It gets tiring to write Piefed/Lemmy/Mbin to call our part of the Fediverse, is Threadiverse now the accepted term?
-
Interacting with Lemmy threads from Mastodon is easy, the inverse not so much
Yep only Mbin achieve that :3
-
Yep only Mbin achieve that :3
NodeBB too
-
It’s still the Fediverse. While things are connected, not everything has to be absolutely connected. There’s still work to be done.
You can waxing poetically it if you want. “Welcome to our little corner of the Fediverse” etc.
Or, if you are really that hung up on this not being the Fediverse, call it the Lemmyverse or smth.
It’s still the Fediverse. While things are connected, not everything has to be absolutely connected. There’s still work to be done.
Except that’s the premise new joiners are told when they join the Fediverse “everything is connected”.
Turns out it’s not, you have Mbin/PieFed/Lemmy on one side, then Mastodon/Sharkey/Iceshrimp on another, and the support between both is rudimentary, as people commented below
-
I, uh, don’t know what you’re trying to say. I was talking about support for the ActivityPub protocol.
I was referring to this comment ( https://discuss.tchncs.de/comment/21052151 )
And the word meta itself is used for meta communities on the Threadiverse which have nothing to do with Meta the company. Words existed before companies took them.
-
I used to say “Welcome to Lemmy” to new joiners, but nowadays quite a few of them join Piefed instance, having a generic term is easier
You can’t follow Mastodon users from Lemmy or Piefed, using “Fedivers” seems too generic
Previous post on the same topic: https://lemmy.zip/post/33451610
I mean I call the fediverse the federation so I guess I should call it the threaderation
-
I used to say “Welcome to Lemmy” to new joiners, but nowadays quite a few of them join Piefed instance, having a generic term is easier
You can’t follow Mastodon users from Lemmy or Piefed, using “Fedivers” seems too generic
Previous post on the same topic: https://lemmy.zip/post/33451610
Just keep it simple and say “The Good Internet.”
-
I mean I call the fediverse the federation so I guess I should call it the threaderation
The United Threaderation of Instances?
-
I was referring to this comment ( https://discuss.tchncs.de/comment/21052151 )
And the word meta itself is used for meta communities on the Threadiverse which have nothing to do with Meta the company. Words existed before companies took them.
So you didn’t mean to reply to me in the first place?
-
It’s still the Fediverse. While things are connected, not everything has to be absolutely connected. There’s still work to be done.
Except that’s the premise new joiners are told when they join the Fediverse “everything is connected”.
Turns out it’s not, you have Mbin/PieFed/Lemmy on one side, then Mastodon/Sharkey/Iceshrimp on another, and the support between both is rudimentary, as people commented below
and the support between both is rudimentary, as people commented below
Not on Mbin at least… I follow plenty of people from Mastodon/Other services from this MBin account and interact with them time from time
-
So you didn’t mean to reply to me in the first place?
I did, I was making a comparison how comments words such as “meta” and “threads” shouldn’t be owned by corporations
-
I did, I was making a comparison how comments words such as “meta” and “threads” shouldn’t be owned by corporations
Whilst I agree that they shouldn’t, it’s a fact that Threads exists and, as far as I know, is not part of the Threadiverse but is in an adjacent space. To the point where I personally, someone involved in the Fediverse, am not sure whether it communicates with the “Threadiverse”. Mastodon does, for example.
If we were talking about a family of phones called “Threads” then that wouldn’t be all that confusing, but when it’s another social app then it’s a mess.
-
Whilst I agree that they shouldn’t, it’s a fact that Threads exists and, as far as I know, is not part of the Threadiverse but is in an adjacent space. To the point where I personally, someone involved in the Fediverse, am not sure whether it communicates with the “Threadiverse”. Mastodon does, for example.
If we were talking about a family of phones called “Threads” then that wouldn’t be all that confusing, but when it’s another social app then it’s a mess.
Is Zuck still using the term Threadiverse? If it was a one-off, then I’d write it off and take back the darn term.
-
Whilst I agree that they shouldn’t, it’s a fact that Threads exists and, as far as I know, is not part of the Threadiverse but is in an adjacent space. To the point where I personally, someone involved in the Fediverse, am not sure whether it communicates with the “Threadiverse”. Mastodon does, for example.
If we were talking about a family of phones called “Threads” then that wouldn’t be all that confusing, but when it’s another social app then it’s a mess.
To the point where I personally, someone involved in the Fediverse, am not sure whether it communicates with the “Threadiverse”. Mastodon does, for example.
If you count Mastodon, then Threads does indeed communicate with the Threadiverse. Here on Mbin, I can find federated accounts from there, like this totally random guy which do have actual posts. So looks like everything is federating over well.
