This post, and your long post in the other thread, have really helped me better understand why some people choose a narrow, gatekeeping, ahistorical ActivityPub-only definition of the Fediverse [1]. Filling in a few things that were left unsaid here …
To me [a white guy], the fediverse is a diverse network of [predominantly white] people [where people of color have documented the long pattern of racism many women find misogynicist, sexist, and filled with reply guys]
We [white people] made an intentional decision, as a social movement [of white people, almost all guys], to converge on one protocol.
So [white] people who care about its history and shared philosophy have to push back.
events [with mostly white male attendees] like the first IndieWebCamp, and the [invitation only. Implementers only] Federated Social Web Summit in 2010
But we [white guys] tend to argue for bringing more apps into the existing [white male dominated, racist, sexist] fediverse
I’m here as a {white male] insider, politely explaining that we [white guys] already tried that , and then found that using one protocol worked better for us [white guys]
etc etc.
So, thanks for taking the time to lay things out so clearly!
EDIT: this post got flagged by a community member. Who could have predicted? As I now understand (thanks to the discussion below), that means it got hidden automatically without moderator interaction. So I’ll edit it to add this line, presumably it’ll get flagged again, and then (if I now understand the community well-being process correctly) moderators will get notified. It’ll be interesting to see how they react! 
[1] I know you don’t think it’s ahistorical, and it’s striking to me to see the intellectual contortions you make to try to try to justify your perspective. But as I said before we’re not going to convince each other on that front so from my perspective there’s no point in debating it.