>Reasoning that RSS have less clutter.
>Recommends a webclient.
So the question is dear author: how much did Feedly paid for you?
It’s Time to Get Back to RSS
291–300 of 376 posts
Re: It’s Time to Get Back to RSS
#292I've been hosting my own instance of Tiny Tiny RSS ever since Google Reader shut down. Highly recommended. https://tt-rss.org/
Same! Started from: Google reader -> Digg reader -> Ino reader -> tried a bunch of other things and didn't like any -> settled on a self-hosted TT-RSS instance.
Re: It’s Time to Get Back to RSS
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue there was collection of massive amounts of public data by Facebook. Open data APIs can be used to build nice things, if the data isn't user information.
No, it was Cambridge Analytica using the old FB social graph API ("Open Graph") to build a network of people that they could make predictions on. The app "This is your digital life" let people do a psychological profile linked to their FB profile. The Open Graph API then gave Cambridge Analytica to (some of) their friend's data as well, https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/facebook-cambridge-analytica... https://medium.co…
The problem here is that we don’t really have a consensus on what should happen if people share the information they know about you with others without asking you, not that we should not have API access to our own content on social networks.
Re: It’s Time to Get Back to RSS
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do mind such RSS feeds that just try to force people to load the webpage. With the vast majority of my RSS feeds, I never have to leave Emacs’ Elfeed RSS reader to consume daily news. If a feed won't let me see the full content in RSS, then I am more likely to delete the feed than become a pair of eyeballs for the website’s advertisers.
I work on a project to convert partial feeds into full-text versions. It pulls in the article content from each feed item and then creates a new full-text feed. Feel free to try it out here: http://ftr.fivefilters.org/
If somebody chooses to make their (complete) writing available only on their site, I can choose not to read it (and often do!) But I don't think it's right to pull it from their site and repackage it.
Re: It’s Time to Get Back to RSS
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about games? People pay tons of money for them, and they are content too. When Cyberpunk 2077 comes out later this year, try telling people it's worth $0. I think the difference is social norms. The internet having no real built-in payment mechanism has obliterated the norm of paying for most content. Games have held the line, but things like Google Stadia and Apple Arcade are working to change that.
A game is intellectual property like a movie. If I copy and paste 1/5th of your game, you can sue me and win. If I copy and paste 1/5th of your blog post, as long as I put quote marks around it, I'm safe. Games won't become free until it's easy for commoners to make them. Even with Unity and all the easy plug and chug game dev resources, it's still hard and requires multiple people with different talents.
It's social norms and perceived value (which are interrelated). From sampling music to quoting literature - there is case precedent and fair use.
Software is no different. When Compaq reverse-engineered the IBM PC BIOS, the standards were incredibly high. If I violate a GPL license or steal some copywritten Unity code for my game - I'm probably pretty safe. Unless, of course, a bunch of people agree that my software is valuable. I could be in big trouble if that's the case, even if I give it away for free (as in beer) and never make a cent off it.
Re: It’s Time to Get Back to RSS
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
Micropayments have been tried. They all failed. The fair market price for content is $0. What is happening is that the only publishers that will exist shall be only those who create it for free. There is simply a glut of content out there because the barrier to creating content is completely gone.
>The fair market price for content is $0. That's a gross oversimplification. Lots of content isn't worth anything but some is. If you're a stock trader, for example, certain timely information is well-worth paying for. And there's a market for that served by Bloomberg, Thomson-Reuters, and so on. The term "content" obscures the differences by suggesting its all interchangeable. That's certainly in the interest of the…
Stuff like Bloomberg, Thomson-Reuters, etc is valuable to a specific type of professional and will always have a niche audience. That isn't really what the discussion is about.
Reporting on corruption and injustice is critical to a society, but doesn't have any monetary value. The way I see it, we already have a way we choose to fund that kind of thing: non-profits/NGOs. Some media outlets (Vox, The Guardian) are already turning to just asking for money in this way, and over time journalism might become more formalised as something funded by the public for civic ends, not as a commercial product. To that end it should be unbundled from stuff like sports coverage and celebrity gossip - which might really end up disappearing as a viable career and be done exclusively by amateurs.
Re: It’s Time to Get Back to RSS
#297RSS is dying (or dead) because it was incompatible with the dominant business model on the internet -- advertising. This is why Google killed it. This is why lots of professional publishers hated it. With HTTP you'd be able to earn money via embedded ads but you'd earn exactly $0 via RSS since the feed was stripped of ads, just content. This forced publishers to put useless blurbs, redirecting to the HTTP version, wh…
Thing is, RSS didn’t “die”. It only ever filled a couple of niches, and arguably it is more popular than it ever was because not only are people still continuing to use RSS readers, podcasts are arguably more popular than they’ve ever been (this period of time with the coronavirus possibly excepted). I get that when people think of “RSS”, they’re thinking of tech that downloads text and maybe some images into a reade…
> podcasts are arguably more popular than they’ve ever been (this period of time with the coronavirus possibly excepted).
There's been a worrying trend of some podcasts shifting to a "get our app" mode of delivery. I've been boycotting each one, and been encouraging the podcasts I donate to to explicitly keep the RSS delivery.
Re: It’s Time to Get Back to RSS
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was why the friend-of-a-friend social features of Google Reader were such a big deal for me — I got curation and aggregation from a person I trusted, and the people they trusted. I didn't have to subscribe to anything to get content, I just had to follow people I knew, and even if they weren't sharing a lot, their first-level connections collectively shared plenty. The interface let me subscribe to whatever feed…
+1 all kinds of trust networks are good
Devil's advocate: A public trust network is great for advertisers. They would know exactly who the influencers are and how to cover the population with a minimum of influencers.
Re: It’s Time to Get Back to RSS
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's both factually and theoretically correct - the UK has left the EU, but laws are extended until the transition period is over. Note the absence of the UK in the below sources: https://www.gov.uk/eu-eea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_state_of_the_European_U...
It is theoretically correct. The factuality is the point under dispute...
What's your definition of 'in the EU' and 'fact'?
If a nation state doesn't recognise itself being in the EU, and the EU doesn't recognise the nation state being in the EU, It's not in the EU.
https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries_en#28mem...
Re: It’s Time to Get Back to RSS
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it was Cambridge Analytica using the old FB social graph API ("Open Graph") to build a network of people that they could make predictions on. The app "This is your digital life" let people do a psychological profile linked to their FB profile. The Open Graph API then gave Cambridge Analytica to (some of) their friend's data as well, https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/facebook-cambridge-analytica... https://medium.co…
The problem here is that we don’t really have a consensus on what should happen if people share the information they know about you with others without asking you, not that we should not have API access to our own content on social networks.
No particular argument there - just noting that the original comment was calling for return to "the heady days when Twitter, MySpace, Facebook, et all had almost open access to their 'social graphs'".
Turns out that wasn't a great idea. Disappointing because it's what I wanted too.