I agree that the notion of news feeds filtered by interest is essentially the same as reddit. But I'll take this opportunity to bicker with you about /. vs reddit.
What annoys me most about /. is the poor quality of many of the submissions that make it through, despite (or because of) the fact that it's curated. Sure, there's the almost mandatory trope of closing a summary with a rhetorical question. But often the whole summary, or even the news story, is crap -- FUD, nonsense, or obviously loaded rhetoric that wouldn't even make it over the radar on reddit.
Of course, reddit has its own cliches, some of which make me want to tear my hair out, but that is partially mitigated by unsubscribing from the worst offending subreddits. (Initial customization to leave the default subs is required if you want to avoid becoming suicidal.) But the crap stories that make it through there are at least *interesting*. Sure, they may blatantly appeal to reader biases, especially in politically oriented subs, but at least you know what you get from looking at the headline and know not to read any further.
The crap that gets through on reddit is successful for a reason -- there must be an underlying "quality" in the submission that appeals to at least some large collective of users. Whereas the crap that gets through on slashdot is often a complete fluke.