The current version is different because I decided to expand it, but circumstances happened, the rest of the updates were put on hold.
“Mycelial Web” and “Mycelium Network”, this one will take longer.
Details:
I ran two or three polls around 2020/2021 because people kept calling on changing the name of the fediverse (mainly by Twitter Migration 2.0). (The instances I ran the polls already went offline, it was one of the reasons I started the Timeline project.)
Someone suggested “mycelium”, and in the final poll, it was the top choice, especially since there’s more recognition about the word thanks to Star Trek: Discovery’s “mycelium network”.
Unfortunately, the people who were complaining how “ugly” and “unwieldy” and “US Fed” the term “Fediverse” is, didn’t follow up (not the poll voters, the Twitter Migration 2.0 people). All they did was complain but when a solution was presented, they did nothing.
A year later, another loud group started redefining the “Fediverse” as “every federated network”. Although there were attempts to this before, it wasn’t as loud (for example, trying to bring in Matrix within the “Fediverse” definition). Even prominent media sites started to redefine the term “Fediverse”, and I am totally against it.
This was why I repurposed “mycelium”. In science, “mycelium” is a single network, while “mycelial” is the plural or collection of “mycelium”.
“Mycelium network” refers to protocol-based networks like “Fediverse” (ActivityPub), “The Federation” (diaspora), Jabber/XMPP, Matrix, The ATmosphere (ATproto), NOSTRich (Nostr), and so on.
“Mycelial Web” refers to all of these different protocol-based federation networks.
Why did I not use “Social Web”? Because as per Wikipedia, it referred to anything that is, well, social web. There was even a foundation built around it called “Open Social”. Any platform who implemented the collection of technologies of open social were called social web.
“Mycelial Web” specifically refers to what I call “DDFON” (I used this since 2012/13/14?) or “Decentralized, Distributed, Federated, Open Network”. “Mycelial Web” became the “friendly name” of “DDFON”. In other words, it’s a subset of Social Web.
Personally, it solves all these arguments about terminologies and definitions.
The Fediverse definition remains the same. It’s just one of many “mycelium network”.
Those who wants to add other networks and/or redefine the term “Fediverse” no longer have to, just call it “Mycelial Web” (or “DDFON”, someone told me it’s better than Mycelial Web).
It is up to anyone if they want to use “Mycelium network” and “Mycelial Web” or “DDFON”. Or, think of another name.
Recently, I warmed up to just redefining “[Open] Social Web” as “DDFON”/“Mycelial Web” since the original definition of “Open Social” / “Social Web” is long dead (even the group was disbanded years ago).
That’s it.
And just to clarify further (or reiterate):
The “Fediverse” was first coined for the OStatus protocol network. Then years later ActivityPub (the successor of OStatus).
I was, am, and always will be in disagreement in redefining the “Fediverse” beyond that.
I am in favour of creating a new terminology to refer to all “DDFON” if no one wants “Mycelium network” and “Mycelial Web”. I’m using it because no one wants to offer a solution, it’s all complaints.
The fact that diaspora calls its own network as “The Federation” and ATproto as “The ATmosphere” (to mention two) is proof that these are not part of the “Fediverse network” but separate.
Creating a bridge between different networks is simply a bridge or a translator. If ATproto wants to be included in the term Fediverse, then they have to implement ActivityPub in the entire ATmosphere network.
To end:
The Fediverse is Ostatus/ActivityPub.
The Federation is diaspora.
Jabber/XMPP is XMPP.
Matrix is Matrix.
The ATmosphere is ATproto.
NISTRich is Nostr.
Separate networks. What should we call them? “DDFON”? “Mycelial Web”? “Open Internet”? “Social Web”?
Social networking: All direct and indirect human interactions between people.
Social web: The full range of open technologies with which to build social networking solutions.
Fediverse: The installed base of open and decentralized social web technologies.
Fedizens: People navigating the fediverse in search of social interaction and participation.
Open social stack: Fediverse technology foundation and commons-based ecosystem.
Solution: Apps & services that are choreographed to fulfill fedizens evolving needs.
Social experience: Solutions that are interwoven in the social fabric of the fediverse.
Social experience design: Sustainability first solution design umbrella for DX, UX and UI.
Social coding: Bringing technosphere in alignment to sociosphere, so that tech meets people.
Peopleverse: Seamless alignment of humane harmonious technology to people’s daily lives.
Human web: Web that can carry the load of a peopleverse and encompass all of mankind.
In addition I should add that I still have and intent to foster a Foundation that is NOT an incorporated entity, such as a non-profit. Here foundation refers to “technology foundation”:
A proposal to erect a Groundwork Labs under umbrella of social coding movement.
(The movement is liaisoned with SocialHub and uses commons-based peer production to grow.)
I totally share this goal, but I think calling it something like"network" is less confusing than “foundation”, which is inexorably tied to US-based incorporations in most people’s minds. I’ve been informally using “fediverse support network” to describe my vision.
What I have in mind is something akin to the LUGs (Linux Users Groups) of the 1990s, based on autonomous mutual support groups in towns and cities. Forming networks of cooperation at country, continent and global scales as needed, for things like coordinating Software Freedom Day events.
Side note: Could we establish a Social Web/ Network Freedom Day?
“Network” might sound techie (one of the usual complaint from non-techies with the terms people came up with).
“Foundation”, in addition to what you’ve said, is also often associated with shell corporations and money laundering.
“Association” is too formal, and I think in some countries there’s a restriction on the usage of the word as part of a group name.
I think “Group” is the most neutral term and fits a non-incorporated and not-for-profit group? Like as mentioned, LUG.
“Open Social Group”
“Open Social Web Group”
“Social Web Group”
Re: Social Web Freedom Day
Maybe the day when the first “Web3 / Social Web” conference in France was held? It was sometime 2005 or earlier, if anyone still remembers it. It was when bringing “social” back to web, and Web3 (the real Web3, not crypto coins), started. IIRC, it was Loic who organized it?
That date is probably the best date to pick. It’s neutral and where it all started.
I would and do call this the openweb and just assume #activertypub and the process that created it, this space is at the centre of this - yes a little imperialist but in a true and good way.
The #NGO and #fahernistas have compunction to do the same, but their agenda is a mess.
The #dotcons agenda is just smoke in this path.
#nothingnew is a social polemical, saving the change and challenge, hashtag for this.
UPDATE - The #4opens is an essential tool for working out what is native and what is not, from this first step we can move on to governance for without this, this space is nothing in a human sense. And tech is made by humans, so it’s pointless from a tech point of view as well #KISS
I specifically refer to fedi.foundation here. Technically fedi.foundation might be such a legal entity, but that is a whole different ballgame. If there were deeply committed interest of a group of people, maybe. But until now there isn’t, and I just need a multi-author online e-zine style portal for Groundwork Labs for now, related to “protocols for social web” fellowship proposal.
I made an issue for a renaming of fedi.founation to “Feast of Diversity” foundations. Plural, to discuss the social pillar of the social web, on its road towards a peopleverse. Thanks for the feedback, Danyl.
One word; Feneas. The federated networks didn’t have the capacity to support that as a legal entity, and I can’t see any reason to think we could support a new one now.
Nor is it what we need IMHO. The main purpose of legal entities is to receive, disburse and account for funding. Surely there are plenty of existing bodies we can use for that if needed?
You may be right. But FWIW the first time I came across the word “network” was in the names of loose coalitions of activist groups. This was common usage years before we started using the net.
Well, FENEAS is not there anymore, but petites singularités is. It must depend how you handle your stuff. For one, I would welcome a (European) legal entity, so that I can pass on the SocialHub to it and make the community responsible for it. I hate to say that, but when you have to pay to keep things running, maybe you care a bit more for them – Georg Simmel anyone? After six years, it’s time that people take responsibility and carefoo. So, if the argument is that legal entities come and go, I could take a myriad other counter-examples.
Totally understand where you are coming from. Except in practice “make community responsible via non-profit they run themselves” requires 1) a community and 2) in practice work horses that do the vast majorities of chores and take financial and operational responsibility. They must do fundraising in a hostile funding environment as ‘community’ isn’t valued as it should (which is also understandable given how community structures need a lot of funding because good operations is near full-time job. And effective community building and animating - which isn’t community-done-best i.e. upheld with extraneous force, but it works. There is hardly interest to form a group of 5 people on any manageable subject, let alone taking on financial and legal burden of a full non-profit institution.
Now I DO think such an institution might be viable… but under very different conditions than we have now.
@JoinFediverseWiki has offered to have the organisation they’re part of, Fediverse Foundation, take over admin responsibility for SH. So if that’s what you want, let’s make it happen.
And Nomad Network is either Zot Protocol or Nomad Protocol.
Although, it does create a weird situation where Hubzilla, (streams), and Forte, which are continuations of one of the original fediverse platforms, are not considered to be part of the fediverse.
It started with Ostatus, and was the first platforms to adopt ActivityPub, and developed its own Zot Protocol to handle advanced features not available in ActivityPub. It was one of the OG of the fediverse.
protosocial fellowship.