When illustrating the Fediverse as a network, what should the nodes be?

[gaditb@icosahedron.website]

@evan I know I mean, functionally.

If I draw something that's a map of Ellenville and label it Springfield it still works as a map of Ellenville.

(And like, it's a (maybe, I assume) map of the developer communities/social landscape around the software construction /of Fediverse software in particular/, so arguably that's not an inaccurate label on it...)

[evan@cosocial.ca]

@gaditb You asked for clarification, and I gave you an example of the kind of diagram I meant, from https://www.britannica.com/technology/fediverse .

There are a lot of others. This is not an unusual way for people to diagram the Fediverse. Here's the one from Wikipedia.

Fediverse - Wikipedia

(en.wikipedia.org)

I think the people who made these diagrams intended them to be diagrams of the Fediverse, which is why they labelled them "The Fediverse".

[evan@cosocial.ca]

@andypiper I think it's better too!

[gaditb@icosahedron.website]

@evan Oh! Sorry, I thought that was like, an example of what you were thinking about in the conversation ij general. I didn't realize you meant it as example-of-existing-usage, my bad.

[rickscully@heads.social]

@evan Wow. This is a tough one. Bravo.

[evan@cosocial.ca]

@rickscully Thank you!

[tassoman@orwell.fun]

@evan@cosocial.ca @andypiper@macaw.social didn't found servers then I chose softwares diversity must be clear. I'm bored of CEOs and branding.
Communities.

[aeva@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@evan i picked people, because ultimately federation is the implementation detail and people communicating is the reason why any of us are here, not vice versa. buuut it really depends on what the diagram is meant to communicate and to whom

[aeva@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@evan I think Topics could just as well have the same rational, and it's interesting to me that it has scored so low so far.

[mayintoronto@beige.party]

@evan What are nodes in this case?

[deborahh@cosocial.ca]

@evan @mayintoronto but I wish the geeky "instances" word could be made more general-public friendly.

[virtuous_sloth@cosocial.ca]

@evan I'm a fan of making diagrams information-dense, so I'd want to try to illustrate (or even better, animate) all of the above. Have instance nodes be their software logos but labelled with their domains. Show people connecting to their own instances using phones or PCs. Show them creating posts, animate them flying across the fediverse. Show hashtags being used. Show different software instances interacting. Maybe try to animate a whole follow post sequence for individuals and hashtags.

[jamesmarshall@sfba.social]

@evan depends on what the illustration is being used for. For a generic usage, I would say people and instances. I chose "people", since ultimately that's the point.

[stefan@stefanbohacek.online]

@evan @andypiper Same here, definitely prefer "servers" to "instances", but my favorite is "communities".

[terryhancock@realsocial.life]

@evan
(Instances)
Of course, the answer is always really going to be "It depends on what you are illustrating".

If the point is interoperability, then "software" makes sense, for example.

[catmisgivings@stranger.social]

@aeva @evan so much this. People are the "what" or the "who"; instances are the "how".

Although you could do both, it is very much more important to me to draw how I know Ben than line-trace wires from one instance to another.

[evan@cosocial.ca]

@mayintoronto that's the question!

[mayintoronto@beige.party]

@evan oh I see!

[mayintoronto@beige.party]

@evan In that case, I'd argue the nodes are clusters of people who eventually end up following each other due repeat interactions.

There are probably identifiable individuals who would be central to several nodes of people who gather around central interests!

[deborahh@cosocial.ca]

@mayintoronto @evan so, I was thinking in terms of visibility and moderation.

But in terms of function, I'm with May. It's a social-graph isn't it?