2 ms·
Doesnt this go against the sentiment of the article? It makes a heavy point about nobody being able to control or censor what you have to say. As soon as you gi
by alt227 4y ago
Doesnt this go against the sentiment of the article? It makes a heavy point about nobody being able to control or censor what you have to say. As soon as you give power to an aggregator, thats a cetral point which can control/censor the content.
- catapart 4y agoNah. The point, here, is those blog endpoints. That syndicates the blog to anyone with a browser. If one aggregator decides to cut you off, then your audience can always find another aggregator. Or, if you're particularly egregious, and no aggregators will host you, they can always go directly to your blog (aggregators have done the hard work of advertising your content already), or they can build their own aggregator and tell the faithful to join them, there. It's "freedom of speech without freedom of reach". Or whatever buzz phrase we're using to describe it, these days.