"Three sites out of thousands" is disingenuous. Twitter alone is enough to make the difference.

For "RSS is as alive as ever" to be true, it would follow that you'd expect to find as many people publishing their content via RSS as the case before. They're not. There are many, many, many derelict blogs, all effectively abandoned because their authors migrated to Twitter, intentionally/consciously or not.

fairly strong claims from someone who had no trouble calling someone else's disingenuous. care to share the data so that we can see what you have seen, ostensibly related to blog atrophy over time? should be fairly easy to spot when twitter cropped up if, as you've claimed, "they're not [publishing their content via RSS as the case before.]"

or, it could be - just floating this - that lots of blogs are posting on RSS, /and/ twitter has gotten a lot more traffic from previous RSS users.

Although you might be, I'm not here out of an a priori desire to experience the pleasure of disagreement, nor to engage in debate as an academic exercise (i.e. with truth and understanding being an incidental concern).

Your request for data is in bad faith, and you're commenting in bad faith.

Twitter is a web-killer. Oh no, I mean, they want you there so badly.

They are large (popular) sites though. They have actively decided to not support RSS as they believe it is counter to their advantage. It's not like they don't have the resources to support RSS.

What this means is that we have a moral obligation to support and push RSS in our work/spare time. This is something I now recognise I need to do at least.