would it be simpler for people if we said "server" instead of "instance"?
or maybe some other terminology would be better? lots of people get confused when you ask them to choose an instance, sometimes I think even the word "proxy", "host", or "hub" is simpler
the specific terms aren't my point, just a discussion to see if we can come up with a better name
I don't think it's about the term, "server" and "instance" both make sense to me. The issue is that the fediverse itself is pretty confusing.
The basics? Great: it's vaguely "IRC but persistent", all good.
But for starters it's hard to keep track of which instances actually exist - new ones pop up and old ones die at the drop of a hat.
Then there's differences in feature sets (lemmy vs kbin and whatever else) that happen to be ActivityPub compliant or whatever. kbin notably doesn't federate downvotes, for example. And all this software is still relatively immature.
Then there's the actual "who federates/defederates whom and why" debacle. This results in a lot of obvious and some less obvious visibility issues.
Then there's (other) individual instance politics.
Then there's the "meta" about all of this, which is getting confusing.
A couple of these will have parallels on e.g. Reddit - I assume this is the natural comparison to make and will keep being so for a while - like sub drama and the relationship between subs. But because the FV has this at the instance level, (and each instance has many "subs",) it's a whole level up in complexity.
Then there's how all of this makes for a pretty un-reddit-like experience - and Reddit is not the king of polish, either. While Reddit has duplicate subs, it doesn't have a design that almost automatically causes them to be created and distributed, across instances without actually correlating them afterwards. The end result is that subbing or blocking any one community will likely involve doing that manually on several instances, which is stupidly inconvenient. Also discoverability is much trickier which is worsened by the low activity.
My point is: call it what you want, but a) I don't think that's where the confusion is coming from - that's just the fediverse being confusing (and outright clunky in many regards), and b) obligatory XKCD "Standards".
I don’t think it’s about the term, “server” and “instance” both make sense to me. The issue is that the fediverse itself is pretty confusing.
Personally, I've been using the words "site" or "website", because I think highlighting the fact that each instance is its own independent website clarifies the issue to a large degree.
But you're 100% right. It just doesn't alleviate the sense of overwhelm people feel. And I don't know that anything really will, except for repeated and continued exposure, because networks of quasi-independent actors are complicated things, and the world is now full of people who have experienced the internet as little more than 5 insulated websites. The mental model that people have for social media is just "everyone's reliably using the same website as me". The idea that different social media websites are communicating with each other, and also that those social media websites don't have a billion accounts -- and don't need a billion accounts in order to be viable -- is just... alien. To the point where even those of us who are engaging in the experiment kind of sweep the essence of the space under the rug, you know? Everyone treats "Mastodon" as a singular location. This here is "Lemmy". "kbin" is over there, at a particular URL. If we treated the rest of the internet with this level of abstraction, I'd have to tell you that I was "On Firefox" right now, or telling my wife about this meme I saw "On macOS", or "at my desk".
And like, sure, some of us have a deeper internal understanding of federated social media. We heavily used IRC in the past, or get grok how email works, or whatever, but the fact that we still all kind of collectively brush aside the heterogeneous and quasi-independent nature of the network when actually using it in practice I think speaks to just how heady it all really is. And I'm not sure there's a linguistic solution to it. It's just an incredibly messy space in a world where people crave simplicity.
Personally, I’ve been using the words “site” or “website”, because I think highlighting the fact that each instance is its own independent website clarifies the issue to a large degree.
But that goes against the original point of the fediverse IMO, which was to make a resilient social media platform where it doesn't really matter what instance you join, you'll get the same content. If we treat them as separate sites, then we should probably remove the federation entirely and just have duplicates of communities at each instance and just handle things on the frontend with links.
So I think it failed at its original goal, and now it's some weird mix of separate sites and a large, decentralized ecosystem. People aren't sure if there should be separate, smaller communities or larger communities organized by instance, and we end up with a weird mix of the two (multiple, large-ish communities targeting a similar goal).
I'm not here because I think the model is the right direction, I'm here because it's better (for my priorities) than available alternatives. What I want is decentralized Reddit (i.e. one namespace for all communities, but not hosted in one location), but my options are centralized or federated services. I want the complexity abstracted from me, not in my face like it is here on Lemmy.
"Server" has sadly been misappropriated by Discord to mean something like group, and a younger generation grew up on that and would be even more confused by that than "instance" (as seen by countless attempts to explain "server" in a federated chat context).
it’s kinda vaguely similar though… a fediverse instance is moderated by the instance admins, just like a discord server (though discord has a level of admin above server mod/admin i’m not sure that distinction matters for the general user)
It's arguably used wrongly on Discord, but not in a way that's radically different from how I already thought about "servers" in the sense of "something you connect to".
It seems more like a term they picked because it has that familiar sense. Otherwise I think there's a semi-official term, "guild", too.
For me:
But also me:
Discord = I do not understand. It's like if you mashed IM and IRC together, but broken, and doing nothing well. Why anyone uses it is perplexing.
And an instance could be hosted on multiple servers.
I get what you mean but no one can check easily if two instances are on the same physical server. At least no one that requires a simplification in what we call instances. Unless I misunderstood what you meant.
Hey, everyone! Get in here! We're building a bikeshed!
The word instance is fine, and makes sense if you think about it for five seconds.
Asking potential new users to think for 5 seconds is sometimes a tall order lol
And an excellent filter.
Look man, I'm super tech-savvy and I straight-up almost never made it over here from reddit because the explanation of it that someone was giving just sounded shitty and convoluted. Now think about how much effort someone who uses Gmail as a substitute for knowing how email works is willing to put in.
I have met many people who refer to themselves as super tech-savvy, it usually means the conversation is going to be a lot of nodding and smiling on my part.
Obviously I don't know you, but your comment gives me that vibe.
Now on topic, why does growth matter? Who cares about the tech illiterate? Big doesn't mean good.
Every site I've been part of has been a better experience when limited to erudite access.
If a person cannot think for five seconds of their time, what value do they bring?
My vote goes to server, though with a little explanation as to why everyone calls them instances.
Easier onboarding, but still nudging users to understand how it all works.
Does that make sense? I don't really know how to articulate the idea properly
I think provider might be a better world. It's less of a technical term, and everyone knows what's the difference between mobile service providers, internet/cable TV providers, and such.
If you tell me I have to choose a Lemmy provider I'll immediately assume you have to pay for it
provider maybe?
"Provider" is the best alternative to "instance" I've seen. I'm down with provider.
Service provider? "Please select your Lemmy service provider".
that actually sounds like a good way to call them
I had thought of provider myself, people seem to be happy with having an email provider and it's not that different a concept.
Rewording it doesn't really help.
Old adage...People don't want choices, they want what they want.
Every time you ask a question you lose a chunk of your audience. With something like lemmy, they want to look at messages and respond. Let them do that. Encourage them to choose an instance later, when they're equipped to make that choice.
Yes that's a hard problem with federation.. mastodon went for a default instance as a solution. There are likely better ones but that's a problem lots of people are working on.
mastodon can do default instances because they have the account migration process… i totally agree this is a great solution: get people in with sane defaults, and then let people move once they know how it works
there will be plenty of people that don’t move (or maybe that’s solvable too: analyse your toots and suggest a more niche instance after 2mo?) but i’m not sure that’s a huge problem if your “default instance” is more of a random choice from a list of sane defaults
you're right about people making choices, but I still think the word choice matters, I've told people about Lemmy before and they always ask what an instance is
What you describe is catering to the marginal user: https://nothinghuman.substack.com/p/the-tyranny-of-the-marginal-user
Luckily the Fediverse doesn't have to grow at all costs and can aim for more long term goals.
yes and no… we don’t have revenue goals, but we have goals for the fediverse and we have the social media critical mass problem: you have to hit a critical mass before you become indispensable… if people try the fediverse and there’s not enough content, they tend to just leave rather than stick with it
"Instance" seems too jargon-y to me as well, and "proxy" is even worse. "Server" and "host" are probably a little more familiar, but are still technical language.
Confusion doesn't stem from individual words; people need explanations and examples, but, as an alternative to "instance", if you want to extend the "communities" metaphor, then "society" as a cluster of communities is a natural option, particularly since it relates to the widely understood concept of social media. Since most people using the Internet also know what a web "site" is, you could use the sibilant linguistic association to help cement the notion:—
Each society has its own web site, such as:
aussie.zone, where the communities relate to Australia;programming.dev, where the communities discuss software development;- and
lemmy.film, where the communites are about movies.You can choose which society you want to join, although some will ask you to fill out an application. Most societies have connections to others, meaning that you can discuss things with people who are part of different societies. Often, you'll recognise them by their username saying that they're at (@) another site. Not all societies get along with one another, so which one you join will also affect who you can talk with.
Each society has its own rules it expects you to follow, whether you are a member of that society or just visiting.
This kind of language seems more intuitive to me anyway, although when I've tried describing instances and federation before now, I've likened instances to countries:—
You choose somewhere to live (and you can move later if you want). If there's a cross-border agreement, then you can send messages back and forth between people in each place.
but this has also meant stressing that your instance "country" doesn't have to match where you physically live, so a more general term probably would have been more useful.
I'm not so sure about changing the terminology, but if we did, I think it should be a word that implies what the situation is: That the instance they pick isn't a walled garden in itself, but just an access point to the wider connected Lemmyverse. I think that was a common confusion point for most of us when we first heard of Lemmy.
So... "access point"? Or "gateway"? Or for a milder change, going from "instance" to "default instance" might get the point across.
if we wanted to keep the word instance then yea "default instance" isn't bad, or maybe "home instance"
"Home instance" is the terminology I use.
Matrix use the term of "homeserver" too
Server
Portal
Host
Those would be my suggestions.
"House of"
House of Dbzer0
House of Beehaw
House of Shit Just Works
We do not federate with Meta
I'm not a fan of "portal" since that implies that there isn't much difference in which one you pick. For example, it doesn't really matter which Matrix server I create my account on, I'll have access to the same content.
A Lemmy instance is quite important to the experience since admins can hide certain types of content (word filters, instance blocking, etc), have different rules, etc.
When I think of "portal," I think of something like an ISP, web browser, messaging client, etc. They all connect to the same place, and outside of a few cosmetic differences, they essentially do the same thing.
Call servers "Lemmy Service Providers" and people might make the connection with what ISPs do.
High Availability stans are angry about your question.
Basically... both options are ambiguous. Would be best if they used a more unique name. Like a burrow (many lemmings build burrows).
I kinda don't hate the idea of coming up with our own unique name like Burrow, feels like something Apple would do lol. But then it wouldn't be a common term across the fediverse, and also I feel like it would require explanation and then you'd have to choose how to explain it anyways, and you'd still have to use a word like server, instance, portal, provider, etc.
Both sever and instance have multiple meanings when it comes to deploying Lemmy though.
An instance is running Lemmy publicly, but also just running the APU creates an instance of that API. To scale, you'd probably run multiple instances of the web API.
Same applies to server, but worse. You could also call the web API a web server. You could also call a VM a server. You could also call the physical machine a VM is on a server.
When it comes to naming stuff, it's best to find something unambiguous if it's a core defining thing you want to tell people about. Private corps do this to build a "brand", which is still a valuable thing for open projects so that they can gain adoption.
I think "server" is basic and simple. I'm using that one.
I have a slight preference for server but I've been using both terms frequently and interchangeably. Whenever I start talking about this server and that instance, I often end up using the term several times in rapid succession. As all good writers know, widening ones vocabulary in such situations helps give the text a better flow. It's good to have multiple terms for any given concept to avoid excessive repetition when trying to explain things.