@eeeee @julian There are topic-specific Lemmy-based websites. startrek.website, ttrpg.network, etc. exist, and function much more like a traditional forum than a catch-all "general purpose" social networking or social media aggregation site, like Facebook or Reddit. And I personally have argued, and continue to argue, that the Reddit model doesn't really work on the Fediverse. That the desire to create a simulacrum of large scale, centralized social media doesn't really scale well once you have multiple websites, and that focusing on a local-first framework is the more logical and more sustainable model long term. I don't think modeling Lemmy communities as being the equivalent of an entire nodeBB website will stand the test of time. The idea that the hosting website matters continues to seep into the thinking of many Lemmy users, and so it should matter to non-Lemmy websites, too. People on Lemmy sometimes ask if there's a way to view communities by hosting site. This is a view that the Reddit-like UI has no natural way of supporting, but forums do. I would love to be able to see remote groups listed as categories in sub-forums ('sections' seems to be the nodeBB jargon?) I've brought up elsewhere, too, about being able to create my own categories-style layout in /world; assigning remote groups to my own pseudo-sections would be amazing. Having the option to have these personalized pseudo-sections show up in the main categories view would be even better. I've also mentioned in the past having a way for regular forum users to 'boost' posts from /world into official forum categories. There are a couple of ways to imagine this, with the most straightforward being just moving/copying the topic into the category, just as admins can currently do. But there's also the cross-post feature from Reddit/Lemmy, where there's a back-link to the original post, and the content displayed in a block quote. I see value in both of those options, though I can't imagine any given forum would want to support both. User pseudo-categories could even be shareable. There's no reason they need to be strictly private (though, of course, users should be able to choose to make them so, if they were shareable). They'd functionally be like lists on Twitter, or custom feeds on Reddit, but with a section/category UI. Or not, I guess -- they could be treated as feeds, too, but I'm kinda sorta very, very over "feeds", personally.

@julian@fietkau.social sunk cost fallacy is a very real thing. In my case I like having more fine-grained control over my own ActivityPub implementation, but that's just an excuse. Truth be told, if Fedify were around when I looked into starting AP integration in NodeBB, I might've gone that direction.

@johnonolan@mastodon.xyz no worries, and thanks! Will do.

@mario@hub.somaton.com of course I think I will need to register a test account on Hubzilla and debug this.

@osma@mas.to the default assumption is that announces are delivered back to the origin server in order to close the loop. However it is not a requirement. For example I am considering not doing so for group announces.

@shoppingtonz@mastodon.social if edits from PieFed aren't reflected here that may be a bug.

@naturzukunft@mastodon.social that's what I plan to do at least at a smaller scale with FEPs that deal with threaded conversations

> Doesn't this mean Mastodon users et al will no longer get boost notifications when their posts are reshared into a topic? Correct, only OP will be shared. Unless I am mistaken this is how Lemmy implemented it. Announce-ing activities only, and one single Announce(Note) for compatibility with Mastodon.