4 ms·

It's useful for the users, but tragically bad for anyone involved with journalism. Not that they're not used to getting fucked by search engines at this point,

It's useful for the users, but tragically bad for anyone involved with journalism. Not that they're not used to getting fucked by search engines at this point, be it via AMP, instant answers, or AI overviews. Not that the userbase of 50k is big enough to matter right now, but still...

atonse 1y ago
All this is doing is aggregating RSS feeds and linking to the original articles. So this might result in lower traffic for "anyone involved in journalism" – but the constant doomscrolling is worse for society. So I think we can all agree that the industry needs to veer towards less quantity and more quality.
- input_sh 1y ago
  RSS feeds are meant to be used by actual users, not regurgitated publicly. RSS readers at the very least have have author info visible and its users tend to be reported to website's analytics with a special user agent.
imiric 1y ago
What journalism? Most of these sites copy their content from each other or social media, and give it their own spin. Nowadays most of them use AI anyway. Actual journalism doesn't rely on advertising, and is subscription based. Anyone interested in that is already subscribed to those sources, but that is not the audience this service is aiming for. Some people only want to spend a few minutes a day catching up with major events, and this service can do that for them. They're not the same people who would spend hours on news sites, so these sites are not missing any traffic.
- malnourish 1y ago
  Broadly agreed, I don't consider the CBS (national) news website to be a source of hard hitting journalism; Reuters, however, is. Reuters and the AP are often the source of these news stations. I continue to subscribe to Reuters because of the quality of journalism and reporting. I have also started using Kagi News. They are not incompatible.

4 ms·

It's useful for the users, but tragically bad for anyone involved with journalism. Not that they're not used to getting fucked by search engines at this point,

by input_sh 1y ago

atonse 1y ago
All this is doing is aggregating RSS feeds and linking to the original articles. So this might result in lower traffic for "anyone involved in journalism" – but the constant doomscrolling is worse for society. So I think we can all agree that the industry needs to veer towards less quantity and more quality.
- input_sh 1y ago
  RSS feeds are meant to be used by actual users, not regurgitated publicly. RSS readers at the very least have have author info visible and its users tend to be reported to website's analytics with a special user agent.
imiric 1y ago
What journalism? Most of these sites copy their content from each other or social media, and give it their own spin. Nowadays most of them use AI anyway. Actual journalism doesn't rely on advertising, and is subscription based. Anyone interested in that is already subscribed to those sources, but that is not the audience this service is aiming for. Some people only want to spend a few minutes a day catching up with major events, and this service can do that for them. They're not the same people who would spend hours on news sites, so these sites are not missing any traffic.
- malnourish 1y ago
  Broadly agreed, I don't consider the CBS (national) news website to be a source of hard hitting journalism; Reuters, however, is. Reuters and the AP are often the source of these news stations. I continue to subscribe to Reuters because of the quality of journalism and reporting. I have also started using Kagi News. They are not incompatible.