Just publishing to your group's relay would work (sort of), but it demonstrates the more fundamental problem, which is: why would I ask people to jump through a bunch of hoops to use a decentralized system, if they're not interested in the public broadcast part of it, which is what requires all the centralization? Might as well have custodial identities and a familiar setup. Other than the fact that people need nostr and this is a first step that direction. I just can't sell a product if there's no value proposition.
Discussion
In my opinion because of two things:
- The inherit benefits of having one protocol that apps can agree to and build for.
- The fact that relying on one identity means that even if the centralized server runner goes away, for whatever reason you still have access to your data, and you can still create more data.
If this is paired with a community building software that encrypts all data before pushing it up to nostr and stores it locally, then you have the best, uncensorable, private and unstoppable tool for communities.
Agreed.
That first point is a big one. For me #interop is the :trophy: feature. The fact all these apps speak the same social-data-format language.
It's not because most current apps assume you want to scream everything you do out into the void, with zero target, that we can't build apps that let you share to specific groups.