Nothing about ActivityPub is specifically "twitter-like". In fact the protocol itself, if anything, is way more facebook-like than twitter-like (and largely derives from the facebook-like pump.io). It just so happens that the largest implementors are Twitter-like. But that's not reflective of any protocol restriction. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16836027
We also designed the thing *so Diaspora could adopt it*, even though that didn't happen.
That's not a hit on Diaspora, which moved forward with their protocol because a lot of work had gone into it, but there's a lot of FUD that's gone around that "well Diaspora couldn't use ActivityPub because it's not Facebook-like". I have yet to see anything in Diaspora or anything else facebook-like that couldn't be handled by the AP protocol.
@cwebber I guess you already read this blog post by one of their maintainers? https://schub.io/blog/2018/02/01/activitypub-one-protocol-to-rule-them-all.html
@schmittlauch ok, maybe not ton... just a bunch :)
The thing is, as someone trying to implement an ActivityPub server, most (not all) of that matches my understanding. So if multiple people are coming to the same conclusions, it's either a problem with the spec, with the writing in the spec, or with the other documentation surrounding the spec.
@gcupc @schmittlauch I suppose either I need to reply to it, or even better, we should talk about it on a SocialCG call.
@cwebber
@schmittlauch
A reply would reach a wider audience, as long as you've already spoken to OP.
@schmittlauch @cwebber If I remember correctly that post made me 
from how wrong and also condescending it was
@schmittlauch I did and we talked about it. the post has a ton of things wrong, though at least it's thoughtfully written. I've meant to reply to it but... so little time :(