Seeing some push back here on the idea of confusing things with more terms than just “fediverse”. I get that. The problem is that that cat is very much out of the bag. Surely, for the vast majority of people that have any awareness of the fediverse, they think it’s just Mastodon.
Either way, “Mastodon” is a much larger “brand” than “fediverse” or anything else on the fediverse. So trying to get some conceptual branding going makes sense. It make things more clear, as the idea of the fediverse itself is kinda fuzzy and complex and probably best left out at the beginning. It’s a little bit like the matrix, you have to see it with your own eyes, IMO.
So, my lame contribution … ****Threadiverse!**: “Social media, but woven into threads, like Reddit or Forums, not like the chaos of Twitter, but all on the Fediverse so you can find anyone else doing anything else too.”
I just prefer fediverse, because it refers to the common network of apps and services speaking the same language: activitypub. There’s not really any such thing as the “threadiverse”, because lemmy can talk to mastodon, friendica, peertube, discourse, gnusocial, plerome, wordpress, lotide…
A lot of these have communities just like lemmy, and choosing to layout comments flat vs in a tree, is entirely a UI consideration for many of them. So if the thing distinguishing “threadiverse” is just comment trees and communities, then a lot of fediverse services already have those.
I think there is a fundamental division between services for following people and services for participating in groups.
You are right that some of it is a UI consideration, but not all of it.
A lot of the above have communities in various forms, and they predate lemmy.
