3 ms·
This would largely have saved RSS for me. I'd argue there was a glorious era in late 2000s where you could almost replace your browser with a good feed reader a
by giobox 6y ago
This would largely have saved RSS for me. I'd argue there was a glorious era in late 2000s where you could almost replace your browser with a good feed reader and get vast majority of news/info this way. It was just so nice to have a single UI surface for all news stories rather than poking through many different websites.
I understand my using the sites that way contributes nothing really to their bottom line, I never saw any ads, but that of course was half the appeal. The early days of "web2.0" people often just naively dumped everything in the RSS feed.
- asdff 6y agoThere are a few services that get full text from RSS feed items for you
- Valord 6y agoI still find feeds from truncated useful as I can scan through the headlines quickly; I rarely want to read everything a publisher puts out there. When something catches my eye my RSS viewer, Feedbin, can attempt to fetch the entire one for me and if that fails visiting the site directly is tolerable.
- blackrock 6y agoA lot of web pages are just completely unusable or unreadable now. It uses all sorts of manipulations to auto play video ads, pop ups, picture unders, user tracking, page interaction telemetry, etc. All kinds of nonsense to display an article to you, which if it really is important, then another writer would have also written about it. Some websites I just avoid completely, when I see the url. These websites should just go with a pay-to-read subscription model instead. If their junk is interesting enough, then they’ll find enough people willing to pay a few cents to read it.