> I thought one of the biggest uses of JSON-LD is SEO, and schema also provides a descent framework for common API structures. I am confused why this attempts t

> I thought one of the biggest uses of JSON-LD is SEO, and schema also provides a descent framework for common API structures. I am confused why this attempts to argue that somehow using JSON-LD might be a bad thing I am not the author but I found it a counterintuitive but legitimate point that as much structured data as possible is not inherently good (even if that's my natural tendency to think so). It's okay if someone scrapes a web UI but keeping in mind use cases (SEO is not among them?*), not wanting to make extra accommodations for machine consumption and wanting to keep data fidelity as low as possible without hurting interoperability between clients sounds as a reasonable goal, and applicable to protocol design too. * From LitePub docs: > An important property of LitePub verses ActivityPub is that messages are intended to be transient, when message handling is properly implemented in this way, significant security advantages over the original ActivityPub approach are achieved, such as message deniability. You can't want both transience and SEO. Those who want the latter may be better served by another solution.