4 ms·
>> "A blog post has to have a title." nah https://www.manton.org/2017/05/30/182107.html https://www.manton.org/2017/05/30/182107.html Titles were always opti
by Kye 3y ago
>> "A blog post has to have a title."
nah
https://www.manton.org/2017/05/30/182107.html https://www.manton.org/2017/05/30/182107.html
Titles were always optional. Still are.
>> "Asymmetric relationships. On twitter you can follow someone, and they can follow you back or not."
That's RSS, or any of the myriad following systems on BBSes since time immemorial.
Starting off with a list of unique features that are not, in fact, unique isn't a great sign for the rest of it. I scrolled down, but the sign-up nag was too annoying to click out of.
- amadeuspagel 3y ago> Titles were always optional. Titles are optional in some blogging software but they aren't optional in feed readers and link aggregators. (This is explained in the sentence after the one you quoted.) > That's RSS, or any of the myriad following systems on BBSes since time immemorial. You can't follow people back on RSS.
- rsynnott 3y ago> Titles are optional in some blogging software but they aren't optional in feed readers and link aggregators. In practice they generally were semi-optional, because title-less posts were somewhat common, particularly on Tumblr (which always straddled the worlds of "proper" blogging software and twitter-type things a little uncomfortably); how gracefully readers dealt with this varied.
- amadeuspagel 3y agoTumblr is younger then twitter, and is itself on example of my point that for "thoughts without titles" you need your own platform — Tumblr supports RSS but you can also follow people within Tumblr, so it goes beyond classical blogging.