3 ms·

> After all, The Onion is a publication that relies on syndication through Facebook and Twitter https://www.theonion.com/rss https://www.theonion.com/rss That

> After all, The Onion is a publication that relies on syndication through Facebook and Twitter https://www.theonion.com/rss https://www.theonion.com/rss That didn't take long to find. Why use that as an example?

cwyers 8y ago
I think you misunderstood the point there. Facebook and Twitter is what drives traffic for The Onion. They can and do syndicate via RSS. But it doesn't help them reach most of their readers.
- scarface74 8y ago
  From a user’s standpoint, who cares? Just because most people don’t use RSS, doesn’t really matter. Every continuously updated news site and blogging site still supports it - as well as HN. Once I start finding sites that don’t support RSS, then I worry.
  - cwyers 8y ago
    I mean, care about whatever you want to. I find it odd that someone who doesn't care posts in an RSS-related thread, but maybe you post about things you don't care about all of the time. But if you care about what content is available, if you care about how people who create work you enjoy are able to make a living about it, if you care about things like who's the president of the US. Then it might behoove you to care about the fact that between them, Google, Twitter and Facebook control the majority of the referral traffic for the most popular 100 websites. A future where RSS prevailed over social media as a way of curating content for most people is a different world than the one we live in, and if you care about the world you live in, you might care about why RSS didn't prevail, even if it's still usable for the minority who prefer it.
    - scarface74 8y ago
      I mean, care about whatever you want to. I find it odd that someone who doesn't care posts in an RSS-related thread, but maybe you post about things you don't care about all of the time. Reread my post. There is a difference between caring about whether the majority of users are using RSS and caring about whether publishers are creating RSS feeds. I specifically said “Once I start finding sites that don’t support RSS then I worry.”

cwyers 8y ago

I think you misunderstood the point there. Facebook and Twitter is what drives traffic for The Onion. They can and do syndicate via RSS. But it doesn't help them reach most of their readers.

scarface74 8y ago
From a user’s standpoint, who cares? Just because most people don’t use RSS, doesn’t really matter. Every continuously updated news site and blogging site still supports it - as well as HN. Once I start finding sites that don’t support RSS, then I worry.
- cwyers 8y ago
  I mean, care about whatever you want to. I find it odd that someone who doesn't care posts in an RSS-related thread, but maybe you post about things you don't care about all of the time. But if you care about what content is available, if you care about how people who create work you enjoy are able to make a living about it, if you care about things like who's the president of the US. Then it might behoove you to care about the fact that between them, Google, Twitter and Facebook control the majority of the referral traffic for the most popular 100 websites. A future where RSS prevailed over social media as a way of curating content for most people is a different world than the one we live in, and if you care about the world you live in, you might care about why RSS didn't prevail, even if it's still usable for the minority who prefer it.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    I mean, care about whatever you want to. I find it odd that someone who doesn't care posts in an RSS-related thread, but maybe you post about things you don't care about all of the time. Reread my post. There is a difference between caring about whether the majority of users are using RSS and caring about whether publishers are creating RSS feeds. I specifically said “Once I start finding sites that don’t support RSS then I worry.”