3 ms·

I don't understand why people use FB as a source of news and information. It's terrible at that. RSS is an excellent protocol for that, and has some really good

by dsr_ 6y ago

I don't understand why people use FB as a source of news and information. It's terrible at that. RSS is an excellent protocol for that, and has some really good tools. What FB used to be good-ish at and is now mediocre at is being a social feed of friends and family. Dreamwidth is better at that than FB is, but FB's got the network effect of users already. Convincing people to switch is problematic.

tsfranke 6y ago
The farmers down the road don't know how to post what's available at their farm stand via RSS. Facebook is far simpler.
- naravara 6y ago
  Wordpress has an RSS feed by default. If they can tweet or post to a blog they can post to RSS. It's just about reaching a user base.
crocodiletears 6y ago
RSS doesn't give you reliable access to first-hand accounts, citizen livestreams, the people and their groups directly involved in events, or a network of other observers actively searching for and sharing from sources you would otherwise never have heard from or of. RSS brings you the publications you're aware of, and maybe a few bloggers with the time, money, and energy to maintain a blog. I can't ask a journalist for more details or check their work. I don't know how well they translated the niche knowledge required to understand the story for public consumption. Facebook comment sections can be a cesspool, but with groups you can usually find an actual subject matter expert who's engaged with what's happening and is engaging as an interested observer (not a preacher) that you can drop a line for more details. RSS is about passive consumption. It has its place, but it can't replace the tools Facebook give (engaged) users to understand the world better.
- agumonkey 6y ago
  This era is all about reshuffling the expert / data source distribution. There used to be a semi static structure of vetted journalism who would bet their reputation on a certain amount of quality.. but now it's not enough and people have the tools so they DIY.. but in the end we'll all need a less random structure .. I think it's exhausting to always be worried about who is a real expert on the matter, are these real time events really what I think they are. New needs the old, old needs the new.
- naravara 6y ago
  > I can't ask a journalist for more details or check their work. I don't know how well they translated the niche knowledge required to understand the story for public consumption. I only follow outlets and journalists whose thoroughness and thoughtfulness I know and respect. Following an RSS feed for a blog also means you can click into the links and see comment threads for any article, so it's not any different. And Google Reader (PBUH), had social tools integrated into it as well so it isn't even a foreign concept to RSS.
sneak 6y ago
Almost everything on Facebook has a comment thread attached, in-app, with your friends' comments at the top. People care as much about what the people they know think about something as what they themselves think about something. RSS readers almost never inline comments/discussion, can't easily surface your closest friends' comments at the top, don't have a consistent interface for leaving comments on items, and don't notify you of replies. RSS is inherently antisocial, like watching TV or reading the newspaper alone.
- CaptArmchair 6y ago
  > Almost everything on Facebook has a comment thread attached, in-app, with your friends' comments at the top. Two things about comment threads. Does everything have to have a comment thread? And this isn't just Facebook specific question, the vast majority of media sites put comment threads below their articles. Clearly, allowing user engagement at massive scales comes with a cost: moderation, disinformation, etc. On Facebook, I can't choose to disable comments or likes on a per-post basis. They are always there, whether I like it or not. The only agency I have is to change the visibility of the entire post, and even that's not necessarily what I want. I only post something on social media if I'm willing to engage with others. Comments are ephemeral and very much direct. They are specific writing format. There are times when I want to put something up but I'm not interested in this kind of direct and immediate feedback. > RSS is inherently antisocial, like watching TV or reading the newspaper alone. Newspapers, RSS and TV are only "anti-social" to the extent that don't get immediacy of giving feedback in the form of a comment or a like. You are very much free to share and publish your own opinions about TV and newspapers via different channels. You could even write a reader letter to news outlets if you don't like what they publish. Or you could e-mail your opinions to friends and discuss them via a mailing list. RSS itself doesn't give you that immediacy either. But you're very much free to make a post on your own blog, discussing someone else's content and have a discussion via RSS feeds and pingbacks. Back in the late 00's, during the heyday of blogs and RSS, that's exactly what happened for a brief while. The main reasons why social media are popular is immediacy, visibility and short-lived. The massive downside of such communication is that it reduces the opportunity to reflect and make well-thought, nuanced arguments. While immediate communication has it's place, it's not healthy to have that as your only type of communication or learning about the world around you.
opk 6y ago
It hadn't really occurred to me that anyone does use it as a news source. Looks fairly devoid of real world news to me - just whatever old friends and family on there have bothered to post mixed in with adverts. I suppose I'd have had to engage with some groups at some point. But I suppose that's no different to actually subscribing to RSS feeds.
agumonkey 6y ago
Gravity... social gravity in a way. People are scrolling on facebook, now they have news right there and they can share and comment right there. It's a game of low effort... gravity.
lernerzhang 6y ago
I agree with you. I am living in a country where FB is banned but some people like me can find some methods to access it. I find FB really boring but enjoy Twitter and Feedly ver much.
rchaud 6y ago
I suspect that people don't intend to use FB as a news source, but rather as a source of cheap entertainment and dopamine hits of the comment sections. People don't really post status updates as much these days, and those that do are usually posting something generic that you're that won't engender controversy or a juicy, drama-filled discussion.

by dsr_ 6y ago

tsfranke 6y ago

The farmers down the road don't know how to post what's available at their farm stand via RSS. Facebook is far simpler.

naravara 6y ago
Wordpress has an RSS feed by default. If they can tweet or post to a blog they can post to RSS. It's just about reaching a user base.

crocodiletears 6y ago

RSS doesn't give you reliable access to first-hand accounts, citizen livestreams, the people and their groups directly involved in events, or a network of other observers actively searching for and sharing from sources you would otherwise never have heard from or of. RSS brings you the publications you're aware of, and maybe a few bloggers with the time, money, and energy to maintain a blog. I can't ask a journalist for more details or check their work. I don't know how well they translated the niche knowledge required to understand the story for public consumption. Facebook comment sections can be a cesspool, but with groups you can usually find an actual subject matter expert who's engaged with what's happening and is engaging as an interested observer (not a preacher) that you can drop a line for more details. RSS is about passive consumption. It has its place, but it can't replace the tools Facebook give (engaged) users to understand the world better.

agumonkey 6y ago
This era is all about reshuffling the expert / data source distribution. There used to be a semi static structure of vetted journalism who would bet their reputation on a certain amount of quality.. but now it's not enough and people have the tools so they DIY.. but in the end we'll all need a less random structure .. I think it's exhausting to always be worried about who is a real expert on the matter, are these real time events really what I think they are. New needs the old, old needs the new.
naravara 6y ago
> I can't ask a journalist for more details or check their work. I don't know how well they translated the niche knowledge required to understand the story for public consumption. I only follow outlets and journalists whose thoroughness and thoughtfulness I know and respect. Following an RSS feed for a blog also means you can click into the links and see comment threads for any article, so it's not any different. And Google Reader (PBUH), had social tools integrated into it as well so it isn't even a foreign concept to RSS.

sneak 6y ago

Almost everything on Facebook has a comment thread attached, in-app, with your friends' comments at the top. People care as much about what the people they know think about something as what they themselves think about something. RSS readers almost never inline comments/discussion, can't easily surface your closest friends' comments at the top, don't have a consistent interface for leaving comments on items, and don't notify you of replies. RSS is inherently antisocial, like watching TV or reading the newspaper alone.

CaptArmchair 6y ago
> Almost everything on Facebook has a comment thread attached, in-app, with your friends' comments at the top. Two things about comment threads. Does everything have to have a comment thread? And this isn't just Facebook specific question, the vast majority of media sites put comment threads below their articles. Clearly, allowing user engagement at massive scales comes with a cost: moderation, disinformation, etc. On Facebook, I can't choose to disable comments or likes on a per-post basis. They are always there, whether I like it or not. The only agency I have is to change the visibility of the entire post, and even that's not necessarily what I want. I only post something on social media if I'm willing to engage with others. Comments are ephemeral and very much direct. They are specific writing format. There are times when I want to put something up but I'm not interested in this kind of direct and immediate feedback. > RSS is inherently antisocial, like watching TV or reading the newspaper alone. Newspapers, RSS and TV are only "anti-social" to the extent that don't get immediacy of giving feedback in the form of a comment or a like. You are very much free to share and publish your own opinions about TV and newspapers via different channels. You could even write a reader letter to news outlets if you don't like what they publish. Or you could e-mail your opinions to friends and discuss them via a mailing list. RSS itself doesn't give you that immediacy either. But you're very much free to make a post on your own blog, discussing someone else's content and have a discussion via RSS feeds and pingbacks. Back in the late 00's, during the heyday of blogs and RSS, that's exactly what happened for a brief while. The main reasons why social media are popular is immediacy, visibility and short-lived. The massive downside of such communication is that it reduces the opportunity to reflect and make well-thought, nuanced arguments. While immediate communication has it's place, it's not healthy to have that as your only type of communication or learning about the world around you.

opk 6y ago

It hadn't really occurred to me that anyone does use it as a news source. Looks fairly devoid of real world news to me - just whatever old friends and family on there have bothered to post mixed in with adverts. I suppose I'd have had to engage with some groups at some point. But I suppose that's no different to actually subscribing to RSS feeds.

agumonkey 6y ago

Gravity... social gravity in a way. People are scrolling on facebook, now they have news right there and they can share and comment right there. It's a game of low effort... gravity.

lernerzhang 6y ago

I agree with you. I am living in a country where FB is banned but some people like me can find some methods to access it. I find FB really boring but enjoy Twitter and Feedly ver much.

rchaud 6y ago

I suspect that people don't intend to use FB as a news source, but rather as a source of cheap entertainment and dopamine hits of the comment sections. People don't really post status updates as much these days, and those that do are usually posting something generic that you're that won't engender controversy or a juicy, drama-filled discussion.