julian:discussion of activitypub topics should take place on the fediverse itself.
I agree. As @how said in the against fragmentation topic, SH is part of the fediverse.
imo this is one of those points that sounds better than it actually is. being "on the fediverse" or "part of the fediverse" is a meaningless term without providing specifics. what actually matters here is the distribution and aggregation of resources (posts, threads, and so on). it's not broadly useful to have discussions about activitypub "on the fediverse" if those discussions never end up being seen by the people who want to see them.
for a discussion to end up on socialhub, one of the following needs to happen:
- either someone notifies socialhub that their post should be aggregated
- or socialhub crawls the fediverse and proactively aggregates posts
again, it's a distribution problem. keeping socialhub "in the loop" is necessary if you want your post to end up on socialhub. this can happen via fedi or it can happen via web ui. but it's automatic if you do it via the web ui, whereas if you do it via fedi you have to remember to send your post to the appropriate actor. the UX of participating in actual threads and including aggregators is very bad in the current fedi softwares -- usually, you have to include a mention of the actor who manages the thread in every single post you care to end up there, and there isn't a straightforward way to make that actor aware of old posts. this is why federation without any additional considerations is bad -- it leads to context collapse. you can't consider only federation, but instead you need to consider federation how, and with whom, and with which expectations.
for these reasons, i can't agree that "discussions of activitypub topics should take place on the fediverse" unless/until the fediverse becomes aware of the concept of discussions as separate from reply trees, and subsequently knows where to send all relevant notifications.