while i'm also keen for message schemas (as blobs referenced by hash), i don't think following the ActivityStreams vocabulary for their messages structures means we need to follow them exactly in every detail. as in, i don't think adopting ActivityStreams is all-or-nothing, i think there's a benefit to just composting our bespoke message structures into something more standard that is well-designed and well-documented.

given that the ActivityStreams vocabulary overlaps with Scuttlebutt in that our message semantics are the same, by following their lead we can free up more energy for us to focus on where we differ from ActivityStreams, it's about choosing our battles. i don't think the structure of how to represent standard message content (notes, articles, profiles, follows, blocks, ignores, likes, dislikes, events, flags, mentions, etc) is a battle worth fighting when our best reinvention is no better than ActivityStreams, i think we have more important battles to fight.