5 ms·
I look at this and say to myself, "This dude's missing the point." Twitter is not a superset of RSS. It does a small part of what I do with RSS, but not all of
by rcfox 15y ago
I look at this and say to myself, "This dude's missing the point."
Twitter is not a superset of RSS. It does a small part of what I do with RSS, but not all of it, and not in as nice of a way.
The Twitter-Instapaper thing is a good idea, but it's just not the same as RSS.
- chadgeidel 15y agoI think what Felicia (a girl BTW) is saying is that it's really easy to "subscribe" to someone's Twitter or Facebook feed, but not so easy to "subscribe" to a RSS feed, therefore websites are removing the RSS feed. I personally don't want to "subscribe" to a blog via Twitter or Facebook. I agree with Felicia that RSS is the way to go, but how long will it last if it's so difficult to set up for the end user?
- qu4z-2 15y agoJust to clarify, I think the grandparent's "this dude" referred to mechanical_fish.
- mechanical_fish 15y agoAlas, it doesn't matter how well RSS works for its current users. What matters is how well it works for publishers. It's not merely that Twitter is easier to subscribe to, that the feeds are easier to set up and serve (there's almost nothing to do; Twitter's engineers do all the work), that the Twitter link-sharing protocol is intuitively obvious, that Twitter has a legendary brand while nobody knows what RSS is, that Twitter clients show the actual rendered HTML of the linked page (complete with those ads) rather than an often-incomplete text teaser or a bunch of broken formatting. No, the killer feature of Twitter is the viral loop. Any individual tweet can be trivially forwarded, or trivially broadcast to an entire hashtag. And every tweet or retweet is also a self-contained advertisement for its author and a call to action: It takes only one click to bring up the entire history of its author's Twitter stream, and only one click to subscribe to that author's future Tweets.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]