Back

I think one area we need to start re-shaping is how to explain things about the fediverse.

Example, we say:
* Pixelfed is “Instagram-like”
* Mastodon is “Tweetdeck-like” or “Twitter-like”
* Friendica and Hubzilla as “Facebook-like”
* BookWyrm as “Goodreads-like”
* PeerTube as “YouTube-like”

By the way, I'm one of those who explain it this way. ^_~

The way I see it is we are anchoring these different fediverse services to those silo services, when we shouldn't. This, I assume, leads to unfair expectations against the fediverse software.

When Instagram first showed up, I don't recall we called it “Flickr-like”. Or, when Facebook launched, I don't recall it was ever referenced as “Friendster-like” or “MySpace-like”. We treated them as-is, a new service. The lack of an anchor prevented us from having a set of expectations, instead we explored these new services.

However, let's also admit that it makes it easier to explain by using existing services. So, the question is this:

What's the best way to explain Instagram-like, Twitter-like, Facebook-like, and so on, without using more tech words like “microblogging”, “macroblogging“, etc.?

Share your ideas in this thread. Maybe, just maybe, by re-anchoring things to the fediverse, things can be better here and there. It won't be perfect, but it should at least make some difference, right?

---