The "whatabout" type replies would seem to require that the only websites that can report on the ills of the internet are ones that have no ads, no tracking, no telemetry, no data collection, and so on. Everything must be perfect. That's a bit silly. Shooting the messenger.
Arguably, it does not really matter who is delivering the message. It's the message that matters.
It's not too difficult to transform sitemap XML into RSS.
This type of internet forum reply is so commmon there is a name for it and even a Wikipedia page [1].
"A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction"
I did not ask that they don't have ads, not track their readers, and so on. I asked why there is no link whatsoever besides the usual big tech traps.
"Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about...?") denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation."
Critical question or argument: Tech giants are hijacking the internet
Counter-question or counter-accusations: 1. Why doesn't DW have a link to a fediverse. 2. DW does not have an RSS feed. 3. The press is complicit in hijacking the internet.
The critical question or argument is neither answered or discussed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
The "whatabout" type replies would seem to require that the only websites that can report on the ills of the internet are ones that have no ads, no tracking, no telemetry, no data collection, and so on. Everything must be perfect. That's a bit silly. Shooting the messenger.
Arguably, it does not really matter who is delivering the message. It's the message that matters.
It's not too difficult to transform sitemap XML into RSS.
https://www.dw.com/en/news-sitemap.xml
https://www.dw.com/en/article-sitemap.xml