Yes and no. Buffer and Hootsuite are 2 players in this game, both allowing to publish or schedule posts based on updates to an RSS feed you configure. Most blogging engines (WordPress, Jekyll, Hugo) come with RSS feed publishing by default.
The tricky part here is the quality of the posts will be bad. Each social network has its own social mores and taboos. Some examples:
Fediverse you refer to Twitter as "birdsite". Anything automated here, unless explicitly called out as a bot account, tends to get ignored as low quality.
Facebook does posts in long-form.
Twitter can thread it to be long-form, but each tweet needs to stand on its own with contributing to the overall narrative. Basic pagination type of splitting sticks out.
LinkedIn... I don't know anyone who posts there that isn't trying to artificially puff themselves up in corporate culture, promote their product/service, or some combination. I'm truly unsure what a "quality" post on there looks like, so go wild.
Basically, posting "<post-title> (<link>)" is probably the most ubiquitous, low effort ways of cross-posting your content but... it's pretty universally understood that it's low quality content and not likely to accomplish the originally intended syndication.
Awesome! Most of the peertube stuff I've found out there has been FramaTube, a couple fringe-interest instances, those ones hosted by the creator which only have the owner's content (which is fine, I just need several instances like this to work), instances with super low bandwidth, instances in <not-my-language>, or some combination of the above.
With the exception of the first one that 404s, every one of these is going to get a lot of use in our house!
Do other peertube instances share the bandwidth or just share links to the original server? Would it make sense for me to setup a peertube instance purely to act as a caching proxy on my network?
Because the alternative is to embed a TLS private key that would allow you to MITM every other one of those devices. Someone extracted it? Looks like you have to either (a) bury your head in the sand or (b) rollout an expensive recall to change certs on those devices.
Why use slightly compromised HTTPS versus plaintext HTTP? Same reason they have those super cheap locks on diaries from the 90s: it's a deterrent. Makes it a little harder to do a bad thing.
A personal favorite response of mine if I don't have any questions left is "no, I think I injected most questions I had as we went along. I was going to ask <thing>, but I think we covered that well already."
This is helpful if you're like me and turn interviews into discussions instead of Q&A sessions. It shows you've considered you might not have the full context just from prior correspondence, while resurfacing a discussion topic for them to expand on if they wish.
The tricky part here is the quality of the posts will be bad. Each social network has its own social mores and taboos. Some examples:
Fediverse you refer to Twitter as "birdsite". Anything automated here, unless explicitly called out as a bot account, tends to get ignored as low quality.
Facebook does posts in long-form.
Twitter can thread it to be long-form, but each tweet needs to stand on its own with contributing to the overall narrative. Basic pagination type of splitting sticks out.
LinkedIn... I don't know anyone who posts there that isn't trying to artificially puff themselves up in corporate culture, promote their product/service, or some combination. I'm truly unsure what a "quality" post on there looks like, so go wild.
Basically, posting "<post-title> (<link>)" is probably the most ubiquitous, low effort ways of cross-posting your content but... it's pretty universally understood that it's low quality content and not likely to accomplish the originally intended syndication.