Emphasizing moderation differences and such are things best left to discover after the user successfully lands onto the fediverse.

At the start they shouldn’t even have to think about what instance they want to land on. We’re approaching it with the mindset that they “want to join Lemmy/Piefed” — that’s not right!

They should want to join a specific community, and the server just happens to be whatever they find first.

Let’s say I like Star Trek. I shouldn’t have to be redirected to startrek.website. I should be able to see the community, think “cool I want to participate”, and sign up, even if where I landed happens to be feddit, db0, or a random NodeBB instance.

Okay that’s fair.

I still think that shying away from the term would just be letting Meta win.

Might be we have to add qualifiers every time we say “threadiverse”…

• threadiverse (not that threads)
• threadiverse (lemmy/piefed/mbin)

Then again I suppose if you have to do that then that defeats the purpose of the term, doesn’t it.

Do you have occasion to talk about the threadiverse to people who do not use threadiverse software?

I usually find the conversation is much more elementary (i.e. “what are open networks”, “what is the fediverse”) and I’d never get into discussions about what the subset of the fediverse known as the threadiverse, is.

[email protected] there’s nothing specifically precluding Lemmy and Piefed from following users.

You can follow users on NodeBB, and in fact because I did worked on Mastodon microblog interop first, the software only gained the ability to follow a category relatively recently.

So [email protected] has a point about it all being the fediverse, because some of what separates Lemmy/Piefed/mbin and Mastodon are artificial.

Eh we all have our opinions although I feel Threadiverse rolls off the tongue better than forumiverse (or foriverse which I also dislike.)

Also the term predates Threads by a full year, but I refuse to let the term die because of that association.