Hot take: naming doesn’t matter.
-
Hot take: naming doesn’t matter. The term “fediverse” is goofy and nerdy *and fine, actually.*
You use the “Internet” every day. “Email” is ubiquitous. We install “apps” on “phones.” You ask for the “Wi-Fi password.” These are all goofy names, yet nobody bats an eye.
What we call something doesn’t factor into its adoption as much as nerds would have you think. But arguing about naming is easier than doing all of the *other* work required for adoption.
-
Hot take: naming doesn’t matter. The term “fediverse” is goofy and nerdy *and fine, actually.*
You use the “Internet” every day. “Email” is ubiquitous. We install “apps” on “phones.” You ask for the “Wi-Fi password.” These are all goofy names, yet nobody bats an eye.
What we call something doesn’t factor into its adoption as much as nerds would have you think. But arguing about naming is easier than doing all of the *other* work required for adoption.
@cassidy Who else is old enough to remember the internet comments saying “Twitter will never have mainstream appeal with a stupid name like that”?
-
Hot take: naming doesn’t matter. The term “fediverse” is goofy and nerdy *and fine, actually.*
You use the “Internet” every day. “Email” is ubiquitous. We install “apps” on “phones.” You ask for the “Wi-Fi password.” These are all goofy names, yet nobody bats an eye.
What we call something doesn’t factor into its adoption as much as nerds would have you think. But arguing about naming is easier than doing all of the *other* work required for adoption.
@cassidy I just call this "the nerd Internet". It's close enough to let folks self-select whether they want to ask me how to join, or not.
-
Hot take: naming doesn’t matter. The term “fediverse” is goofy and nerdy *and fine, actually.*
You use the “Internet” every day. “Email” is ubiquitous. We install “apps” on “phones.” You ask for the “Wi-Fi password.” These are all goofy names, yet nobody bats an eye.
What we call something doesn’t factor into its adoption as much as nerds would have you think. But arguing about naming is easier than doing all of the *other* work required for adoption.
but also names that do some of the work of explaining a new concept can be great.
I find it strange to call tools that are more intended for private communications...media. twitter was social media (people wanting to go viral and have others boost them) while the way most people use facebook is social networking with friends and family. using one term confuses things, especially re moderation.
-
Hot take: naming doesn’t matter. The term “fediverse” is goofy and nerdy *and fine, actually.*
You use the “Internet” every day. “Email” is ubiquitous. We install “apps” on “phones.” You ask for the “Wi-Fi password.” These are all goofy names, yet nobody bats an eye.
What we call something doesn’t factor into its adoption as much as nerds would have you think. But arguing about naming is easier than doing all of the *other* work required for adoption.
@cassidy@mastodon.blaede.family wat who is complaining about the name Fediverse??
-
Hot take: naming doesn’t matter. The term “fediverse” is goofy and nerdy *and fine, actually.*
You use the “Internet” every day. “Email” is ubiquitous. We install “apps” on “phones.” You ask for the “Wi-Fi password.” These are all goofy names, yet nobody bats an eye.
What we call something doesn’t factor into its adoption as much as nerds would have you think. But arguing about naming is easier than doing all of the *other* work required for adoption.
@cassidy Bingo. Additionally, it has been my experience that the biggest factor is easy of onboarding and "are my friends there?"
Those two have been part of the great geek divide since BBS in my experience.
As a geek, historically, my own family fand friends reflect these two truths deeply.
From BBS to IRC to the various social networks over the years. Sadly, folks are conditioned with select expectations.
-
Hot take: naming doesn’t matter. The term “fediverse” is goofy and nerdy *and fine, actually.*
You use the “Internet” every day. “Email” is ubiquitous. We install “apps” on “phones.” You ask for the “Wi-Fi password.” These are all goofy names, yet nobody bats an eye.
What we call something doesn’t factor into its adoption as much as nerds would have you think. But arguing about naming is easier than doing all of the *other* work required for adoption.
@cassidy it only need to be easy to remember that's all
-
Hot take: naming doesn’t matter. The term “fediverse” is goofy and nerdy *and fine, actually.*
You use the “Internet” every day. “Email” is ubiquitous. We install “apps” on “phones.” You ask for the “Wi-Fi password.” These are all goofy names, yet nobody bats an eye.
What we call something doesn’t factor into its adoption as much as nerds would have you think. But arguing about naming is easier than doing all of the *other* work required for adoption.
@cassidy I dont think the name fediverse is the problem. It's how people try to describe the concept. That's what turns "normies" off.
-
Hot take: naming doesn’t matter. The term “fediverse” is goofy and nerdy *and fine, actually.*
You use the “Internet” every day. “Email” is ubiquitous. We install “apps” on “phones.” You ask for the “Wi-Fi password.” These are all goofy names, yet nobody bats an eye.
What we call something doesn’t factor into its adoption as much as nerds would have you think. But arguing about naming is easier than doing all of the *other* work required for adoption.
Of course “doesn’t matter” is over generalizing (500 character limit here!). My point is that it matters a whole lot less than we want to admit. “Microsoft” is a hysterically terrible name. “Google” is such a nerdy in-joke. “Apple” is meaningless. “Facebook” is a bit on the nose.
What will matter more for the fediverse is not what it is called—it’s who people can connect with across what apps and sites that they enjoy using.
-
Hot take: naming doesn’t matter. The term “fediverse” is goofy and nerdy *and fine, actually.*
You use the “Internet” every day. “Email” is ubiquitous. We install “apps” on “phones.” You ask for the “Wi-Fi password.” These are all goofy names, yet nobody bats an eye.
What we call something doesn’t factor into its adoption as much as nerds would have you think. But arguing about naming is easier than doing all of the *other* work required for adoption.
@cassidy there are people making that argument?
-
but also names that do some of the work of explaining a new concept can be great.
I find it strange to call tools that are more intended for private communications...media. twitter was social media (people wanting to go viral and have others boost them) while the way most people use facebook is social networking with friends and family. using one term confuses things, especially re moderation.
@wjmaggos yeah, I definitely favor “social network” over “social media.” And I appreciate the sentiment behind “social web!”
-
@cassidy@mastodon.blaede.family wat who is complaining about the name Fediverse??
@egee nerds
-
@cassidy I dont think the name fediverse is the problem. It's how people try to describe the concept. That's what turns "normies" off.
I would go further and say that if you have to try to describe the concept of the fediverse itself instead of focusing on the people and experience, you’ve already probably failed.
But if you must: it’s a social network. You can find your friends and make new ones from thousands of smaller sites because they all work together.
-
Of course “doesn’t matter” is over generalizing (500 character limit here!). My point is that it matters a whole lot less than we want to admit. “Microsoft” is a hysterically terrible name. “Google” is such a nerdy in-joke. “Apple” is meaningless. “Facebook” is a bit on the nose.
What will matter more for the fediverse is not what it is called—it’s who people can connect with across what apps and sites that they enjoy using.
This is also about the name “Flathub.”
-
Hot take: naming doesn’t matter. The term “fediverse” is goofy and nerdy *and fine, actually.*
You use the “Internet” every day. “Email” is ubiquitous. We install “apps” on “phones.” You ask for the “Wi-Fi password.” These are all goofy names, yet nobody bats an eye.
What we call something doesn’t factor into its adoption as much as nerds would have you think. But arguing about naming is easier than doing all of the *other* work required for adoption.
@cassidy "webinar"
-
@cassidy "webinar"
@dcbaok okay I do categorically refuse to engage with anything described as a webinar, but will happily watch a live stream.
-
Hot take: naming doesn’t matter. The term “fediverse” is goofy and nerdy *and fine, actually.*
You use the “Internet” every day. “Email” is ubiquitous. We install “apps” on “phones.” You ask for the “Wi-Fi password.” These are all goofy names, yet nobody bats an eye.
What we call something doesn’t factor into its adoption as much as nerds would have you think. But arguing about naming is easier than doing all of the *other* work required for adoption.
@cassidy All of this is fine, but fast casual restaurant chains co-opting “apps” to mean “appetizers” prompts me to find somebody to punch in the throat.
-
Hot take: naming doesn’t matter. The term “fediverse” is goofy and nerdy *and fine, actually.*
You use the “Internet” every day. “Email” is ubiquitous. We install “apps” on “phones.” You ask for the “Wi-Fi password.” These are all goofy names, yet nobody bats an eye.
What we call something doesn’t factor into its adoption as much as nerds would have you think. But arguing about naming is easier than doing all of the *other* work required for adoption.
@cassidy besides everyone will just call it mastodon anyway
-
Hot take: naming doesn’t matter. The term “fediverse” is goofy and nerdy *and fine, actually.*
You use the “Internet” every day. “Email” is ubiquitous. We install “apps” on “phones.” You ask for the “Wi-Fi password.” These are all goofy names, yet nobody bats an eye.
What we call something doesn’t factor into its adoption as much as nerds would have you think. But arguing about naming is easier than doing all of the *other* work required for adoption.
@cassidy
I was convinced that iPads wouldn't be successful on account of the name. That taught me exactly how wrong I was about names making much of a difference -
@therieau I mean… it’s possible restaurants have been using that term since before 2008?
