In recent days, I have been using the Follow app intensively. It must be said that in an era where the spirit of open sharing on the internet is gradually becoming scarce, the emergence of such an open-source software is truly refreshing.

However, during the usage process, I also noticed that although the software itself is excellent, several external issues may hinder its promotion and sustainability in the domestic market.

Issue 1: Low Proportion of Directly Usable RSS Feeds

Even among the group of personal blogs that have the highest proportion of RSS support, I found that the proportion of usable RSS feeds when adding blogs to Follow is not high.

For example, there are currently 128 active personal blogs in the “Blogosphere.” After adding them one by one in Follow, I found that only 89 could be successfully added, with a success rate of less than 70%.

Among the blogs that could not be added, about half do not provide RSS subscriptions. Others have issues with their RSS settings. For more details, you can refer to my recent article Trying Out the RSS Subscription App Follow.

Most notably, popular content platforms in the Chinese-speaking world, such as WeChat Official Accounts and Zhihu Columns, almost never open RSS subscriptions. They are accustomed to tightly binding users to their platforms, unwilling to let any traffic leak out.

This situation directly impacts users’ interest in using RSS.

Issue 2: Potential Intellectual Property Disputes

I know that one of the main reasons Follow was developed is the success of the previous RSShub project.

This project bypasses restrictions on platforms like WeChat, Zhihu, Bilibili, and Xiaohongshu by collecting information through servers.

However, whether this method of information collection is reasonable or legal remains debatable.

A typical example is something I learned in the “Blogosphere WeChat Group” this September:

A blogger caused controversy by disagreeing with others collecting their blog via RSS on a network platform. The blogger resorted to doxxing and reporting the platform operator, ultimately forcing the platform to shut down.

Currently, Follow does not have a good solution for intellectual property disputes.

Additionally, according to Article 24 of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China, our daily use of others’ works should be limited to “personal study, research, or appreciation,” and “appropriate citation of published works in one’s own work to introduce, comment on, or explain a certain work or issue.”

For example, the compliance of major search engines is based on the second clause of Article 24 of the Copyright Law. To introduce a webpage, they appropriately cite the content of that webpage in search results.

Article 24: Under the following circumstances, a work may be used without permission from the copyright owner and without payment, provided that the name of the author and the title of the work are mentioned, and the normal use of the work is not affected, nor are the legitimate rights and interests of the copyright owner unreasonably prejudiced: (1) For personal study, research, or appreciation, using a published work of another person; (2) For the purpose of introducing, commenting on, or explaining a certain work or issue, appropriately citing a published work of another person in one’s own work; (3) For the purpose of reporting news, unavoidably reproducing or citing a published work in newspapers, periodicals, radio stations, television stations, or other media; (4) Newspapers, periodicals, radio stations, television stations, or other media publishing or broadcasting articles on current political, economic, or religious issues that have been published by other newspapers, periodicals, radio stations, television stations, or other media, except where the copyright owner has declared that such publication or broadcasting is not permitted; (5) Newspapers, periodicals, radio stations, television stations, or other media publishing or broadcasting speeches delivered at public gatherings, except where the author has declared that such publication or broadcasting is not permitted; (6) For the purpose of classroom teaching or scientific research, translating, adapting, compiling, broadcasting, or making a small number of copies of a published work for use by teaching or scientific research personnel, provided that such use does not involve publication or distribution; (7) State organs using a published work within a reasonable scope for the purpose of performing their official duties; (8) Libraries, archives, memorials, museums, art galleries, or cultural centers reproducing a work in their collection for the purpose of display or preservation of the work; (9) Free performance of a published work, provided that no fees are charged to the public and no remuneration is paid to the performers, and the performance is not for profit; (10) Copying, drawing, photographing, or video recording of an artistic work installed or displayed in a public place; (11) Translating a work published by a Chinese citizen, legal person, or unincorporated organization in the national common language into a minority language work for domestic publication and distribution; (12) Providing a published work to a person with a reading disability in a perceptible manner that is accessible to them; (13) Other circumstances stipulated by laws and administrative regulations.

The basic principle of RSS is the same. According to the RSS Profile 4.1.1.6 declaration: When a feed lacks a copyright element, aggregators should not assume that it is in the public domain and can be republished and redistributed without restriction. Under the Berne Convention adopted by the United States and more than 150 other countries, a work does not require a copyright statement to be protected by copyright.

When a feed lacks a copyright element, aggregators should not assume that is in the public domain and can be republished and redistributed without restriction. Under the Berne Convention adopted by the United States and more than 150 other countries, a work does not require a copyright statement to be protected by copyright. Really Simple Syndication Best Practices Profile 4.1.1.6

This raises three sub-issues:

1. Is it legal to bypass the technical restrictions imposed by rights holders to collect information when major platforms have already imposed rights restrictions and technical measures to limit collection?
2. How should potential applications from individual rights holders be handled?
3. Is the platform’s use of RSS still within a reasonable scope?

For example, the third issue. In the past, RSS readers were limited to personal study, research, or appreciation, and their export and sharing functions were mainly for personal, non-commercial use. However, in Follow, there is a noticeable issue that may exceed “fair use”: the RSS subscription lists on Follow can be directly traded, and this trading is encouraged by the platform.

Although the current trading on the platform can only be exchanged for “invitation codes,” the platform is clearly preparing for future virtual currency transactions.

Issue 3: Impact of Network Security Technical Restrictions on Follow Usage

During the use of Follow, I found that many subscription sources had issues with inaccessible images. For example:

The reason is that these websites prohibit cross-site referencing of images, commonly known as “hotlink protection.”

For many personal websites, “hotlink protection” is indeed an important issue. For example, from July to September this year, there were rumors of concentrated DDOS attacks from a certain domestic IP, affecting many personal websites and CDNs.

As for the security restrictions of large network platforms, there are even more. In the previous use of RSShub, it was found that scraping from platforms like Zhihu and Xiaohongshu often faced failure issues.

Issue 4: Network Security Compliance Issues

The last issue is the often-discussed network security compliance problem. That is, Follow’s current operational model may have never considered compliance in mainland China since its inception.

This is a double-edged sword for users. To be compliant, many features would have to be cut, but without compliance, it’s hard to say how long it can remain directly accessible.

Personally, I hope it can remain directly accessible for a long time.