Re: Final thoughts re: FediCon 2025
-
a, we may be talking about slightly different things.
My assertion is that discussions about ActivityPub should take place on the fediverse*.
I think you are asserting that SocialHub discussions shouldn't take place on the fediverse.
And so sure, there is zero ability for SocialHub to proactively pull in posts, but that's a failure of the software, not of the fediverse in general. (FWIW that failure is present in NodeBB too, even though we do have existing discovery tooling.)
I'll admit that it's hard to consume long running discussions on typical microblogging software, and additional steps need to be taken to keep SH in the loop, but that doesn't mean discussions don't happen there.
Because you know as well as I do that discussions do happen there organically, and often, too.
* Additional considerations about "which fediverse" is out of scope of this statement
-
a, we may be talking about slightly different things.
My assertion is that discussions about ActivityPub should take place on the fediverse*.
I think you are asserting that SocialHub discussions shouldn't take place on the fediverse.
And so sure, there is zero ability for SocialHub to proactively pull in posts, but that's a failure of the software, not of the fediverse in general. (FWIW that failure is present in NodeBB too, even though we do have existing discovery tooling.)
I'll admit that it's hard to consume long running discussions on typical microblogging software, and additional steps need to be taken to keep SH in the loop, but that doesn't mean discussions don't happen there.
Because you know as well as I do that discussions do happen there organically, and often, too.
* Additional considerations about "which fediverse" is out of scope of this statement
agreed that it's not broadly useful to have discussions that aren't seen by people who want to see them. It's a two-way problem, keeping SocialHub in the loop and keeping everybody else in the loop as well. It's a good example of what I was talkingn about in the other thread: it's useful to get input on the question of whether or not SocialHub discussions are currenlty meaningfully "on the fediverse" from people who don't have SocialHub accounts!
I'm not sure you need to be able to fully pull in discussions that are happening elsewhere ... for example a link aggregator that combines links to interesting discussions elsewhere with discussions of its own that others can participate isn't as smoothly integrated but could still be useful.
Being able to have threaded, categorized long-form discussions that people who have accounts elsewhere can broadly participate in certainly seems like something that a lot of people want. If that's not possible with current fediverse software then (a) that's disappointing but also (b) now's as good a time as any to work on improving it and this is as good a use case as any.
By contrast it seems to me that most of the potential audience doesn't want non-federated threaded, categorized long-form discussions enough with the people currently active on SocialHub to participate on any kind of regular basis on SH.
