Gregory's ServerSome people prefer to talk about the "social web" instead of the "fediverse".
If you do, do you just prefer one term over another, or do you think "social web" could emcompass more functionality than what today's fediverse can do?
Curious.
 23 comments
@J12t imo fediverse is a concrete implementation, and superset of the concept of social web. fediverse can be used for data. For example, you could repurpose server search to provide a decentralized BDS list. These use cases will expand as more json-ld data types are added and it becomes more robust. @vid interesting! I would have said the fediverse is a subset of the concept of the social web, but I understand your point and example. I think that the Social Web is a much more accessible term, but to me it is also something different. For me, the Fediverse is the part of the social web using and linked together by the Activity Pub protocol. The Social Web is at least theoritically bigger and might include other decentralized networks that don't connect directly with the Fediverse. So, I like the term Social Web better, but I don't think it is interchangable with Fediverse. @stpaultim in this distinction, is the functionality of the "social web" the same as the functionality of the "fediverse", even if there are additional protocols, or is there also additional functionality? My first thought was, I don't know. My second thought is, I don't know, because I don't think we fully understand the potential functionality of the Fediverse yet. I tend to agree with our friends on the Dot Social podcast, that until now the Fediverse had mostly mimiced major social media platforms, but that there is at least the potential for new innovative functionality. Personally, I don't think I've thought enough about what that might be but I'm looking forward to what happens. @stpaultim What I'm really trying to do, as you undoubtedly guessed, is tickle out what kind of ideas people have that are "social" beyond today's fediverse. I love the idea of brainstorming ideas. I expect that to some extent we have to watch what developers are doing. I don't think the current Fediverse is good at allowing folks to form private social groups from the same account they use publiclly. But, this is not a new feature. It's common in other social media platforms, I just haven't seen it implemented well in the Fediverse yet. @J12t I tend to use âsocial webâ to mean the broadest concept of open social infrastructure, and âfediverseâ when Iâm thinking more concretely about ActivityPub. The IndieWeb protocols/formats represent a different corner of the broader social web. As a marketing term, though, Iâd probably always say âsocial webâ in any of those contexts⌠mostly because my instinct is that âfediverseâ is awkward and far too nerdy to get mainstream adoption. @davepeck Same functionality though even if different protocols, or also additional functionality? @davepeck Fediverse functionality today is basically follow, post, reply, like etc.: a fairly small set of features along the lines of Twitter. When you think âsocial webâ, do you think itâs the same set of features (but maybe using also protocols other than ActivityPub), or do you think the social web has / should have more features? If so, which? @J12t Hrm⌠I guess I use âsocial webâ as a broad umbrella term to encompass both todayâs functionality (fediverse, indieweb, etc.) and tomorrowâs potential. I have no doubt weâll see new capabilities both at the protocol layer and above. I do think the stagnation of email protocols (IMAP, maybe SMTP, etc) is worth considering, though: it becomes harder to stretch the underlying protocols if there are 500lbs gorillas (Gmail⌠maybe Threads?) that arenât invested in stretching themselves. @J12t The contemporary answer is that the social web is Facebook/TikTok and that the Fediverse is Mastodon. That is what those terms are associated with when you ask people who donât live in your tech bubble.  @J12t To me, social web sounds like more that just federated instances. It sounds like anything social, on the web. Bulletin boards, git-hub, even twitter and facebook. It doesnt sound specific to Activity Pub instances or platforms. @Scofisticated none. I think integration needs to be added. A thing (such as the âsocial webâ) is not a thing if it only consists of isolated components. @J12t Iâd never heard the term social web but itâs easier on the mind I guess. It simply paints a clearer picture.  @J12t I started using "Social Web" a long time ago -- we had a number of different groups at the W3C with names like "Social Web Interest Group". I think it's a good name, and more recognizable than fediverse for more people. |
@J12t I prefer #opensocialweb mostly because I find the term more accessible (ie. understandable for the masses, familiar, descriptive) and flexible ie. (encompassing different platforms, different ways of being "social"). I guess it is actually the word "open" that stands in for "fediverse". It is the opposite of closed, but not excluding corporate. It is cooperative and also competitive.