this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2025
70 points (93.8% liked)

Fediverse

21917 readers
11 users here now

A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.

Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".

Getting started on Fediverse;

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
deadsuperhero@lemmy.ml
wakest@lemmy.ml
70
Talk about choosing "a community", not "a server" (lemmy.pt)
submitted 3 days ago by Ninguem@lemmy.pt to c/fediverse@lemmy.ml
37 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

It stroke me that saying things like "First, you have to choose a comunity to join the fediverse" might be a better way to ease onboarding nwecommers than "First, you have to choose a server".

Although the latter might be technically more accurate, the former is what people might

  • understand better;
  • ends up being what they're really doing;
  • frighten them less;
  • reinforce the "community" contribution aspect;
  • lead them to better understand the federated aspect as they realize that communities are not isolated and can talk to eachother.

What do you think?

"Let me know in the comments bellow..." - just kidding!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 25 points 3 days ago (1 children)

When you set up email, I think you’d say you “choose a provider” not “a server” even if that’s essentially what you’re doing.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Is there a downside to using the term "provider" when talking about choosing an instance? Ultimately, that is where the difference would be. The entity in charge of the instance needs to be trustworthy and have a moderation style/philosophy that the user agrees with.

[–] Blaze@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 days ago

Provider doesn't really have any downside

[–] Ninguem@lemmy.pt 4 points 3 days ago

And the term would reinforce the need do stick to that entity rules. I agree.