@cheeaun I imagined so, and I'm not surprised.However, I'd still like to try to convince you that it might be useful:1) Mastodon glitch-soc isn't just any fork, but a widely used friendly fork (increasingly widespread! ) that often anticipates features later used by Mastodon classic.2) Mastodon glitch-soc has several features, but the feature that sets it apart is above all: simplified markdown that allows links, bold/italic/monospace, and titles/quotes. It would be enough to introduce just this feature and, obviously, the ability to write long posts.3) Finally, a note on long posts, which I don't know if they're supported by Phanpy. Long posts are adopted by all Mastodon glitch-soc servers for obvious reasons (a formatted post wastes a lot of characters 😅), but they are not a feature of Mastodon glitch-soc, but of all Mastodon servers that decide to "unlock" the standard Mastodon limitation.Of course, I understand that it's already hard work to continue developing such a well-made platform as Phanpy, and I thank you for the work you do. Personally, I don't like people who constantly ask for new features from open source software developers, especially because they usually just ask, without giving anything, and when those features are introduced, they often don't even use them.However, I think implementing some features (which don't necessarily need to be managed by the Phanpy front end) could be useful.I, for my part, will try to do some experiments with Phanpy to see how it works today with glitch-soc instances.@rresoli @lorenzo @ilarioq