5 ms·

As far as I can tell, because RSS requires the cooperation of actors who have no incentive to cooperate. If I use an RSS reader to support content, then it is

As far as I can tell, because RSS requires the cooperation of actors who have no incentive to cooperate. If I use an RSS reader to support content, then it is under my control when I read it, if I read it, and what format to read it under. I can view the content however I'd like, and no tracking is there. All of these are unambiguously good things for me, and are anathema for the advertising industry. I cannot use RSS to read a site unless that site provides an RSS feed. Sites whose primary goal is to bring in ad revenue, rather than building a community, have no incentive to provide RSS feeds.

kgwxd 6y ago
I'm perfectly happy just getting headlines with links, which seems most common these days, at least for what I subscribe to. It requires I go to their site to get the content where they can (try to) shove anything they want in my face and run whatever trackers they normally do.
- AlecSchueler 6y ago
  This why I personally gave up RSS. I used to enjoy reading things in my RSS reader where I could set things up to be clear to me. Once they started providing only links back to the WWW browser where everything was hard to read I gave up and now I just suffer reading in the WWW browser and frankly don't read nearly half as much online content as a result.
  - iFreilicht 6y ago
    Aren't there RSS-readers that offer something like the reader-mode you get on web-browsers?
    - dmje 6y ago
      Yeh, Reeder on mac supports this I think
    - lightbulbjim 6y ago
      News Explorer has scraping modes for sites that only publish headlines.
    - benrapscallion 6y ago
      NewsBlur does this
  - kgwxd 6y ago
    To me, the time saved not having to rescan headlines alone is worth it. Even if the title was just "New Article" for every item and I had to open each one to see what it was, the time saved would still probably be worth it.
  - netghost 6y ago
    So I take the opposite view of preferring to read on the actual pages. I'm curious though, I've built a feed reader that caters to my preference, but I'd like to make it useful to more folks. If you could automatically open articles in "Reader Mode" (FireFox supports this for instance) would that make reading in the browser more palatable to you?
  - jacurtis 6y ago
    I understand that perspective. And I agree that it would be nice if all sites offered the full-text content in the feed. But on the flip-side, I still use RSS feed readers (Feedly) daily and simply click through the content. The value of the RSS feed reader is still there because it allows you to monitor potentially hundreds or thousands of sites for content and then skim through to see if any new content was created today that interests you. This makes it particularly useful for monitoring personal blogs or sites that only publish a few times per month or year. I personally LOVE reading people's personal blogs, but since most people only publish a post a few times a month (or less), I am unlikely to check their website every day. I also don't want to give them my email address and have them clutter my inbox with new posts. So the feed reader is nice because I can go once a day and see what new content exists. I skim through the posts and click through on a handful of content that interests me. If the content is long, I add it to my "Pocket" (getpocket.com) to read later. In the feed reader I usually get a preview of their content (the first few paragraphs). I can read the content and click through if desired. So the feed reader still provides value for monitoring all these sites that have sporadic posting schedules. I understand the value of reading the content entirely in the feed reader, but I don't mind clicking through the content once I know it is something that interests me. The feed reader allows me to skim, filter, and screen content so that I am only clicking through on interesting content (similar to how HN works, we still have to click through content). If content is interesting, there is value in supporting creators by visiting them on their site to get the experience that they designed and potentially supporting them with an ad or two. If ad use is egregious then I might retaliate by blocking ads for their site or simply removing them from my feeds.
- MereInterest 6y ago
  Absolutely the same, and that's how I usually use RSS feed a anyways, as a source of headlines. Even there, though, it means that my choice of which articles to read isn't influenced by their snazzy new (and slow) layouts, their eye-catching (and emotionally jarring) images. It means that my daily habit is to check my RSS reader, rather than refreshing their site to see if anything has been posted. With a limited amount of attention, even just exposing the headlines through RSS means that it is more my choice where to distribute my attention, rather than having my attention be drawn elsewhere through dark patterns and marketing tricks.
gspr 6y ago
> As far as I can tell, because RSS requires the cooperation of actors who have no incentive to cooperate. Do you mean in the sense that content providers want to dictate more than just information delivery to consumers, or something else?
- MereInterest 6y ago
  Yup, that is exactly the sense that I mean. Ad-supported web sites have an incentive to have information viewable only when viewed alongside advertisements.

kgwxd 6y ago

I'm perfectly happy just getting headlines with links, which seems most common these days, at least for what I subscribe to. It requires I go to their site to get the content where they can (try to) shove anything they want in my face and run whatever trackers they normally do.

AlecSchueler 6y ago
This why I personally gave up RSS. I used to enjoy reading things in my RSS reader where I could set things up to be clear to me. Once they started providing only links back to the WWW browser where everything was hard to read I gave up and now I just suffer reading in the WWW browser and frankly don't read nearly half as much online content as a result.
- iFreilicht 6y ago
  Aren't there RSS-readers that offer something like the reader-mode you get on web-browsers?
  - dmje 6y ago
    Yeh, Reeder on mac supports this I think
  - lightbulbjim 6y ago
    News Explorer has scraping modes for sites that only publish headlines.
  - benrapscallion 6y ago
    NewsBlur does this
- kgwxd 6y ago
  To me, the time saved not having to rescan headlines alone is worth it. Even if the title was just "New Article" for every item and I had to open each one to see what it was, the time saved would still probably be worth it.
- netghost 6y ago
  So I take the opposite view of preferring to read on the actual pages. I'm curious though, I've built a feed reader that caters to my preference, but I'd like to make it useful to more folks. If you could automatically open articles in "Reader Mode" (FireFox supports this for instance) would that make reading in the browser more palatable to you?
- jacurtis 6y ago
  I understand that perspective. And I agree that it would be nice if all sites offered the full-text content in the feed. But on the flip-side, I still use RSS feed readers (Feedly) daily and simply click through the content. The value of the RSS feed reader is still there because it allows you to monitor potentially hundreds or thousands of sites for content and then skim through to see if any new content was created today that interests you. This makes it particularly useful for monitoring personal blogs or sites that only publish a few times per month or year. I personally LOVE reading people's personal blogs, but since most people only publish a post a few times a month (or less), I am unlikely to check their website every day. I also don't want to give them my email address and have them clutter my inbox with new posts. So the feed reader is nice because I can go once a day and see what new content exists. I skim through the posts and click through on a handful of content that interests me. If the content is long, I add it to my "Pocket" (getpocket.com) to read later. In the feed reader I usually get a preview of their content (the first few paragraphs). I can read the content and click through if desired. So the feed reader still provides value for monitoring all these sites that have sporadic posting schedules. I understand the value of reading the content entirely in the feed reader, but I don't mind clicking through the content once I know it is something that interests me. The feed reader allows me to skim, filter, and screen content so that I am only clicking through on interesting content (similar to how HN works, we still have to click through content). If content is interesting, there is value in supporting creators by visiting them on their site to get the experience that they designed and potentially supporting them with an ad or two. If ad use is egregious then I might retaliate by blocking ads for their site or simply removing them from my feeds.
MereInterest 6y ago
Absolutely the same, and that's how I usually use RSS feed a anyways, as a source of headlines. Even there, though, it means that my choice of which articles to read isn't influenced by their snazzy new (and slow) layouts, their eye-catching (and emotionally jarring) images. It means that my daily habit is to check my RSS reader, rather than refreshing their site to see if anything has been posted. With a limited amount of attention, even just exposing the headlines through RSS means that it is more my choice where to distribute my attention, rather than having my attention be drawn elsewhere through dark patterns and marketing tricks.

gspr 6y ago

> As far as I can tell, because RSS requires the cooperation of actors who have no incentive to cooperate. Do you mean in the sense that content providers want to dictate more than just information delivery to consumers, or something else?

MereInterest 6y ago
Yup, that is exactly the sense that I mean. Ad-supported web sites have an incentive to have information viewable only when viewed alongside advertisements.