Which alternate term for the Fediverse do you like best: Wood Wide Web, Fungal/Fungi Web or Fungiverse?
Which alternate term for the Fediverse do you like best: Wood Wide Web, Fungal/Fungi Web or Fungiverse?
Wood Wide Web: Already a term in biology. "Research has shown that beneath every forest and wood there is a complex underground web of roots, fungi and bacteria helping to connect trees and plants to one another. This subterranean social network, nearly 500 million years old, has become known as the "wood wide web"." (BBC)
Fungiverse: Most similar to the term fediverse though I never understood the "universe" part of the term. What does it mean in this context? Its more a social network, right? Much more like the internet it is based on a certain protocol.
Fungal/Fungi Web: Shorter than Wood Wide Web and maybe easier to say. In contrast to Wood Wide Web, maybe it's also better to not confuse tech and nature here. I also in general like the term "social web" more, because it emphasizes that it is basically going on top of the usual web just through a new protocol.
I think Wood Wide Web would be best, because it could emphasize that it should be energy-efficient and have the goal of connecting people to collaborate toward a sustainable future. Also: in a story that plays in a world in which humanoid plants live, it would just make sense that they discover the Wood Wide Web at some point. What do you think?
You're viewing a single thread.
Why an alternative term?
If you want something that carries more meaning then those proposed terms are maybe not the best as a mycelium network does not represent very well what the fediverse does.
If you want some more practical comparison then maybe a network of scribes in monastery libraries that copy texts and exchange them via a postal network?
Why an alternative term?
I find the term fediverse irritating and I'm currently writing a short story about the Fediverse.
If you want something that carries more meaning then those proposed terms are maybe not the best as a mycelium network does not represent very well what the fediverse does.
For me, ActivityPub does for the web about the same thing that fungi do in the forest: they allow communication about the content in the web without a central entity.
If you want some more practical comparison then maybe a network of scribes in monastery libraries that copy texts and exchange them via a postal network?
But they aren't sharing only text. Also: the monk doesn't exist. The communication works dezentralized through a protocol.
I find the term fediverse irritating
Why?
-
Why universe? It has nothing to do with virtual reality and it sounds very sealed. But what we currently see with the introduction to ActivityPub to Wordpress for example is that it actually becomes a part of the Web. Its more similar to the web than it is to virtual universes.
-
The concept "federated" only makes sense in the current context. We have centralized social networks. They are bad. We want something else and think federation could do it. But it would be nice to have a metaphor that somehow stands on its own legs without relying on the old system. And the main thing that ActivityPub brings us is that the web becomes a social place.
That's why I find "social web" better. It's more future-oriented and less defensive.
The universe sounds sealed to you? Do you know what the universe is? Also what does that have to do with VR?
The universe sounds sealed to you? Do you know what the universe is? Also what does that have to do with VR?
If you put it that way of course not. But look at it that way: people are in their own universe. They are a universe away from other parts of the web. I think that sounds pretty sealed. Also counterquestion: why universe to begin with. Why not web or net? I feel like it was chosen just because it sounds cool.
If you want a graphic, that's how I see it (the black lines symbolize pulling for engagement, e.g. through links):
The right one resembles much more of what I think of the so-called Fediverse.
The universe contains everything and everything is connected to everything else via gravity.
The phrases you chose are using the universe's fastness to talk about distance.
Ok I think I'm not sure what you mean
No, I meant it like: there are corporate networks, each are their own universe. There is the fediverse: also its own universe. That's sealed.
What now if the other universes are gone? A universe of federated services doesn't make sense if you have no other universes.
There's only one universe. Those networks would be galaxies. But galaxies all apply force to each other via gravity.
Ok, but gravity isn't communication
- But 'universe' doesn't necessarily relate to virtual reality either. In fact, 'universe' is probably the least sealed term you could use, given that as far as we're aware, the universe encompasses everything.
- 'Federated' has been a term in IT for a long, long time, and has always been used to refer to two extant systems with a protocol in common. In this case, it's (for example) Mastodon and Lemmy, communicating via ActivityPub; but you could equally federate two Active Directory instances.
- Every social network is it's own universe. So basically if you speak about the multiverse of social networks universe sounds pretty sealed.
- Fair enough, I'm just not sure it's THE defining feature of the social web that I have in mind. For me it's more the dezentral aspect and that's for me best represented with fungi
-
The ActivityPub network is not a diffuse mesh that propagates basic info. Its more of a copy, store and forwarding system, and the instance servers (and admins 😏 ) would be the monks in my previous analogy.
Why do you find it irritating?
-
Why universe? It has nothing to do with virtual reality and it sounds very sealed. But what we currently see with the introduction to ActivityPub to Wordpress for example is that it actually becomes a part of the Web. Its more similar to the web than it is to virtual universes.
-
The concept “federated” only makes sense in the current context. We have centralized social networks. They are bad. We want something else and think federation could do it. But it would be nice to have a metaphor that somehow stands on its own legs without relying on the old system. And the main thing that ActivityPub brings us is that the web becomes a social place.
That’s why I find “social web” better. It’s more future-oriented and less defensive.
Regarding the rest: the ActivityPub network is not a diffuse mesh that propagates basic info. Its more of a copy, store and forwarding system, and the instance servers (and admins 😏 ) would be the monks in my previous analogy.
Ok, now I get it. My bad. However: the analogy misses the main part of the Fediverse: the protocol. Where do you get the monks the messages from?
I edited my reply since you already answer the first part elsewhere.
The protocol seems not that relevant as in the end it is just a means to exchange text without relying on centralized infrastructure. A snail-mail postal service works mostly the same, although regional mail sorting centers are somewhat centralized and could be compared to fediverse relay servers (Lemmy doesn't have those yet).
For me the protocol is the most important part. Making social interaction and networking work dezentrally in the web is a huge deal.
-