So why a News Feed?

&gt; Remember when social media was fun, introduced you to big ideas and cool people, and actually made you smarter? Remember when it didn&#x27;t waste your time and make you angry or sad? When you could disagree with someone without being threatened or insulted? We want to bring that back with Post.<p>&gt; We believe that all humans are created equal, endowed with unalienable rights that include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, regardless of their gender identity, religion, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, or beliefs.<p>&gt; If you do not agree with this principle, Post is not for you. We believe in freedom of speech and will oppose any government&#x27;s attempt to censor speech on our platform. However, we have rules, which we plan to rigorously enforce via content moderation, with the help of our community.<p>These all seem like lofty goals, as they themselves characterize it, but how exactly is any of this going to be accomplished? This is just a list of want-to-haves. Having these goals doesn&#x27;t make you unique. What tech, tools, and processes you have to make them a reality is what makes you unique. What exactly are those here?

They haven&#x27;t even launched yet and are already talking of The Personalized News Feed and the old discussion about a chronological feed is already going in the comments.<p>No thanks. I already see where this one is going. Chronology and non-personalizing has become a good litmus test over the last decade of social.<p>I&#x27;ll get my news, viral and not, on Mastodon instead. It&#x27;s such a relief to be there. Like being able to breathe fresh air, not a stale echo chamber that is built for me.

People pay for a place to live and almost every amenity therein except the air we breathe. We pay for the electricity that moves bits around. For telephone lines. For computing hardware. For connecting to the internet. For getting information in print.<p>But for a certain type of software and information retrieval &#x2F; news exchange, <i>that builds on all this stuff we pay for</i>, hurrah, we dont have to pay, not with money anyway, we just have to relinquish a bit a <i>value</i> (become a transparent, monitored and manipulated object).<p>Spot the odd business model. A business model that combines obvious amorality and social regression with economic shortsightness: You cannot build the digital society solely on monetizing personal data.<p>Yes, people will have to pay for journalism in the digital age, just like they have to pay individually for everything else that is not a public good paid collectively via taxes.<p>How we get there is not so important. No, people cannot be bothered to subscribe to hundreds of individual sources. We need decent intermediares (many of them and competing) that will (for a fee, lets say €10 per month) provide access to a basket of newspapers, journals etc.<p>The idea is an old one but executing it is difficult when you have to compete against above said aberrant business model. Sometimes politicians and legislators need to grow a spine or otherwise the very system that empowered them will collapse

I agree with the ideas in this post but I am skeptical about their implementation.<p>Users are shown a headline, an associated picture, and first 2-4 sentences of an article. Then they can buy the rest for ¢1-5. It feels like something that could be very easily exploited by clickbait. Although it currently does not seem to be.<p>I do like the current assortment of news. It&#x27;s not like other social media sites where news content is personalized to the user&#x27;s likes and dislikes, or biases. Unfortunately, it looks like Post. are looking into news personalization. I just really miss the time when facts like what&#x27;s relevant in the world were not &quot;personalized&quot;.

When should an app do a wait list? Almost never. I get so annoyed at wait lists I never bother to participate or come back. Clubhouse infamously had this gated access thing on its launch and I don&#x27;t think they had opened it up before Twitter launched Spaces.<p>How can you expect to build a presence in a world with infinite options if you make people wait some indeterminate time to use your app?<p>Sorry. Might as well not launch until you&#x27;re ready to take the load. And if moderation is the concern, it&#x27;s better to build a reputation system that unlocks features over time rather than block it out altogether.

&gt; We want Real People to access Real News the way they want to, in their feed, alongside the rest of their content. People should be able to interact and share through Civil Conversations.<p>Implying what, that other companies don&#x27;t?<p>People think social media was freeloading off of newspapers, but the reality imo is that the internet killed classifieds and consolidated the market around a handful of national papers (NYT et Al). News and especially political news is one of main things that make social media so miserable, so if anything platforms would have preferred to have less of it.

The reason for the drop in newsroom employees is consolidation a order of magnitude greater than was legal before Clinton&#x27;s Telecommunications Act.

The text on the landing page is odd. It reads:<p>&gt; Remember when social media was fun, introduced you to big ideas and cool people, and actually made you smarter? Remember when it didn&#x27;t waste your time and make you angry or sad? When you could disagree with someone without being threatened or insulted? We want to bring that back with Post.<p>I remember no such thing. The only difference between the old and the new internet is in the new internet, the platform company tries to decide what&#x27;s allowed and unallowed discource, whereas in the past you could find all sorts of unorthodox and heretical discussions in lots of places! They still exist, but incredibly more difficult to find because they are drowned out by the mainstream which has gotten a lot bigger.

So what’s the revenue model and how are these publishers benefiting (it’s not their platform and not their reader)?

I might be the odd one out, but I don&#x27;t want diverse news sources and perspectives. I want a source I trust to inform me about things that matter from a shared perspective and ideology.

Another attempt to basically recreate forums at scale again, just like them all before.<p>If you can&#x27;t moderate against your policies at scale, you&#x27;ll be no more successful. Even using &#x27;clever&#x27; AI and algorhythms is useless vs a manageable community size and good moderators.<p>You can&#x27;t be a social platform for all and have it both ways in opening free speech up on all topics but with easy moderation.<p>There&#x27;s a very good reason most internet forums had&#x2F;have specific rules against discussing politics and religion, and here we are trying to include them at scale. Ha. This is especially hard if you want it to be publicly open for all on all topics.

&gt; the tech platforms refuse to share revenue with publishers.<p>This sounds like the same talking point that Rupert Murdock used to convince Australia to pass a law that basically forced Facebook and Google to give him some of their revenue.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cjr.org&#x2F;business_of_news&#x2F;australia-pressured-google-and-facebook-to-pay-for-journalism-is-america-next.php" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cjr.org&#x2F;business_of_news&#x2F;australia-pressured-goo...</a><p>But every time that Facebook and Google say “okay instead of us paying you, we just won’t put you on our site”, publishers start whining

&gt; Remember when social media was fun, introduced you to big ideas and cool people, and actually made you smarter? Remember when it didn&#x27;t waste your time and make you angry or sad? When you could disagree with someone without being threatened or insulted?<p>Yes, it was before the journalists found Twitter.

&quot;Investigative journalism&quot;, yadda, yadda.<p>Journalism is dead. There is only propaganda (2-3 kinds of propaganda). Or maybe it was always the case only that I never noticed that.<p>There are 8 billion people in this world, close to 200 countries. Every second, there are millions of different events happen everywhere. Someone is born, someone dies, someone is killed, someone is promoted, some building is built, some building is being demolished.<p>There is simply no way to describe all this in any newspaper. The more I live, the more I see that every paper, TV channel, blogger, carefully selects tiny percent of facts out of billions of facts that happen every day. Only those facts that push the agenda or fits existing view.<p>There&#x27;s no independent news and can&#x27;t be. I don&#x27;t know even what happens in a district which is 5 km away from my house. Thinking that I&#x27;m perfectly aware of what happens in some country that is 1000, 2000, or 6000 km away from my home is insanity.

Sounds very similar to what Blendle were trying to achieve?

I’ve been wanting this sort of business model to take off for the last ten years. I hope this works out for them.

I&#x27;m impressed that they&#x27;ve managed to clone both Twitter&#x27;s app, and their old culture.

I can&#x27;t figure out how to access the desktop version of the site, I&#x27;m stuck on the mobile. Any ideas?