You're right about "toots," though. At least "tweets" make sense for a site named Twitter, but what is a "toot," a mastodon farting?
You're technically correct. Using Gmail, Drive, Chrome, etc., does place a small burden on those you interact with (when they email you, when you store group project files, etc.)
But there's a whole other level of intrusiveness when you're roaming meatspace with a Google Camera in everyone's face.
Oh, and it's dorky as hell. Glass failed on multiple fronts. For the reasons you listed as well as the parent comment.
I think that privacy should be a greater public concern, but I doubt it was the reason why Google Glass failed to catch on.
There's something viscerally more creepy about having a camera pointed directly in your face at all times. Try holding your cellphone up to random people at about eye level, you'll see that people do in fact find that at least annoying.
>I think that privacy should be a greater public concern, but I doubt it was the reason why Google Glass failed to catch on.
As I recall, it was the only thing people were talking about.
(Also it was very expensive, clunky looking, and buggy. As you say, it's multifaceted.)
For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hZUvuvfDQg
It's also old slang for a drinking bender:
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/on+a+toot
Mastadon really should have done a little more due dilligence before deciding on that term.
Even ignoring that, the word "tweet" viscerally feels light, nimble, quick, and sharp. Toot feels heavier, duller, and more imposing. To end users, the interface is the software and no amount of technical or logistical impressiveness will overcome something being viscerally off-putting. It needs to become attractive in spite of that.
It did, until Twitter spoiled that. Hearing 'tweet' I somehow get associations with 'trump' (also slang for fart in British English, btw) and 'musk' (a strong odor).
[EDIT] nb I don't use Mastodon and don't expect it to take off, but I don't think "toot" is at all the reason for that.
Adoption is really important for social media to succeed and be useful to its users and image is really important for social media adoption, generally, even if not for you. But I guarantee its influenced your choices more than you could feasibly perceive. Would you still use HN if it used the default bootstrap layouts? Or a ton of slick graphics and heavy animations? Would enough other people be put off by it not to bother?
You can't guarantee everything will strike everyone the same way, but there are wrong answers and it's not even mostly subjective. In an alternate Twitter-free universe if someone wanted a noun/verb for a deliberately lightweight communication broadcast into the ether over the internet, I'd bank a grand on marketers agreeing that a cheerful, sharp little chirp from a nimble, energetic bird communicates that better than the plaintive sounding crescendo of a giant plodding extinct earthbound mammal which also is outdated slang for a fart.
Nobody user is out there weight the pros and cons of the post name when deciding a social network— it's all about that first visceral impression that makes people think "this is cool and exciting" or "this is dull and lame."
_.-- ,.--.
.' .' /
| @ |'..--------._
/ \._/ '.
/ .-.- \
( / \ \
\\ '. | #
\\ \ -. /
:\ | )._____.' \
" | / \ | \ )
snd | |./' :__ \.-'
'--'
(hopefully anticipating a "trunk raised, toot blasting" ascii art response worthy of the thread)
While that's not the true meaning behind it, "a mastodon farting" is a good summary for the branding around all these "fediverse" social networks.