I think you misunderstood what I was saying and're assuming this is a point of capability and, fundamentally, it is not. We are talking about features and concepts that are still being built, thought of, and fleshed out; as I said, you are on the bleeding edge.

You are using community-built social media and that means parts are going to have scaffolding still in place; and that means, by necessity, you need to talk about the actual structure of the thing you're using because the abstractions simply haven't been built, yet. If we're talking about a new feature built on a particular platform, it's just a matter of fact that that feature may not've been built into the application/client that mirrors the functionalities that the platform's website provides.

I can sympathize that this level of thought about the structure of the social media one uses isn't generally engaged in but that is a byproduct of what we need to do if we're considering ongoing new features (which is what the original conversation was about); because the polished, final version does not exist yet.

It's not corporations who're building out the features and structures that even exist, at this point in time, and they're being built without the funds and resources that corporations can afford.

What I'm trying (perhaps too wordily) to say is that it's not a matter of working on other platforms because the thing isn't finished, yet, because the people building Voyager are not the people building PieFed so building said features takes coordination and time before they're even able to and that's not a matter of design but a byproduct that this is all community built because we're avoiding the central control afforded to design being built by a powerful but singular entity such as a corporation; so, definitionally – not by choice –, a conversation about a new feature requires us to bear in mind that a website is not an app. and feature parity between the two may not yet've been reached. That's simply unavoidable.