Lauren Indvik at Mashable takes a look at Bloglovin' which aggregates content from fashion blogs. She describes it as a "visual RSS reader and community."
I'm going to refer to it as an aggregator because, to me, a reader provides access to the content of RSS feeds for individuals while an aggregator publishes that content publicly. My feeling is that the existence of full RSS feeds is not a license to republish one's content in full and that doing so without permission is a ripoff.
I especially don't like this statement from the Bloglovin' FAQ:
"Can I remove my blog from Bloglovin'?"
"Bloglovin' is meant to be a service where you can follow any blog with a public RSS-feed, so we don't remove blogs."
I find this attitude inexcusable and it's honestly one of the reasons I do not provide full public feeds to any of my blogs because people feel it's ok to take stuff without permission and try to make money off it.
"The bulk of Bloglovin’s undisclosed revenue is advertising. The startup has worked with numerous large brands, including L’oreal, MTV, H&M and Levi’s to develop display campaigns, as well as facilitate partnerships with various bloggers. Svenson acts as the go-between for said partnerships, connecting brands with bloggers not only with the largest audience, but also ones that are a good fit for the brand in question."
Now working with bloggers who agree to work with you is a positive. But the site does not mention anything about rev shares so I'm assuming that they will take your blog and only cut you in if it serves their agenda. If they're doing something more fair, they would be smart to make that clear cause, right now, they look like ripoff artists.
I have some other concerns but I'll leave it at that. RSS does not automatically imply a license to republish one's content and when blogs like Mashable big up ripoff artists like Bloglovin', it's a reminder of how far downhill bloggers have gone in protecting each other.
Banner by Jacob Bøtter