Publish on Your Own Site, Syndicate Elsewhere
indieweb.orgIMO the web was made for discovery. I don't see why would people would want to consume what I write on Twitter or Facebook where there is no formatting available (or worse splitted in small messages on Twitter). If these people prefer to stay in their walled gardens, good for them, but I don't want to strip what I write to please them. Why won't a link on these platforms suffice since they have their "cards"?
Also if people want syndication in one place, there's still RSS aggregators which is a technology that works even if everyone like to pretend it doesn't.
> ... what I write on Twitter or Facebook where there is no formatting available...
It's sad that "you have to be on the silos" to be seen. It hurts creativity, the Web is also made for things other than words. Can I put inline SVG animations on Twitter and Fasebook?
You can put them on svgur.com and share them to twitter/fb
> Can I put inline SVG animations on Twitter and Fasebook ?
Can you on HN ?
I have seen some cool blog posts with SVG/CSS animations up-voted on HN. Because you submit links here for the most part, your blog post can still be visible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_aggregator
Besides Reddit, I don't think most other mainstream social media works that way.
You can't but you can host them on your own and then put a link to them which is more cumbersome both for the writer and the reader who has to click a different link for each svg (or other asset) instead of just clicking one link to an article which inline them.
If its not on Google, it doesn't exist. If it cannot be completely consumed inside Facebook you are probably antisocial. If your idea cannot be expressed inside a tweet, it is too complex for consideration. If you cannot share it on Instagram it is not worth doing. If I cannot reply using just emojis, it is probably too controversial to respond. Welcome to 2018, where human brains have been replaced by mud.
This is an interesting thing, but too complicated and over-broad for the mere-mortal. It should be enough to just provide an RSS/Atom feed. WRT comments, well, I never want them on my website anyways, because my blog is for my content. If anybody's interested enough in responding me, they can write an email or another blog post. If I really want comments on a particular post, I post it to HN and/or Reddit.
Anything other than the pages, the feed and a mailto: link is just unnecessary IMHO. If I want a federated social media, no need for implementing and maintaining al this burden, there's Mastodon.
> because my blog is for my content. If anybody's interested enough in responding me, they can write an email or another blog post.
This doesn't make any sense. No one is going to email you or write a blog posts for some minor remark. Not only will you not get any discussion on your site but you also would not get corrections if you'r wrong on the subject, which hurts your blog. Now there are easy ways to implement comments even for static sites, specially with the so called 'serverless cloud' servers.
> This doesn't make any sense.
It makes sense when you can be liable for what others say, and when you don't want to maintain a small community forum under each post, and when you want you blog to be a platform for your ideas.
> No one is going to email you or write a blog posts for some minor remark. Not only will you not get any discussion on your site but you also would not get corrections if you'r wrong on the subject, which hurts your blog.
I've gotten such emails in the past. Written too.
> Now there are easy ways to implement comments even for static sites, specially with the so called 'serverless cloud' servers.
Easy ways available only as long as companies who sell them are available. Not also that, but with user-hostile tracking code packaged in. And even if self hosted, then adding lots of burden for not much gain, given it needs to be maintained and secured.
> No one is going to email you
I get emails from my blog with some frequency. The people who write me come with questions or additions to my content. The signal-to-noise ratio has been amazing compared to any comment/forum system I've used in the past. I think the very small barrier to contact greatly improves the quality of the contact.
This echoes my experience. Comments are mostly useless, but people who email me are generally more helpful. I have an email link right next to each post, so it's probably easier to email me than it is to write a comment.
So make it less complicated.
Why work on sth. I don't like and won't ever use?
RSS+ITFFF. END. With it you have all the possibilities, even with the comments; only use the RSS comments with your blog.
My first reaction: RSS?
RSS is the best thing ever, period. I've found no other ways to follow websites online that even slightly improve upon it. And count in that anything from stuff like Flipboard to Twitter and similar.
It really is the best. No need to create and maintain another account, no need to reskim over read/intentionally skipped entries, filters for things you know you want to always skip.
I mean, Facebook is just a glorified RSS feed with centralized discover ability.
The hard part is the centralization / phonebook without that entity mucking it up. That's what made the Yellow Pages so effective, they separated the two.
What social network is not a glorified RSS feed with one or more means of messaging bolted on (including "likes" and "+1s" and "favs" and "retweets" and whatnot)?
This really is not possible with RSS at all, especially since the silos don’t want to support RSS in any meaningful way.
HN, YouTube and Reddit all have it.
You can have HN, YouTube and Reddit syndicate to your own, self-hosted feed?
Now I get it. No. But you can post links to your site to them manually.
Please read the entry before commenting.
I use Hootsuite to "announce" content, published on sites that I manage, to Twitter and FB.
I also use RSS to "syndicate" content from Site A to x sites in the network.