4 ms·

Remember way back when people had a blog with an RSS feed and anyone could subscribe to your blog with their browser or some app to read what you had to say ins

by mevile 10y ago

Remember way back when people had a blog with an RSS feed and anyone could subscribe to your blog with their browser or some app to read what you had to say instead of going through Facebook or Twitter? Remember when all that slowly went away because people went to Facebook and Twitter? Well this is what you get when people collectively decide apps and platforms with walled gardens are better than the open web. Enjoy your nice and tasty shit sandwich. It's all our own fault really.

darpa_escapee 10y ago
I don't really think people made that choice consciously because they thought walled gardens were better, there was a major push to redirect people and content creators to those platforms. I was very happy with the way things were until Google pulled the plug on Reader and made it harder to follow "decentralized" content.
- kinkdr 10y ago
  > there was a major push to redirect people Would love to hear more about this theory. Who was behind this push? How did the achieve it?
- walrus01 10y ago
  They made the move because walled gardens are much easier to use, require far less effort and have nicer friendly UIs built by large teams of UI/UX people who have the goal of keeping people captive via browser sessions and their mobile apps.
walrus01 10y ago
I am in complete agreement with you. If you care about something, publish it yourself. The sad fact is that Facebook's walled garden allows people with literally no technical clue whatsoever to set up a 'page', it's not nearly as difficult as buying a domain name and paying $5/mo to a hosting company. Then when the magical friendly service they're paying nothing for and have no service contact with disappears, goes bankrupt, gets acquired and shutdown by a larger company or decides to block them for arbitrary (automated abuse prevention) reasons, the first cry is "censorship".
unlinker 10y ago
Liking pages on Facebook is easier than adding RSS feeds to an RSS client.

by mevile 10y ago

darpa_escapee 10y ago

I don't really think people made that choice consciously because they thought walled gardens were better, there was a major push to redirect people and content creators to those platforms. I was very happy with the way things were until Google pulled the plug on Reader and made it harder to follow "decentralized" content.

kinkdr 10y ago
> there was a major push to redirect people Would love to hear more about this theory. Who was behind this push? How did the achieve it?
walrus01 10y ago
They made the move because walled gardens are much easier to use, require far less effort and have nicer friendly UIs built by large teams of UI/UX people who have the goal of keeping people captive via browser sessions and their mobile apps.

walrus01 10y ago

I am in complete agreement with you. If you care about something, publish it yourself. The sad fact is that Facebook's walled garden allows people with literally no technical clue whatsoever to set up a 'page', it's not nearly as difficult as buying a domain name and paying $5/mo to a hosting company. Then when the magical friendly service they're paying nothing for and have no service contact with disappears, goes bankrupt, gets acquired and shutdown by a larger company or decides to block them for arbitrary (automated abuse prevention) reasons, the first cry is "censorship".

unlinker 10y ago

Liking pages on Facebook is easier than adding RSS feeds to an RSS client.