| (since she could get emails with the content and also with a
| login link).
|
| Disclosure: I am not affiliated with Substack; I don't even have
| an account.
|
| 1: https://blog.substack.com/p/new-private-substacks
| joewils wrote:
| mawise,
|
| Where you thinking of sharing your code under an MIT license
| similar to Rails or something else?
|
| I looked for a LICENSE file, but didn't find one:
| https://docs.github.com/en/github/building-a-strong-communit...
| mawise wrote:
| I've been thinking about licensing, but haven't settled on a
| license yet. I might use AGPL, but I want to consult with
| someone with legal background before making that decision.
| twodave wrote:
| I've actually got a Jekyll + Github Pages[0] setup that I've
| managed to password-protect pretty effectively[1].
|
| Essentially I took my wife's wordpress content, ported it to
| markdown, and slapped ALL the content inside a directory named
| used the password hash. So you basically have to know the
| password to get to the right directory. Is it perfectly secure? I
| don't know. Does it discourage creeps from looking at pictures of
| my kids? Yep.
|
| [0]:
| https://dsheldon.com/technology/github%20pages/jekyll/2019/0...
|
| [1]: https://faithfullyinfertile.com/
| onion2k wrote:
| _...slapped ALL the content inside a directory named used the
| password hash. So you basically have to know the password to
| get to the right directory._
|
| You could attack the site by cracking the password to get the
| hash, or you could work out a way to make the web server list
| all the available directories instead. Historically that has
| always been a _very_ common way to attack servers. You 've
| changed the thing that's protecting the website from password
| hash to a web server config. It only takes a simple mistake on
| the part of Github to enable directory listings and everyone
| will have access.
|
| FWIW I trust that Github won't do that and I think you'll be
| fine, but as a method of securing something on the web using an
| obscure directory name is a terrible idea.
| twodave wrote:
| Well, for one, "cracking the password" in this case would
| take an attacker much longer than just going to find some
| other family's blog to creep on. And there is no entry point
| for a directory listing (default page is being taken by the
| password prompt, no other directories are present), but if,
| for example, GitHub accidentally made my private repository
| into a public one, it's just a matter of changing a directory
| name to reset the password.
|
| The content being protected here isn't nuclear launch codes,
| it's just family pictures/journals--so we don't need rock-
| solid (and annoying to set up/maintain) security, but just a
| deterrent much the deadbolt on our house's front door.
| hanniabu wrote:
| What if you literally just encrypted the page contents, share
| the password with your friends, and decrypt it with js?
| z3t4 wrote:
| Ive tried to give family members access to private sites, but do
| you think they remember their login user/pw? Nope. That is the
| hard problem. Each person should have a publuc/private key so
| they don't need usernames/pw.
| mawise wrote:
| This is a problem. Haven lets you share magic login links with
| people if you don't want to give them an email/password
| combination.
| [deleted]
| josefresco wrote:
| This is cool! I did this once for my parents, who were not on
| Facebook. Since I'm a WordPress guy, that's what I used and
| simply made the blog private (search engine indexing off) and
| then hosted it in a sub directory of an existing personal site.
| No accounts, no bots just a private little website for my folks.
| It ran it's course (uploading photos was a chore), now we use
| iMessage and the like to swap and share family photos.
| Tepix wrote:
| I created a wordpress site on my server and added a htaccess file
| with some accounts. Does that achieve the same thing?
|
| Edit: i guess i could have used the free plugin "restrict user
| access" instead: https://wordpress.org/plugins/restrict-user-
| access/#i%20have...
| tyingq wrote:
| I know it sounds counter-purpose if you're trying to lure them
| off of Facebook for privacy reasons, but maybe Facebook Login
| would reduce friction? It seems like the API gives back enough
| info so that you could redirect anyone not "pre-approved".
| mawise wrote:
| I've thought about that, and I'm particularly interested
| finding a way to use IndieAuth[1] to support lots of
| alternative logins. I don't have any experience with Facebook
| login but I am worried about allowing Facebook to be the
| identity provider for the internet.
|
| [1] https://indieauth.com/
| stiray wrote:
| The idea to have something like this is great but I would love to
| see an implementation that would be done as a single binary with
| no dependencies (like ruby) and as lightweight as possible.
|
| Download, run, configure something and use it.
| kaioelfke wrote:
| Cool, I'll add it to https://nomorefacebook.xyz as alternative!
| realolokunmama wrote:
| Hello!! I hope my contact brings you inspiration and joy to your
| day! As you can see, I'm a spiritual spell caster i have herbal
| cure for CANCER and more i also cast spells such as Health
| Restoration Spell Dismiss Depression Spell Love spell Ex Back
| spell Lost Love spell Attractive spell Divorce spell Financial
| spell Promotion spell Marriage spell Protection spell pregnancy
| spell Job spell Grow your business spell Lottery spell Fertility
| spell Court Case spell Diabetes Lupus kindly contact me And don't
| forget that problem shared is a problem solved. Email:
| realolokunmama12@gmail.com
| absorber wrote:
| Not to be confused with Haven from the Guardian Project:
| https://guardianproject.github.io/haven/
| foxhop wrote:
| Also checkout Remarkbox, I just made it free.
|
| https://www.remarkbox.com/remarkbox-is-now-pay-what-you-can....
|
| It's a hosted comment system which works anywhere HTML is
| supported.
| munificent wrote:
| It seems everyone in this thread feels strongly that they would
| have built a much better bikeshed than the author did.
|
| But how many of you actually have?
| 1-6 wrote:
| I'm bullish again on domain names.
| rumblestrut wrote:
| If you want a Facebook replacement (at least for groups) use
| Band: https://band.us
|
| My wife is using it for a group she was running on facebook and
| loves it.
|
| As for Haven: the more the merrier. Nice work building something!
| njacobs5074 wrote:
| Band is free?
|
| How is that possible? Sorry I'm just suspicious of anything
| that smells like a social network and there's no cost.
|
| [Edit] I just went to the Apple App store page and there's a
| cost for a variety of features.
| olav wrote:
| What is Band's business model?
| twoslide wrote:
| A private blog for sharing photos is great, but the suggestion
| it's a Facebook replacement is questionable. People now use
| Facebook not only for photo sharing/status updates, but
| buying/selling stuff, communities, and (unfortunately) news.
| Notifications such as "Friend A commented on Friend B's post" is
| pretty impossible in this framework, and it's not really possible
| to recreate this in a world where everyone self-hosts. Projects
| like diaspora try a decentralized approach as the next best
| thing.
| Sodman wrote:
| I would take this to mean a replacement for the "original"
| Facebook feature set, of sharing personal news, stories and
| photos with a pre-selected list of friends and family.
|
| Many people (myself included) don't _want_ the newer
| marketplace / open community aspects of Facebook to be mixed
| into a platform where they share personal updates. If that
| means I have to give up 100 likes and comments on every
| baby/puppy picture I post, that seems like an acceptable trade-
| off to me. If folks want to comment on any of my updates, they
| can communicate with me in other channels (e-mail, text, real-
| life). Not for everyone, but it's definitely a market niche
| that's under-served right now.
| munificent wrote:
| I don't see anything questionable about this. Product A can be
| a valid replacement for Product B for only a subset of users.
|
| A bike is a perfectly valid replacement for a car for the set
| of people who only drive a couple of miles to commute to work.
| It's obviously not a replacement for all users, but that
| doesn't undermine the valid claim that it is for some.
| wintermutestwin wrote:
| I'd prefer a site that doesn't include all those "features."
| This doesn't need to be a do it all site with social stickiness
| to be useful.
| crazypython wrote:
| > Notifications such as "Friend A commented on Friend B's post"
| is pretty impossible in this framework
|
| If it supported ActivityPub and perhaps WebMention, this would
| be possible, and across any social network.
| perakojotgenije wrote:
| Four of five years ago I had exactly the same idea! It's as if
| you have somehow read it from my brain! Now here's the thing: I
| even started working on it but then I started thinking about how
| many customers I might find and then I stopped working on it.
| Here's what made me stop:
|
| First, the self hosting. Self hosting is hard. It's impossible
| for the average user. First, you need to buy and register your
| domain (and don't forget to renew it every year or two). Then you
| need to add the DNS record (what's a DNS record?). If you want to
| host it in your home you need a static IP. How many people know
| what a static IP is? If you do not have it you need to purchase
| an online server. Cheapest linode or digitalocean is 5$ a month.
| Then the installation. You might make a few scripts but how many
| people will be able to run it? And then, if you finally have your
| website active you need to take care of backups, too - because
| mistakes happen. So, to summarize, self hosting is just for
| technical people, there is no way for Average Joe to do it.
|
| And the there is the hosted solution. It costs 5$/month but what
| do you get for that money? Yes, you can host your family pictures
| but you do not get any of the other features that Facebook gives
| you - the gossips, the ads (some people want to search for things
| to buy), the latest conspiracy theories, the political flame
| wars, your grandparents' ramblings... and all that for free!
|
| So, you get just the very basic features, and you will still need
| to visit Facebook if you want to check your grandparents photos
| and some of them will not even want to visit your webpage ("why
| can't you just put photos on Facebook where I can see them? And
| why do I need an account to see your pictures?"). So, other than
| some very privacy-oriented people I did not see very many people
| using it.
|
| Now having said that, I am extremely happy that someone made
| this! I really hope that I was wrong and that you will find lots
| and lots of customers. I will follow your project, I might even
| become a customer (I stopped using Facebook a few years ago and I
| share pictures with my family using telegram group but it is not
| exactly the best solution). I wish you best of luck with this
| project.
| paulcarroty wrote:
| Not bad, but for self-hosted blog I would use https://ghost.org/
| - much more features and nicer UI.
| darkwater wrote:
| Why would I turn my family into a business?
| Sodman wrote:
| This seems like a much more polished product, but it seems more
| targeted as a PaaS for professional content creators. The
| minimum requirements[0] are pretty high for somebody who just
| wants to self-host a blog for friends and family:
|
| - Ubuntu server with NodeJS / Ngninx installed
|
| - 1 GB RAM minimum required
|
| - MySQL running somewhere
|
| The PaaS "Everything just works" offering is probably more
| attractive to the "facebook, but private" market, but for $36 /
| month I don't get any guaranteed SLA[1] which is worrying.
|
| [0] https://ghost.org/docs/install/ubuntu/ [1]
| https://ghost.org/pricing/
| halcy0n wrote:
| Great another place that snowflake ass white supremacists right
| wing assholes can organize violent insurrection because they
| can't handle being told "no" by women and minorities.
|
| I'm sure this is not the creators intent but I don't see this as
| solving a problem. I see it as another way for techno-illiterates
| to share hate.
| mindfulness9000 wrote:
| > snowflake ass white supremacists right wing assholes
|
| this kind of language feels hateful.
| TimTheTinker wrote:
| We're in a really bad place as a society if folks can't provide
| a publishing platform without being accused of "enabling hate".
| dasanchez wrote:
| I am using the Beaker browser to share baby photos with my
| relatives- it's a great motivator to adopt decentralized tech :)
|
| https://beakerbrowser.com/
| justinph wrote:
| The problem I have with this is that it makes people create and
| manage an account. My 90 year old grandmother is not gonna manage
| that.
|
| I made a little hack for wordpress that lets you run a wordpress
| blog and have a shared security question that lets people access
| content. A simple question like "What is the name of the family
| dog?" or "What is grandpa's nickname?", something like that. Not
| industrial strength security, but enough to keep it sorta private
| and out of search.
|
| The nifty part is that with wordpress and Jetpack, people can
| sign up for posts by email, so every time you post, your
| friends/family can get an email with the updates. No need to even
| visit the blog. Perfect for grandma.
|
| Here's the two files that make it work, in case anyone is
| interested:
| https://gist.github.com/justinph/f0fb937d1ee418a45bfb85e91e4...
| noyesno wrote:
| Cheapest FIDO2 capable USB keys seem to be around 9$. At that
| point you could theoretically give our family and close friends
| a physical key to the service for easy authentication.
|
| Some could even reuse the key for other services, assuming they
| realize that they need a spare for backup.
| andyfleming wrote:
| Yeah, it would be nice to have some other options besides full-
| on user accounts. One approach could be to have an expiring
| token where the post can be shared and accessed for a certain
| number of days before the token/URL is invalid.
| mawise wrote:
| This is a problem. I initially couldn't get my wife's
| Grandmother to see the site because sending her a password
| was too complicated. I have since implemented magic links for
| login. When you create an account for someone you can share a
| magic link with them or an email/password combination.
| wintermutestwin wrote:
| Magic links sounds like a perfect solution.
| paxys wrote:
| It doesn't stop them from (knowingly or unknowingly)
| forwarding the link to someone else.
| mozey wrote:
| Interesting idea, maybe combine it with some
| fingerprinting? I.e. the first access on the link binds
| some attributes, and if they change the link expires.
| Chances are people who need these links are only using one
| device.
| tunesmith wrote:
| You could set up a magic link that would ask your grandma for
| her middle name, and all she'd have to type in is Ethel. Then
| if she forwards the magic link, it wouldn't work for them
| unless they know her middle name. So like a personalized
| password with no username. Less secure than username/password
| but no big deal if it's for a small number of people.
| rhodozelia wrote:
| I had that exact idea last week - answer a question that shows
| you know me and you are not a bot and then you can access my
| blog and posted photos, but the surveillance machine can't.
| lallysingh wrote:
| Yeah it's a problem they don't need to have. A few oathy
| entrances would help. "Login with Google" "Login with facebook"
| "Login with outlook", etc. If the user's added foo@gmail.com,
| it's fair to let foo@ to log in with the same identifier.
| bovermyer wrote:
| Just to play Devil's advocate, why would I use this over a
| private WordPress/Ghost/WriteFreely blog?
| mawise wrote:
| Those are great feature-rich platforms, but their focus is on
| public distribution. Configuring them to be private isn't
| trivial and even then they're much more complex to operate.
| Haven focuses on privacy and I've tried to make it easier to
| use, sort of like how Trello got a lot of popularity by being a
| simpler, easier-to-use alternative to Jira.
| ncallaway wrote:
| From the features, it seems like the focus is on granting
| different access to different people on a per-post basis.
|
| > There is no option to make your blog public to the world. You
| get to create an account for anyone you want to have access
|
| ...
|
| > If you want a public blog to build a base of followers, or
| promote a product, or try to profit from your blog--this isn't
| the right service for you. I suggest you use Wordpress instead.
| powerlogic31 wrote:
| Yes and you could also use apple shared notes.
| intrasight wrote:
| Just pointing out typo on "hosting" page
|
| "possible for all peoeple"
| fiores wrote:
| Can a user from one Haven server post something in another Haven
| server? Is this desireable? If desireable, how will access
| control work?
| bitcharmer wrote:
| I've started to migrate to github pages. Does anyone know how it
| compares?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-03 23:00 UTC)