In the short term, they'll be much smaller than Meta's fediverse (because mastodon.social and most of the big instances are federating with Threads) and of course much smaller than Threads. Longer term, we'll see, but I wouldn't expect them to be as big as Threads for a long time if ever.

[–] blue_berry@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (5 children)

Ok, I may have blown the discussion a bit out of proposition earlier. It's just that I thought you meant basically the whole Fediverse. The name "Free Fediverse" is a bit misleading imo.

[–] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, one of my takeaways is that I should have been clearer that this isn't a proposal for the whole fediverse. And not sure what the best term to use is, "free fediverses" is what I'm going with for now (based on the freefediverse.org).

[–] blue_berry@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Free fediverse(s) makes sense, building on top of that already floating term sounds sensible

[–] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

How about this as a revised first sentence to clarify the focus is on an alternative (not the whole fediverse)?

As I discuss in the first post in the series, the "free fediverses" are regions of the fediverse that reject Meta and surveillance capitalism, and these strategies position the free fediverses as an alternative to Threads and "Meta's fediverses".

[–] blue_berry@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Sounds fine at first glance

[–] thenexusofprivacy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 10 months ago

Thanks! I included a slightly-modified version of it in https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/7194307 , we'll see how it goes.

load more comments (3 replies)