|
|
|
|
|
by johnchristopher
4621 days ago
|
|
> Actually, removing RSS streams is what makes twitter a business. They hold the keys to the data and can charge customers for access to the firehose. Following on the analogy: to me they replaced a very good firehose (RSS) with a less efficient one. > Your assumption is that the news consumption pattern ultimately dictates where the producers flock [...] What ? No, my consumption pattern dictates where I (a user) go. And it turns out Twitter as a news media don't work for me (not twitter's fault though). > In a model where individual users contribute, the key factor is which platform gives users an easy way to speak (and I would argue that twitter has done a decent job at reducing the tweet friction) I don't see how removing the RSS feeds makes it less easy for a user to contribute. (shouldn't users who contribute be named producers in that context ?) |
|
If you use the Twitter user interface to read the stream, reply and post buttons are right there. If you use an RSS reader, going to twitter to post something on your own takes an extra step. Also, RSS feeds make it easier to filter out advertising posts, whereas with the official API Twitter can ban clients which introduce Adblock.
This assumes that at least some of the RSS users migrate to the official UI, instead of abandoning the platform. But it might be a reasonable tradeoff.