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?
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 vastness 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.
- 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.
-
None of this makes sense to me at all. There’s nothing natural or biological about the fediverse. I think you’re assigning solarpunk values to the fediverse more than is appropriate. This is only a niche within the fediverse.
Technical innovations are often named after representations from nature or society. Take the paper bin on windows or the whole file system. These are all metaphors for complex concepts.
Could be that federation will be the metaphor to go but I think there are better ones out there.
Wait, why are we coming up with a different way to refer to the fediverse? That seems like it would really needlessly muddy and complicate talking about something most people already don’t understand… What’s the benefit to creating an additional name?
I think with these fungi-terms there are much better metaphors attached to it.
Look at videos explaining the Fediverse to people. It’s almost always with a very abstract universe-metaphor. In the mastodon video you have mammoths on islands that communicate with each other. It’s cute but doesn’t make much sense.
The fungi-metaphor is also abstract, but after all, the concept of dezentralized social networks is abstract in itself. But explaining it with something that at least exists in the real world I think could be much more effective.
Its also a nice claim: why are basically trying to implement what nature already does. Now we adapt it for human society. How cool is that? Currently it’s like: there is this very abstract fediverse that’s different than everything that people experience on the web currently but it’s awesome, please join. I don’t find this a very confincing narrative.
I run a fediverse server. It gobbles 60Watts, paid for by my energy company who promise they’re switching to solar, but aren’t there yet.
I get the impression that the fediverse is an adhoc mixture of different email servers talking to each other. Energy-free is a nice ideal, but not a reality.
I’ma gonna go with “adhoc-net”
I think it’s bigger than that. The verge says it will create an open social graph IN the web. I think it could have great potential to transform society for the better.
Your explanation makes sense but I think it doesn’t convey the full potential of it.
[From another comment]
I’m currently writing a short story about the Fediverse.
For literary purposes I would suggest Rhizoverse, based on Deleuze’s and Guattari’s Rhizome philosophical concept.
Ok, looks complicated :D But it sounds good. I will add it to my reading list. Thanks
Ok, looks complicated
Hehe, that’s why I recommended it, it sounds fancy :P.
Fungal Web sounds the best/catchiest, imo
Ok thanks. I think I will take that :)
Honestly, staying away from fungal terms in general is probably for the best, we don’t want people to associate with nft’s
