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

[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?

[miblo@mas.to]

@evan [Instances] I think this maps onto the idea in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Node_(networking) that "many physical network nodes are host computers", in the sense that both a host computer and an instance is the bit on which people have their accounts.

[evan@cosocial.ca]

@stefan @andypiper Servers would have been better. Can we live with instances?

[stefan@stefanbohacek.online]

@evan

I mean, I can definitely live with it. I just wonder if it's an additional concept that will need to be explained when talking about the fediverse with a more general audience.

I feel like I'd probably be saying "instance, also called server" a lot, same as when I sometimes say "Mastodon and the larger fediverse".

Although, admittedly, I'm relying on personal and other anecdotal experience when I assume that less techy people are familiar with "servers". (Eg. Discord using the term, my own conversations at work with non-developers, etc.)

@andypiper