3 ms·
> Facebook and Twitter are, by comparison, cancer. How are FB and Twitter comparable to RSS? And how are they trying to kill it? Like they're not supporting it
by weberc2 9y ago
> Facebook and Twitter are, by comparison, cancer.
How are FB and Twitter comparable to RSS? And how are they trying to kill it? Like they're not supporting it on their platform? If so, why should I care? Or do you mean "they're conspiring to kill it across the Internet", in which case please elaborate.
EDIT: I'm getting downvoted; I can only assume people are interpreting my comment as vouching for FB/Twitter, which couldn't be further from the truth. I can be (and am) confused by his wording without supporting big social media companies. :)
- fjsolwmv 9y agoThey are a way to subscribe to notifications of updates from your favorite content providers. But they don't use a standards-conformant protocol when consuming those notifications. By becoming popular, they reduce content providers' incentive to support RSS. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.
- originalsimba 9y agoBoth Facebook and Twitter DID support RSS, both, for years. Each corporation decided to eliminate RSS from their platform around 3 to 5 years ago, because they wanted complete control over the distribution of "their" content (OUR social lives). It's difficult to discuss this subject without running into this gigantic elephant in the room which is that the behavior of corporate "social media" giants is exploitative, bordering on criminal, and absolutely contradicts the best interest of the public, our nation, the internet, and intelligent life. This has really served to spotlight some of the problems with free market capitalism.