3 ms·
Social protocols are replacing RSS. In my view, Twitter and Facebook are better versions of RSS. First, they reach many more people. It’s easier to “follow” so
by ttunguz 15y ago
Social protocols are replacing RSS. In my view, Twitter and Facebook are better versions of RSS. First, they reach many more people. It’s easier to “follow” something than to subscribe to an RSS feed (has a bit of a medical ring to it, no?).
Second, these social streams provide an additional social filter to the news, something that RSS news never did. These social filters also provide a layer to comment, share and discuss, which is another feature altogether missing in RSS.
Lastly, social streams avoid the challenge most RSS readers faced: the inbox with 1000+ items to read and no way to sift through them. Social streams create a time value decay function for this data. Facebook’s EdgeRank uses a combination of different signals to ensure relevancy so when users login the feed is only timely, relevant content, not an inbox of every status update and share. Twitter uses time to reduce the number of items in the feed.
http://tomasztunguz.com/2012/04/19/rss-is-dead-social-streams-have-killed-it/ http://tomasztunguz.com/2012/04/19/rss-is-dead-social-stream...
- tbatterii 15y agoI don't know about any other rss users, but the content I post in my social circles originates from google reader by way of some rss feed about 95% of the time.
- Gormo 15y agoThe social filters of sites like Twitter and Facebook are very deficient compared to the social filters of genuinely social aggregators such as HN and Reddit. The "genuinely social" bit there is indeed a dig against Twitter and Facebook - Twitter, because it's terse and disorganized, and Facebook because it's just a web-based interface to 'offline' social relationships rather than a community in its own right. And I follow HN via RSS.