Re: [syndication] Sneak Preview: my.info

[Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>]

Per Kreipke <per@onclave.com> wrote:

> Yes, the 'stamp' of the author and the source is important, but so is that
> of the aggregator. For example, if an aggregator [my.info :-)] isn't

Hehe, you have the disease too. It's spreading! :-) Of course, there's a
difference between value-adding aggregators like moreover and simple
software aggregators like Meetkat and my.info. The former actually provide a
service -- seeking out news on a specific topic -- whereas the latter are
just programs to make the human's job easier. They only aggregate what you
ask them to. (I guess Meerkat is sort of on the line here, but that's OK.)

> reliable and trustworthy and unbiased (and ignoring the value-add of each
> aggregator), why should I use it instead of the source itself? [reiterating
> a similar concern of Leigh's].

Well, in the case of my.info, it's just an application -- a way to use the
XML feeds that are being put out. Just like Carmen's Headline Viewer or any
other program, it's goal is to be an interface to let the user take
advantage of XML. The only difference is that it's on the Web. So, why
should you use it? I didn't want to have to wade through XML and constantly
check to see if sites were updated, so I did a program to do it for me. It's
open-source -- if you don't trust it, or don't like it, make your own.

> Are they above following suggestions from their investors or clients regarding
> their content? I'm sure they are. But there are probably other that aren't.
> And these are the 'sources' (aggregators) you're talking about. [so shoot me,
> I'm a little cynical :-)]

These are good questions -- I'm glad they're being brought up. I don't have
all the answers, but I realize that at some point you have to trust
_someone_ if only to bootstrap. It's a trade-off between trust and
convenience. I can trust no one and do all the work myself, or I can give up
a little of my security and trust someone else to do some of the filtering,
aggregating, etc. for me. I don't think there will ever be a technical
solution to this problem -- it's much bigger than that.

> I know that's not who you're positioning my.info against, but it further
> illustrates the point: [to acknowledge Leigh's clarification] _I_ think the
> middlemen do matter.

I guess the difference is in what we see aggregators as. I see them as a
computer program, like any other, that eases my workload. However, you're
right in saying that they're also information sources and content producers.
As such, we do need to treat them with care. But, we do need to start
trusting someplace. Personally, I trust my.info because I wrote the code and
maintain the hardware. I thought I'd provide it as a service to others who
wanted the same functionality but didn't want to write the software.

You have to trust something. How do you know Netscape (or even worse --
Microsoft) doesn't have code in your browser deleting links here and there
to sites they find objectionable. Slow service? Sites down? Perhaps it's
just your ISP's way of "suggesting" that you don't visit those sites. At
some point it gets silly. You have to trust something. However, I do agree,
we need to think about this more. I'm not totally dismissing the idea, just
trying to provide some balance.

> A simple test-compare once an hour of the same Associated Press feed rendered
> in Excite, Yahoo and Lycos for example. Just to make sure everybody is honest.

Hmm, I'd actually be surprised if they were the same. For example, I know
Salon selectively chooses AP stories to place on their page. I wouldn't be
surprised if other sites did the same. Anyone want to go ahead and try this?

-- 
        Aaron Swartz         |"This information is top security.
<http://swartzfam.com/aaron/>|     When you have read it, destroy yourself."
  <http://www.theinfo.org/>  |             - Marshall McLuhan