> Platforms increasingly prioritized advertisers over users, forcing ad overload onto feeds. Algorithms replaced user choice with automated curation.
This is ideology, not facts. They specifically prioritized the users as shown by the fact their userbase and engagement have only grown. Is this a good thing for the users? Hard to say and we can argue, but the only "hard" metric we have says they indeed prioritize users. It's just that users love the social media so much they are willing to tolerate ads. And for advertisers it is simply the place with the most users and engagements.
I like RSS, I'm even building my own RSS reader right now has an algorithmic feed. But the tech itself is pretty much as good as dead. Some news media websites don't even have it anymore. The ones that do tend to have only one global feed even though nothing prevents them from running multiple ones (per category, per author, etc). Good that Substack and platforms like it have RSS at least.
This is ideology, not facts. They specifically prioritized the users as shown by the fact their userbase and engagement have only grown. Is this a good thing for the users? Hard to say and we can argue, but the only "hard" metric we have says they indeed prioritize users. It's just that users love the social media so much they are willing to tolerate ads. And for advertisers it is simply the place with the most users and engagements.
I like RSS, I'm even building my own RSS reader right now has an algorithmic feed. But the tech itself is pretty much as good as dead. Some news media websites don't even have it anymore. The ones that do tend to have only one global feed even though nothing prevents them from running multiple ones (per category, per author, etc). Good that Substack and platforms like it have RSS at least.