Interesting to say the least! Matter is scrapping social features and basically becoming Pocket 2.1; by making the article “Queue" their default tab, but being far more ambitious on the experience of article sourcing and organization.
It's cool what they’re doing.
But, I have concerns about Twitter not being an ideal "conversation layer of the internet", especially when it comes to commenting on articles. I'm also still wondering what their business model will be (maybe they are too?).
Readup is very far from perfect and likely will never be the social reading layer of the internet, but this move might just have given Readup's niche more legitimacy.
I also noticed the breadth of article sourcing which would be interesting. I’d kiss the social features because I really enjoy making comments and also reading the comments of others.
I mostly use Matter for Send to Kindle feature. Thinking to move newsletters subscriptions from stoop inbox to Matter.
Perhaps for most of the people tweeting highlights or opinion about articles matters more than veracity of the articles and don’t care whether it’s completely read or not. Some people might react to tweets or just ignore it but it’s still part of hubris or virtue-signalling which lead to tweet about it.
Don’t know whether writers are concerned about sharing/commenting about it without actually reading it. I think still publishers-writers revenue model is about number of views-share-comments. They really don’t care whether you have actually read it or not. They just want engagements with their content at any cost.
Nowadays, some of the quality contents is behind the paywall, some people aren’t considering to pay for it because it’s often bundle of content which contains less quality contents but just because companies are having subscription model they need to serve contents where quantity matters more than quality.
Interesting to say the least! Matter is scrapping social features and basically becoming Pocket 2.1; by making the article “Queue" their default tab, but being far more ambitious on the experience of article sourcing and organization.
It's cool what they’re doing.
But, I have concerns about Twitter not being an ideal "conversation layer of the internet", especially when it comes to commenting on articles. I'm also still wondering what their business model will be (maybe they are too?).
Readup is very far from perfect and likely will never be the social reading layer of the internet, but this move might just have given Readup's niche more legitimacy.
I also noticed the breadth of article sourcing which would be interesting. I’d kiss the social features because I really enjoy making comments and also reading the comments of others.
I mostly use Matter for Send to Kindle feature. Thinking to move newsletters subscriptions from stoop inbox to Matter.
Perhaps for most of the people tweeting highlights or opinion about articles matters more than veracity of the articles and don’t care whether it’s completely read or not. Some people might react to tweets or just ignore it but it’s still part of hubris or virtue-signalling which lead to tweet about it.
Don’t know whether writers are concerned about sharing/commenting about it without actually reading it. I think still publishers-writers revenue model is about number of views-share-comments. They really don’t care whether you have actually read it or not. They just want engagements with their content at any cost.
Nowadays, some of the quality contents is behind the paywall, some people aren’t considering to pay for it because it’s often bundle of content which contains less quality contents but just because companies are having subscription model they need to serve contents where quantity matters more than quality.