S
@linos it is a good thing, for sure 
Had discussions the other day on how federating SocialHub had a bunch of negative side effects. Most notably an overall shift of dev discussions to microblogging where it only increases fragmentation of the discussion, and less cohesion in the community.
Generally speaking "join the fediverse" is a bit meaningless, and we never really looked at the implications of federating. This is catching up in threadiverse efforts, but it is design after code.
@linos @andypiper @silverpill @liaizon @bonfire @evan @peertube
Yes agreed, the discussion should be started from a location where it federates to places where it is archived (forums), as the current conversation is ephemeral, and lost in history tomorrow, link-rotting
@linos @andypiper @silverpill @liaizon @bonfire @evan @peertube
Btw, see also this fediverse idea started by @helge
Btw, tangential.. some time ago I created this sketch to demonstrate a timeline having different types of AP objects on them. Not that that is the best UX, but because apparently everyone thinks in timeline widgets, so as a start
And I just copied these notes to Social coding commons, which is themed to the less technical side of the social web, where people's needs are to be satisfied by the solutions we (co)create. By means of Social experience design. #SX
https://discuss.coding.social/t/the-composable-service-oriented-fediverse/663/2?u=aschrijver
@linos @andypiper @silverpill @liaizon @bonfire @evan @peertube
The issue I see with the Object Links FEP is that it boils down to: "If I know you adhere to the FEP, now I know to apply special logic to as:Link". May work well if we only do (micro)blogging. Is it a good general mechanism for a heterogeneous interoperable social web?
I am thinking more of: "Use existing open standards". Web annotations comes to mind. Specifically an annotation motivatedBy linking.