Newsletter delivery via RSS has a name.

It’s called blogging.

This is literally what we were doing in 2005.

@adders As I remember, it was just that business decision by Google that killed RSS, against user protests. It’s not like people ever voluntarily gave up on RSS or anything.

I read substack posts via RSS. That whole email newsletter protocol, push vs. pull, just seems so…pushy.

@Rongwrong I don’t think Goggle really killed RSS - I used a feed reader before Google Reader, and I switched to another one straight after they killed it. But they certainl6 harmed it’s perception.

@Rongwrong There were RSS readers before Google (my son used one called BlogLines -- I wonder if it's still around?) and I could name at least 2 good replacements that were available when Google killed Reader. I've wondered why its cancellation was so traumatic. I just moved to another RSS reader. Maybe something with the Google name on it legitimized it in many people's eyes?

@JMaxB @Rongwrong The last iteration of Reader was so much better than anything else out there that it took some time for others to step up. I used Bloglines for years before v2 of the Reader and going back to it was like going from 4K to 1080p. Ended up using (now defunct) FeedWrangler, and now NetNewsWire.

@adders Right, I didn’t mean that Google literally caused the demise of RSS. I also switched to a different reader when they discontinued theirs. But for whatever reason, lots of people didn’t.

@JMaxB Yeah, I don’t have an answer to that question either. You’d think the people who used RSS would be exactly the sort of people who’d put in the minimal amount of effort to find a replacement reader. But they didn’t.