I have mixed feelings about this as someone that creates a bunch of content across different platforms. I intentionally spread it out across platforms as different platforms have different groups of people that follow me and engage with things differently. This is a nice idea but feels like it could be used for stalking. It would be nice if there was an explicit opt-in for creators having their feeds associated here…
Appreciate the feedback here /u/xena — > This is a nice idea but feels like it could be used for stalking. So we make sure to only aggregate publicly available information that the creator released and never include pieces about them or from someone else. We also make sure not to aggregate any gated/paywalled content. The problem with having every creator opt-in is that that we'd never be able to launch the profiles…
So... I feel that's a somewhat disingenuous perspective. You've created a problem for others (e.g. xena's concern that their deliberate efforts to distribute their output and mitigate stalking) while suggesting that your need to "launch" is more important.
I see that you've asked for suggestions for alternative models, but did you consider asking this before launching?
A cynical perspective might be that you're aiming to exploit popular content without the hassle of attracting authors to your platform. Perhaps you want to take on substack while avoiding the hosting responsibility?
You suggest you might deign to allow authors to "opt out". What about the reverse: given the choice, why would they opt in?
Sorry to be so negative, but this really looks like a land-grab. Maybe I'm wrong.
I actually really like the idea of "everything in one place", but an RSS aggregator and some curated social media feeds surely work just as well?