Re: The term: "Mastodon" vs "fediverse" vs ...?

Agreed that Social Web is too generic and not catchy.

It seems there is a pretty decent consensus around sticking with the name
Fediverse. I think it will grow on people. It's less about the name than
what it enables people to do.

Our efforts are probably better applied to Fediverse Enhancements rather
than naming.

Just in case some people on this mailing list don't already know about it
there is a Forum dedicated to this work that has a ton if rich threads with
FEP's (Fediverse Enhancement Proposals) https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/

Adam

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 5:25 AM Michał "rysiek" Woźniak <
rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:

> Hey,
>
> On Tuesday, December 20, 2022 1:32:50 AM GMT Johannes Ernst wrote:
> > > On Dec 19, 2022, at 17:24, Aaron Parecki <aaron@parecki.com> wrote:
> > >>  However, what we're talking about here is the "Social Web"
> > >
> > > You could have stopped there!
> >
> > Hmm, not bad.
> >
> > It might need a bit of explanation, because the term in itself sounds
> > descriptive, rather than the name of a “thing”.
>
> "Social Web" is IMVHO too generic. Is Facebook part of the social web?
> It's
> web! It's social!
>
> I much prefer Fediverse, in no small part also because it already
> functions
> there; plus fedi old timers call it just that — "fedi". Instead of
> artificially
> pushing a new name, I'd just stick with "fedi" and "Fediverse".
>
> Plenty of time and effort already went into promoting it also to the
> general
> public. If general public can deal with "metaverse", it can deal with
> "fediverse" too.
>
> Trying to push a different term will not only confuse the general people
> ("okay, what's the differentce between Mastodon, Fediverse, and that
> Social Web
> thing, then?"), but will *also* alienate fedi power users. I find that
> counter-
> productive.
>
> --
> Best,
> r
>
>
>
>
>