Sick of your Facebook news feed becoming an echo chamber? There could be a better way.

On July 1, 2013, Google Reader went offline. Despite the app’s “loyal following,” according to the company, usage was declining and it was no longer suited to the “new kind of computing environment.” Gone was the web’s friendliest tool for browsing and reading RSS feeds, and since then other platforms have followed Google’s lead and withdrawn their support for RSS. In the process, we have begun to lose a helpful aid for flexing virtuous habits of mind—habits especially useful in times like this of peak divisiveness.

The capitalized letters stand for “Real Simple Syndication,” which may not really explain much; for our purposes, RSS feeds are public lists of recent content that many websites generate automatically. Rather than having to visit the websites one by one, or fire up their respective apps on a phone, a feed reader lets users choose which feeds they want to read and browse them all at once. What does the news look like when articles from Breitbart appear alongside clips from Democracy Now?

Advertisement

One can imagine the liabilities of this model for the “new kind of computing environment” Google would like to foster. Downloading a feed provides platforms with a lot less monetizable data about us than having users interact through websites or dedicated apps. The function that RSS feed readers served is now largely the purview of social media feeds—particularly that of Facebook, which has become many people’s primary news source. Rather than discovering news that might challenge our assumptions and those of the people we run with, we encounter the news that lots of our “friends” “like.” This produces, for some, a “filter bubble” of comforting familiarity, and for others, a torture chamber of obnoxious notions shared by the people with whom they happen to have relationships. For the platform companies, this environment produces lots and lots of personal, valuable data.

John Conley, S.J., wrote in these pages recently about the uptick of interest among professional philosophers in the intellectual virtue of curiosity. Perhaps this interest arises from an attention economy whose anxiety-instilling excess inclines many of us to protectionism. Father Conley summarized the trend thusly:

Responsible thinking cannot remain limited to the mastery of one discipline or to engagement with one narrow vector of human experience. An ardent curiosity about languages one does not speak, countries one has never visited and the new neighbors down the block is now a trait of the excellence in thinking that virtue-epistemologists have labored to sketch.

I’ve started using RSS again lately, especially late at night. I’m experimenting with various open-source readers (some of which are quite good). Late at night I find I have a taste for a particularly masochistic brew of publications whose perspectives I’ve been socialized to detest, alongside the kind of soothing “explainer” outlets that have become for me close to narcotic. The contrast between the two types, their headlines piled together in my reader as if they were from an especially schizophrenic media mogul, makes me question each all the more sharply, makes me want to learn and explore more. It provokes me into that good kind of curiosity.

Of course, with RSS the choice is yours. You can subscribe to only what you’ll likely agree with, or the opposite, or you can subscribe to feeds of gibberish scientific data if that’s what you’re into. It’s a simple, open, versatile format. (RIP Aaron Swartz, who while still a kid helped develop it.) But if you want to cultivate virtues like curiosity online, RSS feeds are a formidable tool.

For the Googles and Facebooks of the world, whose revenues derive from advertising, the flexibility, paucity and messiness of RSS isn’t a winning strategy. Advertisers want to be seen alongside content that makes users feel good. Google Reader couldn’t guarantee them that.

Is it possible to create a business model based on more virtuous, adventuresome news-reading?

Imagine, for instance, a new platform called The Chaff. (TheChaff.com is owned by a blogger on “a personal journey from consumerism to minimalism,” but everyone has their price; it hasn’t been updated since 2014.) The Chaff’s mission is to expose users to ideas that challenge them. While RSS feeds require us to actively search out our news sources, The Chaff automates the process; based on some data of user preferences—maybe through Facebook and Twitter integration—it curates a feed of news and option designed to both inform and provoke, drawing from news sources that users and their existing social networks would be unlikely to come across otherwise.

Who would subject themselves to this? Who would pay for it? Maybe there’s a segment of the advertising market that would be willing to reach such open-minded souls. Maybe enough of those souls would pay for the privilege of daily provocation. But the masochists already have Reddit for free. As the present shape of the online information economy indicates, the big money is not in cultivating virtues.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Mark Fifield
1 year 11 months ago
It's always a good thing to surround ourselves with views vastly different from our own. What sort of democratic society would we be left with if this habit of mind goes out of fashion? Not all that is disagreeable is detestable. As far as echo chambers go, a different but similarly pressing question is: how willing are we to read past the surface, and train our minds to separate fact from conspiracy in this internet age? I'm generally horrified by meme culture.

Advertisement

The latest from america

 10.17.2018 Pope Francis greets Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago before a session of the Synod of Bishops on young people, the faith and vocational discernment at the Vatican Oct. 16. (CNS photo/Vatican Media)
“We take people where they are, walking with them, moving forward,” Cardinal Blase Cupich said.
Michael J. O’LoughlinOctober 20, 2018
Catherine Pakaluk, who currently teaches at the Catholic University of America and holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University, describes her tweet to Mr. Macron as “spirited” and “playful.”
Emma Winters October 19, 2018
A new proposal from the Department of Homeland Security could make it much more difficult for legal immigrants to get green cards in the United States. But even before its implementation, the proposal has led immigrants to avoid receiving public benefits.
J.D. Long-GarcíaOctober 19, 2018
 Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, then nuncio to the United States, and then-Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, are seen in a combination photo during the beatification Mass of Blessed Miriam Teresa Demjanovich at the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Newark, N.J., Oct. 4, 2014. (CNS photo/Gregory A. Shemitz)
In this third letter Archbishop Viganò no longer insists, as he did so forcefully in his first letter, that the restrictions that he claimed Benedict XVI had imposed on Archbishop McCarrick—one he alleges that Pope Francis later lifted—can be understood as “sanctions.”
Gerard O’ConnellOctober 19, 2018