The lemmyverse sounds perfect, but it ignores alternatives like kbin etc. It would be better if we didn’t end up with the situation we have with Mastodon where people assume Mastodon is the fediverse.
So, what do we call this little niche in the fediverse?
Communiverse? FediGroups?
#lemmy #kbin #fediverse #communiverse #FediGroups
Why should we just accept that some naïve twitter refugees have misassociated the Fediverse as being just Mastodon? This isn’t branding, this is raising awareness of the interrelatedness of this federated network! Disassociating from the Fediverse just makes the problem worse, I’d say.
Because no amount of ideological objection will change the fact that this is exactly what has happened. People are using it this way, and what I was trying to raise here is a way to talk about this particular niche of the web without running in exactly the same problem with lemmy
Well, I honestly haven’t come across anyone who uses it that way so I can’t really advise.
I just feel like it’s not so widespread to just assume we should accept that the “cat is out of the bag”. We can just focus on correcting people, like we do when they conflate Lemmy with lemmy.ml.
@comfy @ada
I tend to agree. Now its forum-like apps where fedi integrations are made. Next it is more video apps, podcasting apps (via podcasting hub), coding apps (via the forge federation movement), and you-name-it different app domains.
Are we going to invent new names for each new app type that becomes federated? Might as well give the term Splinterverse right now then. Nothing feels connected anymore, and a “unique selling point” (to stick with marketing-like brand terminology) is lost.
I get you. In the end, for me, and I settled on this a while ago, “Fediverse” is a bad name. It’s confusing, seems like a Marvel thing, sounds weird and even unappealing frankly. Mastodon works because it’s a cool appealing word. It’s not just twitter refugees and their ignorance. The “fediverse” has a marketing/branding problem. And if you want “refugees” or “migrants” (which I acknowledge are problematic terms for actual IRL refugees, sorry), you’ve got meet them where they are.
Additionally, platforms are actually products. In fact, relatively vertical products with often sub-par interoperability for something that claims to be the “next internet protocol”. So, whether you create some branding or not, “you”, as a platform, are putting branding out there even if it’s the absence of an attempt.
So my recommended approach would be to happily “brand” a platform, but always be pushing and clarifying that it’s on the fediverse and what that actually means. Also, I’d start talking about “the social web” rather than just the fediverse, because that’s what it is and it’s a better term IMO.
I don’t know that I agree that just being heavy with product branding and trying to list interoperability as a feature really addresses the issue, but I 100% agree that “Fediverse” is an awful name.
But then, so is “world wide web”. Or “Internet”, for they matter. We get stuck with so many awful, awful names that sound like they were the idea of villains from a low budget 90s sci-fi tv show.
I’d guess that for early to mid 90s, World Wide Web was fine and Internet was actually good (remember the film “The Net”?). I was too young then to know though.
@maegul @comfy
The term open-source is well known and favorable
Why not say, open-source social media where the consumer has choice and control
Maybe the Social Web?
because that would also cover sites like Dreamwidth and AO3 that don’t aren’t decentralized so aren’t concsidered part of the fediverse.