←back to thread

I ditched the algorithm for RSS

(joeyehand.com)
744 points DearNarwhal | 1 comments | 16 Jan 25 12:18 UTC | HN request time: 1.253s | source
Show context
s1mplicissimus ◴[16 Jan 25 17:07 UTC] No.42727908[source]▶
If I remember correctly "the algorithm" as a concept of feed curation has been introduced by facebook ( or youtube?), long after RSS was used by blogs and podcasts. Heck, even Twitter used to have an RSS feed they killed a looong time ago [1]

I also remember that in the beginning I was chuckling to myself "who on earth would want to have their feed curated by a black box whose target function cannot be checked? If I wanted that, I could just keep reading a single newspaper." - turns out I was very wrong and lots of people seem to prefer just getting washed in a steady stream of somewhat internally consistent worldview.

Would be really nice to see RSS make a comeback

[1] https://sociable.co/social-media/twitter-rss-feed-creator/

replies(5): >>42727969 #>>42728154 #>>42728952 #>>42729089 #>>42729593 #
zahlman ◴[16 Jan 25 17:10 UTC] No.42727969[source]▶
>turns out I was very wrong and lots of people seem to prefer just getting washed in a steady stream of somewhat internally consistent worldview.

If you're putting together an RSS feed from creators you like, isn't that liable to happen anyway?

replies(2): >>42727989 #>>42729546 #
1. s1mplicissimus ◴[16 Jan 25 19:12 UTC] No.42729546[source]▶
Interesting point. Yes, if you pick too narrow a set of feeds, they might not even prompt you to engage with other sources, leading to our good old filter bubble effect. I'd still posit the risk of that happening is way higher when you only have a centralized platform like, say, twitter, controlling the push-factor based on payment. With RSS, I can still adjust my feed exactly to my preferences once I notice a bias or degradation in quality of certain feeds. This cannot be done if my feed is controlled by a machine optimized for maximizing engagement/advertisement $.