[zdunn]

> The UX is important. It's important that all users have the same one. For link aggregators, you want comments displayed as a tree. For microblogging, flat lists work better, especially when people post "threads", which they do.

That's subjective and exactly the type of thing that could be handled in a client. In both cases you're displaying the exact same data. A microblogging thread may be displayed as a flat list, but it's still a tree like a link aggregator thread.

> I meant a Facebook-style social network. So a platform to post what are essentially blog posts. In ActivityPub, that would be the Article type, which, according to the spec, has no semantic difference from Note. An Article could be created as a Note and vice versa with no semantic difference or loss of data. Just like above, the data is the same and the only distinction is the visual presentation of it.

[grishka]

> That's subjective and exactly the type of thing that could be handled in a client.

There needs to be a web UI of some sort. You need to be able to send people links to things that they can open in their browser with nothing extra installed. It's a hard requirement. You can't require the use of a client app.

[zdunn]

Right, but that doesn't mean the server can't support other post types or leave complex UI to other clients. Each server could fallback to displaying a link to an external post at a bare minimum, or display whatever the `content` field. I'm just arguing that the C2S is perfectly viable and would make the fediverse so much richer and more usable. Using the Masto API to federate only specific types with specific software is limiting the fediverse.