I disagree, I think the state of this discussion thread is about what should be expected given what Fuchsia is and how the project is run.

Firstly, there is little technical discussion of Fuchsia here because there's actually very little to discuss. Fuchsia is, design wise, a pretty ordinary operating system differentiated from Linux mostly by using a microkernel. If you've ever looked at SEL4 then you've got the gist of what's going on here. I'm not aware of any obvious ways Zircon differs from any other microkernel design. Like all such systems it has an inter-component RPC layer (called FIDL) which if you've ever used the Android Binder will look familiar. And it's got a component system. In some ways these upper layers are reminiscent of COM and the whole OS has a bit of a Windows NT 3.1 architectural vibe. That's about all there is to say on the matter.

Fuschia is an oddly unambitious platform. Here's a representative quote from the docs:

"There is no concept of inter-package dependencies because transitive dependency closures have unbounded resolution time"

This statement is technically correct but practically incorrect: when users complain about dependency resolving package managers, they are complaining about out of date packages, broken dependency graphs, centralized repositories and other things. The fact that dependency resolution can be NP-complete in artificially constructed worst case scenarios never comes up because in the real world, dependency resolution takes a few seconds and the problems surface elsewhere. But they found an excuse to avoid doing anything hard or new in the world of software distribution, so they took it.

Elsewhere people promote its ABI stability compared to Linux. Maybe, but this is Google we're talking about. Constantly obsoleting stuff is literally built into their incentive structures, so we should double check that right?

https://fuchsia.dev/s/results?q=deprecated

120 results for deprecated already! Nobody even uses this OS yet and they already changed their mind about APIs all over the place.

The same lack of ambition is visible if we look at the Architectural Principles section of their site. Their principles are: "Secure, Updatable, Inclusive, Pragmatic". That's it. "Secure because capabilities" is a very old discussion with not much to add, and the rest is vague or just not that interesting.

Those principles brings us to the final reason the HN discussion is so lacking in technical depth.

The OP complains that the discussion here is all about politics and wonders in jest if there's a social justice forum where they might find technical discussion of the project. Amusingly the OP's wish is easily satisfied by the Fuschia website itself. Fuschia is by far and away the most ideologically biased operating system project you will have ever had the misfortune to encounter. It is something the world has never seen before, an entire operating system controlled by the hard left. Every single page in the docs has a giant banner across the top saying "Google is committed to advancing racial equity for Black communities". Note the demand for equity, not equal opportunity. Classical liberalism is dead here, tokenism is in. Of only 4 so-called architectural principles one of them is "Inclusive". They make a brave effort to pretend this is actually about technology by claiming that being just a microkernel+RPC is inclusive because they don't provide any language runtimes for the users (i.e. spinning missing features as a form of moral purity). Then it all falls apart and they go back to talking reducing harm and bias via language control - another tenet of hard left thinking.

So let's imagine we're looking for something better, fresher, bolder than Linux, macOS or Windows. We look at Fuschia. What we see is an extremely conservative OS design in which the most modern ideas in it pre-date Linux itself. We see an overwhelmingly political project, run by a company that has in the last year been systematically erasing from its platform crazy wack-jobs like, er, doctors and professors simply because they disagreed with the WHO. And we see that there's no discussion, anywhere, of any features that end users might actually care about.

That's why there's no discussion of technology in this thread.