Skip Navigation
58 comments

  • I think instance is okay as a term, but defining it as a provider could be helpful. I don't think the fediverse is that complicated anyway, it could be summarized in a paragraph for a baby

  • As a term, 'instance' is already baked into code, databases, and APIs.

    If I wanted to use an API to block 'lemmy.world', for example, I'd call 'site/block' with the relevant 'instance_id'. That's already 2 different terms for the same thing ('site' and 'instance'), which isn't great, but adding 'provider' into the mix means you're now saying "if you want to block a 'provider', use the 'site' endpoint with the ID for the 'instance'", which is arguably worse.

  • I wouldn't even mention anything about servers or how it works, since most anyone I would even tell about Lemmy won't understand the technical details, nor would they care. It would only confuse them and push them away.

    Just hook them up with an instance they will fit into, and have them use the site. I really think that a lot of the other tech nerds here are overthinking it and trying to get non-tech minded people to switch by giving them technical details that do more harm and cause more confusion than simply having them use the site without knowing jack shit about it other than "it's like Reddit but not shitty."

    That's really all you gotta tell most people; "it's like Reddit (or Twitter if you're trying to talk up Mastodon), but not shitty."

    • Sure, but then questions like "why do these subreddits have an @ symbol?" happen, or the dreaded default "local" sort causes problems.

    • I use this approach sometimes and it really works. Provided it's the erm.. simple type of crowd that doesn't ask too many questions lol. They'll wander around and figure it out. If they do, congratulations😂

  • I agree, let's make it more friendly to people wanting to start a fediverse provider as a business so a big company can't come in and gobble up everyone

  • People can perfectly understand terms like instance or server...if they are explained to them.

    They are also accustomed to concepts like social media and social network that can also be used to explain the Fediverse. Each server is its own social media platforms interacting with eachother through a distributed social network.

    But, I actually think the Fediverse require an intermediate point between social media and social network, or something above it.

    If the Fediverse (including in this case all decentralised protocols like ActivityPub, Zot/Nomad, Diaspora, Ostatus, AT Proto, etc) is a Social network and each particular instance it's own social media platforms that interact within the network, the software they run and the community they form part of within the wider fediverse is an intermediate stage between social medium and social network.
    Now, if each server/instance are social media platforms and the software they run are the social network; the protocol or protocol they use is/are a network of networks and the Fediverse a network of networks of networks of social media platforms.

  • Go ahead. Try to force that upon Friendica that has called its instances "nodes" for almost 15 years now.

    Or Hubzilla that not only calls them "hubs" but also resists any and all cultural or technological influences from anything that wasn't created by Mike Macgirvin.

    Also

    <insert Morpheus here>

    what if I told you that (streams) and Forte call them "communities"? You know, like Lemmy's and PieFed's "subreddits"?

58 comments