4 ms·

This may seem trivial, but the name "Mastodon" never quite works for me. Compared to "Twitter" it is less descriptive and has an extra syllable. That might not

This may seem trivial, but the name "Mastodon" never quite works for me. Compared to "Twitter" it is less descriptive and has an extra syllable. That might not seem important, but to achieve scale it might be off-putting to prospective users. Also, anyone familiar with the term "mastodon" knows it refers to an extinct mamal, aka "a dinosaur". Possibly a not great look. Whether a new name would even be possible at this point is not something that I have an informed opinion on. Disclosure: I dont use Mastodon or Twitter, or basically any social media.

fragmede 3y ago
What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.
- muzani 3y ago
  That's a "rose" though. We call the common lantana "chicken shit flower". I don't know what it smells like, but I'm biased against it. I guess same goes for names like GIMP.
- 111111IIIIIII 3y ago
  Put differently: "I've never studied advertising, psychology, or the history of consumerism."
111111IIIIIII 3y ago
Mastodon was absolutely doomed from the start due to the name alone. I despise the superficiality of our society at least as much as anybody else, but I worked in advertising for 6 years and I'm under no delusions about what happens when you willfully ignore the repercussions of such a superficial society.
rchaud 3y ago
Twitter was a bird, like a messenger pigeon, not exactly a fresh reference. The name is not important. Twitter took off because news websites used footage of the 2009 protests in Iran, which were posted to Twitter first. Then came the 2011 Arab Spring and the 2012 US Pres election, which solidified its influence.
- 111111IIIIIII 3y ago
  Regardless Twitter's history, if you want to compete with Twitter then you are shooting yourself in the foot if you refuse to let branding people handle the branding. It would have been such a simple step to take, and the the only reason it wasn't taken is the same ignorance exhibited in your comment.

fragmede 3y ago

What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet.

muzani 3y ago
That's a "rose" though. We call the common lantana "chicken shit flower". I don't know what it smells like, but I'm biased against it. I guess same goes for names like GIMP.
111111IIIIIII 3y ago
Put differently: "I've never studied advertising, psychology, or the history of consumerism."

111111IIIIIII 3y ago

Mastodon was absolutely doomed from the start due to the name alone. I despise the superficiality of our society at least as much as anybody else, but I worked in advertising for 6 years and I'm under no delusions about what happens when you willfully ignore the repercussions of such a superficial society.

rchaud 3y ago

Twitter was a bird, like a messenger pigeon, not exactly a fresh reference. The name is not important. Twitter took off because news websites used footage of the 2009 protests in Iran, which were posted to Twitter first. Then came the 2011 Arab Spring and the 2012 US Pres election, which solidified its influence.

111111IIIIIII 3y ago
Regardless Twitter's history, if you want to compete with Twitter then you are shooting yourself in the foot if you refuse to let branding people handle the branding. It would have been such a simple step to take, and the the only reason it wasn't taken is the same ignorance exhibited in your comment.