Zum Inhalt der Seite gehen


It seems like a perfect time to (re)introduce ⁂ as a symbol for the fediverse! Read our proposal at https://symbol.fediverse.info

#fediverse #fedimeta
Dieser Beitrag wurde bearbeitet. (5 Stunden her)
# forever 👍👍👍
I like it. Will spread the word :)
⁂ is called an asterism. In astronomy, it refers to groups of stars in the sky, akin to constellations. We suggest that it’s a very fitting symbol for the fediverse, a galaxy of interconnected spaces which is decentralised and has an astronomically-themed name. It represents several stars coming together, connecting but each their own, without a centre.
Thanks to the interconnected nature of the fediverse, it usually doesn’t matter if someone is a member of one platform or another. What matters is that they can follow each other as part of the fediverse. A single symbol to represent that belonging can often be more relevant than individual icons for each service.

⁂ could be the symbol for the fediverse.
⁂ exists as Unicode U+2042. As a typographical character, not an icon that needs to be inserted as an image, it’s unique-looking but standardised. This means it’s very easy to copy-paste around and insert anywhere! Its design style also automatically adapts to the font used where you insert it.
Dieser Beitrag wurde bearbeitet. (4 Stunden her)
We know at least two previous symbols:

The pentagram icon is the original one, created back in 2018 by @drq and @eudaimon. It’s a great depiction of the decentralised nature of the fediverse! But its design is too complex to be used at small sizes, as you would in text or in a button, and it’s an image.

The other icon was made by Meta in 2024. It incorrectly depicts a centralised network. We also don’t believe that this corporation should be the one defining the iconography of the fediverse.
Two icons:

First, an icon showing five dots, each connected to the other dots with lines, forming a pentagram-shaped network.

Second, an icon showing a circle orbited by two lines and two dots.
Dieser Beitrag wurde bearbeitet. (3 Stunden her)
If you’re interested in our proposal, let’s chat about it! You can use the ⁂ symbol on your webpages and accounts, make badges and buttons, suggest changes for our webpage, make new translations of it, share your favourite ⁂ designs from interesting fonts, etc. Have fun with it!
I just switched the :unverified: emoji to ⁂
Way more 😎

BTW I really like all the meaning behind this symbol 👍
RETVRN (to ancient Sumerian cuneiform) with 𒀯 i.e. U+1202F (see e.g. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%F0%92%80%AF#Sumerian) that is the cuneiform graph consisting of likewise thrice the sign for star and likewise meaning "constellation" :D.

(Although I'm not serious, as an Assyriologist, it's definitely more of a "haha, just kidding... unless..." type of situation)
Dieser Beitrag wurde bearbeitet. (57 Minuten her)
Yeah, it’s totally impossible to use the actual fediverse symbol, :fediverse: , in text. Clearly 🙄
True, we meant outside of fedi, like on another platform or document where you cannot insert inline images, just text.
The other thing is on a visual design standpoint: unless you have a very good screen and very good eyes, the details kind of disappear at that size, the pixels mix up the small details. Hence the idea of a simpler, one-colour, symbol for uses like that.

It’s just a proposal. We have no pretense of replacing everywhere the original pentagram (we cannot insert it on our instance), we actually like it a lot for what it means and how it’s been used by the community.
i hate this trend where every symbol has to be already available in unicode, just because senior nazi of america did it
The timing is unfortunate indeed, but it’s really unrelated, we started talking about this idea in 2022, so absolutely not following any trend started by that monster.
⁂ is just to small. I dont like it.
it's size depends entirely on the thing you are using to look at it like any other piece of text. If used in image you can also change or modify it in many ways and its still recognizable.
While it's true, let rephrase it to "it's to complex for its size in normal text"