Sad about losing Google Reader? Spare a thought for the blogs you had listed on it

Which blogs will lose out?

Google announced last night that it will be shutting down its RSS feed, Google Reader, in a couple of months. It was an unpopular decision. On twitter the black smoke rising from Google obsured most other news - "Google Reader" reached the top of worldwide trends, even with a new pope elected - and every tweet was outraged.

Some of these outraged twitter users were clearly hoping that their disappointment might make Google change their minds. After all, it's a user-influenced feature - no? Well no. At least, not enough of one:

"We know Reader has a devoted following who will be very sad to see it go," said Google's Alan Green on the Google Reader blog. "We're sad too ... as a company we’re pouring all of our energy into fewer products. We think that kind of focus will make for a better user experience."

The thing that we're all finding it hard to grasp, as Alex Kranowitz over at Forbes points out, is that Google was never ours. As flies to wanton boys are we to Google software engineers; they kill us for their sport. He writes:

We are all participants in a user driven Internet, but we are still just the users, nothing more. No matter how much work we put in to optimize our online presences, our tools and our experiences, we are still at the mercy of big companies controlling the platforms we operate on. When they don’t like what’s happening, even if we do, they can make whatever call they want. And Wednesday night, Google made theirs.

Bottom line, we shouldn't have let ourselves get so comfortable. Even with the big, stable companies like Google, the online landscape can shift under our feet with very little warning.

But life goes on, and after the various stages of mourning, we'll all find another RSS feed to use. The real losers here will be blog publishers. Blog publishers shouldn't have got comfortable either. As today's news suggests, building any sort of strategy on the existence of a feature provided by companies like Google is a major flaw.  Marginal Revolution reckons the blogs that will be harmed most are the infrequent blogs (which don't show appear in searches so frequently, and which you might not visit on a regular basis), and those with a lot of ads, like Forbes (where every lost hit costs). But then it's hard not to build strategies on features run by online behemouths, because they have the power to hugely influence how well you do. Bloggers are in a sticky situation.

The decision was made, according to Google, because "usage has declined" - but it's difficult not to see the decision as Google flexing its muscles, showing publishers just how much power it has. They'll have to take their chances with Google search and Google news now. 

Google Reader is closing down. Photograph: Getty Images

Martha Gill writes the weekly Irrational Animals column. You can follow her on Twitter here: @Martha_Gill.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Theresa May gambles that the EU will blink first

In her Brexit speech, the Prime Minister raised the stakes by declaring that "no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain". 

It was at Lancaster House in 1988 that Margaret Thatcher delivered a speech heralding British membership of the single market. Twenty eight years later, at the same venue, Theresa May confirmed the UK’s retreat.

As had been clear ever since her Brexit speech in October, May recognises that her primary objective of controlling immigration is incompatible with continued membership. Inside the single market, she noted, the UK would still have to accept free movement and the rulings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). “It would to all intents and purposes mean not leaving the EU at all,” May surmised.

The Prime Minister also confirmed, as anticipated, that the UK would no longer remain a full member of the Customs Union. “We want to get out into the wider world, to trade and do business all around the globe,” May declared.

But she also recognises that a substantial proportion of this will continue to be with Europe (the destination for half of current UK exports). Her ambition, she declared, was “a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement”. May added that she wanted either “a completely new customs agreement” or associate membership of the Customs Union.

Though the Prime Minister has long ruled out free movement and the acceptance of ECJ jurisdiction, she has not pledged to end budget contributions. But in her speech she diminished this potential concession, warning that the days when the UK provided “vast” amounts were over.

Having signalled what she wanted to take from the EU, what did May have to give? She struck a notably more conciliatory tone, emphasising that it was “overwhelmingly and compellingly in Britain’s national interest that the EU should succeed”. The day after Donald Trump gleefully predicted the institution’s demise, her words were in marked contrast to those of the president-elect.

In an age of Isis and Russian revanchism, May also emphasised the UK’s “unique intelligence capabilities” which would help to keep “people in Europe safe from terrorism”. She added: “At a time when there is growing concern about European security, Britain’s servicemen and women, based in European countries including Estonia, Poland and Romania, will continue to do their duty. We are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe.”

The EU’s defining political objective is to ensure that others do not follow the UK out of the club. The rise of nationalists such as Marine Le Pen, Alternative für Deutschland and the Dutch Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom) has made Europe less, rather than more, amenable to British demands. In this hazardous climate, the UK cannot be seen to enjoy a cost-free Brexit.

May’s wager is that the price will not be excessive. She warned that a “punitive deal that punishes Britain” would be “an act of calamitous self-harm”. But as Greece can testify, economic self-interest does not always trump politics.

Unlike David Cameron, however, who merely stated that he “ruled nothing out” during his EU renegotiation, May signalled that she was prepared to walk away. “No deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain,” she declared. Such an outcome would prove economically calamitous for the UK, forcing it to accept punitively high tariffs. But in this face-off, May’s gamble is that Brussels will blink first.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.