Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That tells you that's not what it's for. It would be like posting your resume on FB and LinkedIn and then pointing out that FB led to fewer job offers than LinkedIn. Different platforms, different purposes. Only insofar as the purpose of the platform is to generate ad revenue. The contents of the posts were semantically identical and they were made to the same platform; your example involves the same post to two dif…
> Only insofar as the purpose of the platform is to generate ad revenue. Well, yeah. I'm not surprised that they don't promote posts containing links to their competitors. I wonder what the outcome would have been if you had instead linked to Instagram or Threads? I would guess those have a smaller penalty.
The RSS feed reader landscape
201–206 of 206 posts
Re: The RSS feed reader landscape
#202Re: The RSS feed reader landscape
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I credit the demise of Google Reader with a lot of the downfall of the Old Web. maybe you have causation wrong. social platforms were so effective they caused downfall of old web, and with it the demise of Google Reader
Google Reader was killed by Vic because it was the only "social" app at Google at the time. He wanted to grow their FB competitor (G+) and insisted on migrating users over from Reader to G+, which never happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Gundotra#Career
Re: The RSS feed reader landscape
#204Some very important criteria, more than the hosting itself, is if the feeds can be accessed from multiple devices (desktop, mobile, tablet, commandline?, ...)
Re: The RSS feed reader landscape
#205I really hope sites continue their RSS feeds. It seems like less and less of them have them available or don’t care to keep them updated.
You can usually find a feed in google. Some people make feeds by crawling sites.
Re: The RSS feed reader landscape
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I think at minimum you would want 1 left, 1 right, and 1 center. Probably a convo for a different place and time, but strong disagree here. Calibrating relative to political polarization is relativism, and I'm not a relativist.
Nor am I. I think we have a misunderstanding on the goal. My goal is to get a wide range of perspectives. How did you interpret the goal? Perhaps the widest range of topics? Most closely aligned editorial viewpoint?