In some of those cases, the practice is just as shady. In others, not as much.
I don't use an RSS reader personally and never will. I visit the sites I like so they can recoup advertising views from me reading the stories they paid real money to professionals to write.
I also don't like how RSS readers make every story look the same no matter where it comes from. It loses personality.
I think newspapers are partly in their current situation because they didn't sue the pants off Google or charge for their sites to be spidered 10 years ago, before the public grew comfortable with the practice. Google got all their data for free.
If I'm expected to pay Twitter for use of their API, surely I could have been expected to pay the NYTimes to spider their site and store local copies of all their content.
I don't use an RSS reader personally and never will. I visit the sites I like so they can recoup advertising views from me reading the stories they paid real money to professionals to write.
I also don't like how RSS readers make every story look the same no matter where it comes from. It loses personality.
I think newspapers are partly in their current situation because they didn't sue the pants off Google or charge for their sites to be spidered 10 years ago, before the public grew comfortable with the practice. Google got all their data for free.
If I'm expected to pay Twitter for use of their API, surely I could have been expected to pay the NYTimes to spider their site and store local copies of all their content.