Holy overblown rhetoric. Well, which is it? Are there network benefits or not? Or do only writers that this particular writer disagree with get the network benefits?
Substack is, just as a reminder, a political project made by extremists with a goal of normalizing a radical, hateful agenda by co-opting well-intentioned creators' work in service of cross-promoting attacks on the vulnerable.
Holy overblown rhetoric.
… and the theoretical benefits of network effect from being on Substack. Which is largely a myth (most referrals are thanks to other writers, not the platform) and means you have to be open to the platform using your writing to introduce people to the most insidious anti-trans and white supremacist rhetoric on the internet.
Well, which is it? Are there network benefits or not? Or do only writers that this particular writer disagree with get the network benefits?
I can't help but roll my eyes at this type of statement. I can absolutely understand if someone dislikes Substack's free peach position, but the extrapolation is insane. It's the same type of...
Substack is, just as a reminder, a political project made by extremists with a goal of normalizing a radical, hateful agenda by co-opting well-intentioned creators' work in service of cross-promoting attacks on the vulnerable
I can't help but roll my eyes at this type of statement. I can absolutely understand if someone dislikes Substack's free peach position, but the extrapolation is insane. It's the same type of insane extrapolation as the "you bought a coffee from starbucks? you're a psychopathic supporter of genocide".
Not everything can or needs to be linearly extrapolated to its most extreme possible interpretation. It just makes ridiculous purity tests, since any sign of "impurity" = death.
If anything, I hope that this is the long lesson that we've learned as a now internet oriented society. Recognizing and responding to hyperbole dressed up as sense is a skill we're all learning...
If anything, I hope that this is the long lesson that we've learned as a now internet oriented society.
Recognizing and responding to hyperbole dressed up as sense is a skill we're all learning how to deal with, and I think we're better off having it than we were before (yes, I am making the case that blogs and social media are mostly responsible for the intensity of polarization).
For a while it was common to mock people who over applied first amendment arguments where they didn't apply as "freeze peach" advocates. It sounds kinda like a free speech argument, but is just...
For a while it was common to mock people who over applied first amendment arguments where they didn't apply as "freeze peach" advocates. It sounds kinda like a free speech argument, but is just incorrect.
I'll add that it was not just for incorrectly applied first amendment. It was often used to mock proponents of free speech as a general ideal regardless of what's in the US constitution, as a way...
I'll add that it was not just for incorrectly applied first amendment. It was often used to mock proponents of free speech as a general ideal regardless of what's in the US constitution, as a way to shut down the conversation instead of engaging in it (whether because the mockers did not believe the proponents argued in good faith or for much less sensible reasons).
That article makes a good case for not using Substack but I don't see any advantage to having one and calling it something else. As I understand, Substack is meant to facilitate and aggressively...
That article makes a good case for not using Substack but I don't see any advantage to having one and calling it something else. As I understand, Substack is meant to facilitate and aggressively push a mailing list as well as paid subscriptions, so it is not the same as just calling it a "blog". That would be similar to saying "This is my microblogging profile". People would just ask "Cool. Which one?".
If I had to guess the hope would be that by not calling it substack people would be less inclined to use substack to fit that niche? Hope that makes sense
If I had to guess the hope would be that by not calling it substack people would be less inclined to use substack to fit that niche? Hope that makes sense
I guess the problem of that article is that if someone had such contempt for Substack that they couldn't even say its name than they would probably not use Substack in the first place.
I guess the problem of that article is that if someone had such contempt for Substack that they couldn't even say its name than they would probably not use Substack in the first place.
Thats pretty strange argument. Platform implements improvements, and its bad because its a good reason to continue to use platform? I have few bloggers on Substack that I subscribed too via RSS...
But understand this: every single new feature Substack releases, from their social sharing to their mobile apps, is proprietary and locks you into their network.
Thats pretty strange argument. Platform implements improvements, and its bad because its a good reason to continue to use platform?
I have few bloggers on Substack that I subscribed too via RSS and honestly its not clear for me why so much hates goes to this platform.
Upd: I familiar in wide strokes with Substack controversy, and... I can't form clear answer for it apart of something like "while platform allows you to read what you want to read and see what you want to see, its fine". Personally for me Facebook, Reddit, Twitter is worse in this sense, because there no way to block some communities, groups from appearing in your feed.
I don't use substack, but I've always gotten the feeling that users, both those writing and reading, somehow place greater emphasis on an opinion when it is shared on substack as opposed to a...
I don't use substack, but I've always gotten the feeling that users, both those writing and reading, somehow place greater emphasis on an opinion when it is shared on substack as opposed to a private blog or other social media posts. I feel like for many people, that platform lends credibility, and I don't think that was an accident on substacks part.
So I think a challenge that the author here will face is that people prefer to call it "my substack" because it feels more professional or differentiated than "my blog."
I think it is a silly emphasis, having read many well researched blogs and many poorly researched substack posts. But perceptions are hard to change. Unfortunately, I don't see substack going anywhere, though for those looking, I found Ghost to be a great tool, though I self hosted my own container of it.
It's interesting as I always view substack articles with an extra critical eye because it is substack. Same with medium articles for that matter. Both platforms offer a clear path to monetisation...
It's interesting as I always view substack articles with an extra critical eye because it is substack. Same with medium articles for that matter. Both platforms offer a clear path to monetisation of content. Which in itself isn't a bad thing.
However, it also increases the potential of people just writing with the goal of churning out content rather than provide actual insights.
Of course, with regular blogs, there might also be other motives people have for writing their content. Which is also something I keep in mind when reading those.
In short, substack articles for me aren't automatically an indicator of a more valuable opinion it seems to be for many other people.
I'll never disagree with being skeptical of centralized platforms, but my experience as a reader of a few Substack blogs has so far avoided that centralized platform stink. The fact that they...
I'll never disagree with being skeptical of centralized platforms, but my experience as a reader of a few Substack blogs has so far avoided that centralized platform stink. The fact that they provide full-text RSS feeds of non-premium posts puts them far and above all the other places desperate to keep you on their site or app.
Anil's argument that the network effects of the Substack platform being overstated does resonate with me, as every Substack blog I've got in my feed reader has been a case of "this person's blog just so happens to be on Substack" and not "I discovered this blog through Substack", however I suspect readers who do use Substack for its own sake would see things differently there.
Substack is, just as a reminder, a political project made by extremists with a goal of normalizing a radical, hateful agenda by co-opting well-intentioned creators' work in service of cross-promoting attacks on the vulnerable.
If that was in any way the goals of Substack's leadership, then it's a resounding failure. I don't doubt there's some heinous rhetoric on the platform, but that stuff isn't getting into my RSS feeds. As long as I can keep up with the well-intentioned creators I want unsullied by anything I didn't choose to see, then hate will have no home in my Substack experience, and that's good enough for me.
Quite a dramatic post ^^ I don’t like substack. But mostly because they lure in writers with benefits that they won’t be able to sustain if they ever want to make the kind of return their...
Quite a dramatic post ^^
I don’t like substack. But mostly because they lure in writers with benefits that they won’t be able to sustain if they ever want to make the kind of return their investors expect.
The percentage fee is doomed to go up. Maybe they’ll start bundling individual substacks into one big substack subscription, at which point the writers will lose the direct connection with customers. Maybe they’ll lean more heavily into Notes, where short and less nuanced posts generate more engagement and profit.
They have such a long road to go in terms of the profit they have to generate, that I don’t see how this can be achieved without screwing over their writers & audience.
I’m pretty surprised to see the reception this article is getting, in tildes out of all places. I thought tildes userbase would understand the dangers of proprietary platforms normalized as public...
I’m pretty surprised to see the reception this article is getting, in tildes out of all places. I thought tildes userbase would understand the dangers of proprietary platforms normalized as public services, but seems like even this take is too far left now. Funny how much the center has shifted right lately…
I think it's at least partially just a matter of who feels bothered to comment. People are more likely to comment when they disagree, after all. I dislike Substack a lot and would never make an...
I think it's at least partially just a matter of who feels bothered to comment. People are more likely to comment when they disagree, after all. I dislike Substack a lot and would never make an account there, and don't engage with it at all unless directly linked there by an author I already trust. I don't think it's a good platform and I think they enable a lot of awful stuff. But I already exhausted my desire to engage with arguments about that when they were the discourse du jour on other sites, so I mostly didn't bother commenting in this thread.
Yeah I don't like their policy of platforming Nazis (and advertising them to others) and I use it only when it's the only source for someone's work. I also don't care if people say "substack" when...
Yeah I don't like their policy of platforming Nazis (and advertising them to others) and I use it only when it's the only source for someone's work.
I also don't care if people say "substack" when they mean their blog on substack. That's how language works. Give it long enough and you'll be able to find my substack on FrogBlog, StackArt, and CatFans (with more cat pics) and many other fine services. I don't see substack normalized as "a public service"
I just don't care that much what a bunch of amoral people want to do with their website platform, I want to read the work of the people I want to follow. I don't have a substack or a blog, so the article isn't directed to me
Honestly same, like was the wording a little silly, maybe. I get what the author is saying, and maybe the wording was silly but....it is nevertheless still a good point to be made, and I am glad...
Honestly same, like was the wording a little silly, maybe. I get what the author is saying, and maybe the wording was silly but....it is nevertheless still a good point to be made, and I am glad they said it. Truthfully I think not being averse to a platform being okay with hosting nazis is maybe something people need to think introspectively about but what do I know.
There's still substacks that I read and perhaps I even might open my own substack at some point, but I am definitely soured on the idea that a social media platform of any kind should necessarily...
There's still substacks that I read and perhaps I even might open my own substack at some point, but I am definitely soured on the idea that a social media platform of any kind should necessarily cater to free speech ideals in some absolute sense. I think long-term I'll be more happy on platforms that have a moral center to them that is well telegraphed and everybody can get behind. Tildes is one such a place and I'm finding Bluesky is another.
I am not sure if it is a shift right or more part of the demographic on Tildes. The sentiment of "a platform is just a platform" always has been strong in tech spheres and you can see it being...
I am not sure if it is a shift right or more part of the demographic on Tildes. The sentiment of "a platform is just a platform" always has been strong in tech spheres and you can see it being used by all sorts of people. Including people who overall lean pretty left on the political spectrum.
I personally don't agree with it for the most part. Though I think I do understand some of the underlying sentiment. Which seems to be the feeling that is next to impossible to use a product these days without some sort of ideological issue attached to it through the people behind it.
To be extra clear, I am saying I understand the feeling and where it is coming from. Not that I agree with it wholeheartedly. If anything it seems to be more an issue of binary thinking where reality is much complex.
This is true, but I do think it's interesting to compare the reaction to this post to criticisms of other platforms on this site -- criticism of Reddit is low-hanging fruit, but even the recent...
The sentiment of "a platform is just a platform" always has been strong in tech spheres and you can see it being used by all sorts of people.
This is true, but I do think it's interesting to compare the reaction to this post to criticisms of other platforms on this site -- criticism of Reddit is low-hanging fruit, but even the recent thread about Kagi's use of Yandex's reverse image search is an interesting source of comparison. Of course these have differences from Substack that may affect people's perspectives, but it's still an interesting comparison with how dismissive people are of Substack's issues in this thread.
That's the thing, in Kagi's case I feel like people have been equally dismissive of any issues. Maybe even more so, as a lot of people position Kagi opposite from Google who they probably consider...
That's the thing, in Kagi's case I feel like people have been equally dismissive of any issues. Maybe even more so, as a lot of people position Kagi opposite from Google who they probably consider as a bigger bad.
It's partially what prompted my response here as, to me, it is a recognizable pattern.
I think the recent thread on Kagi using Yandex's reverse image search was, if anything, overwhelmed by criticism of Kagi. But it's true that prior threads about it had been mostly positive.
I think the recent thread on Kagi using Yandex's reverse image search was, if anything, overwhelmed by criticism of Kagi. But it's true that prior threads about it had been mostly positive.
When I last checked it, what I noticed was a lot of people also voicing the sort of sentiment I was talking about. You are right that there were also a lot of people receptive to the criticism as...
When I last checked it, what I noticed was a lot of people also voicing the sort of sentiment I was talking about. You are right that there were also a lot of people receptive to the criticism as well in the latest thread. And yeah, as you said, in a thread before that, generally the strongest sentiment did seem to be that of "a platform is just a platform".
Note that I am not saying "everyone", I am talking about the strongest sentiment and part of the demographics on Tildes. I am not sure how big this group of people is on Tildes, I know that they are big enough for me to notice them as a group.
As a person who casually browses Substack periodically, I’m surprised by the article and comments here — I had no idea it was at all controversial. I’m curious how you all feel about Medium. I...
As a person who casually browses Substack periodically, I’m surprised by the article and comments here — I had no idea it was at all controversial.
I’m curious how you all feel about Medium. I found some interesting blogs there a while back and signed up since it seemed worthwhile to support the authors. Hopefully it’s not similarly tainted.
Holy overblown rhetoric.
Well, which is it? Are there network benefits or not? Or do only writers that this particular writer disagree with get the network benefits?
I can't help but roll my eyes at this type of statement. I can absolutely understand if someone dislikes Substack's free peach position, but the extrapolation is insane. It's the same type of insane extrapolation as the "you bought a coffee from starbucks? you're a psychopathic supporter of genocide".
Not everything can or needs to be linearly extrapolated to its most extreme possible interpretation. It just makes ridiculous purity tests, since any sign of "impurity" = death.
If anything, I hope that this is the long lesson that we've learned as a now internet oriented society.
Recognizing and responding to hyperbole dressed up as sense is a skill we're all learning how to deal with, and I think we're better off having it than we were before (yes, I am making the case that blogs and social media are mostly responsible for the intensity of polarization).
is this a typo, or a reference I don’t get? If if it’s the former, perhaps it should be the latter anyway.
For a while it was common to mock people who over applied first amendment arguments where they didn't apply as "freeze peach" advocates. It sounds kinda like a free speech argument, but is just incorrect.
I'll add that it was not just for incorrectly applied first amendment. It was often used to mock proponents of free speech as a general ideal regardless of what's in the US constitution, as a way to shut down the conversation instead of engaging in it (whether because the mockers did not believe the proponents argued in good faith or for much less sensible reasons).
That article makes a good case for not using Substack but I don't see any advantage to having one and calling it something else. As I understand, Substack is meant to facilitate and aggressively push a mailing list as well as paid subscriptions, so it is not the same as just calling it a "blog". That would be similar to saying "This is my microblogging profile". People would just ask "Cool. Which one?".
If I had to guess the hope would be that by not calling it substack people would be less inclined to use substack to fit that niche? Hope that makes sense
I guess the problem of that article is that if someone had such contempt for Substack that they couldn't even say its name than they would probably not use Substack in the first place.
Thats pretty strange argument. Platform implements improvements, and its bad because its a good reason to continue to use platform?
I have few bloggers on Substack that I subscribed too via RSS and honestly its not clear for me why so much hates goes to this platform.
Upd: I familiar in wide strokes with Substack controversy, and... I can't form clear answer for it apart of something like "while platform allows you to read what you want to read and see what you want to see, its fine". Personally for me Facebook, Reddit, Twitter is worse in this sense, because there no way to block some communities, groups from appearing in your feed.
It's also sort of like ".....yes?"
What's the actual alternative the author is arguing for, here? For substack to stop releasing features?
I don't use substack, but I've always gotten the feeling that users, both those writing and reading, somehow place greater emphasis on an opinion when it is shared on substack as opposed to a private blog or other social media posts. I feel like for many people, that platform lends credibility, and I don't think that was an accident on substacks part.
So I think a challenge that the author here will face is that people prefer to call it "my substack" because it feels more professional or differentiated than "my blog."
I think it is a silly emphasis, having read many well researched blogs and many poorly researched substack posts. But perceptions are hard to change. Unfortunately, I don't see substack going anywhere, though for those looking, I found Ghost to be a great tool, though I self hosted my own container of it.
It's interesting as I always view substack articles with an extra critical eye because it is substack. Same with medium articles for that matter. Both platforms offer a clear path to monetisation of content. Which in itself isn't a bad thing.
However, it also increases the potential of people just writing with the goal of churning out content rather than provide actual insights.
Of course, with regular blogs, there might also be other motives people have for writing their content. Which is also something I keep in mind when reading those.
In short, substack articles for me aren't automatically an indicator of a more valuable opinion it seems to be for many other people.
I'll never disagree with being skeptical of centralized platforms, but my experience as a reader of a few Substack blogs has so far avoided that centralized platform stink. The fact that they provide full-text RSS feeds of non-premium posts puts them far and above all the other places desperate to keep you on their site or app.
Anil's argument that the network effects of the Substack platform being overstated does resonate with me, as every Substack blog I've got in my feed reader has been a case of "this person's blog just so happens to be on Substack" and not "I discovered this blog through Substack", however I suspect readers who do use Substack for its own sake would see things differently there.
If that was in any way the goals of Substack's leadership, then it's a resounding failure. I don't doubt there's some heinous rhetoric on the platform, but that stuff isn't getting into my RSS feeds. As long as I can keep up with the well-intentioned creators I want unsullied by anything I didn't choose to see, then hate will have no home in my Substack experience, and that's good enough for me.
Quite a dramatic post ^^
I don’t like substack. But mostly because they lure in writers with benefits that they won’t be able to sustain if they ever want to make the kind of return their investors expect.
The percentage fee is doomed to go up. Maybe they’ll start bundling individual substacks into one big substack subscription, at which point the writers will lose the direct connection with customers. Maybe they’ll lean more heavily into Notes, where short and less nuanced posts generate more engagement and profit.
They have such a long road to go in terms of the profit they have to generate, that I don’t see how this can be achieved without screwing over their writers & audience.
I’m pretty surprised to see the reception this article is getting, in tildes out of all places. I thought tildes userbase would understand the dangers of proprietary platforms normalized as public services, but seems like even this take is too far left now. Funny how much the center has shifted right lately…
I think it's at least partially just a matter of who feels bothered to comment. People are more likely to comment when they disagree, after all. I dislike Substack a lot and would never make an account there, and don't engage with it at all unless directly linked there by an author I already trust. I don't think it's a good platform and I think they enable a lot of awful stuff. But I already exhausted my desire to engage with arguments about that when they were the discourse du jour on other sites, so I mostly didn't bother commenting in this thread.
Yeah I don't like their policy of platforming Nazis (and advertising them to others) and I use it only when it's the only source for someone's work.
I also don't care if people say "substack" when they mean their blog on substack. That's how language works. Give it long enough and you'll be able to find my substack on FrogBlog, StackArt, and CatFans (with more cat pics) and many other fine services. I don't see substack normalized as "a public service"
I just don't care that much what a bunch of amoral people want to do with their website platform, I want to read the work of the people I want to follow. I don't have a substack or a blog, so the article isn't directed to me
Yeah I agree, the language part is a weird place to focus the issue.
Honestly same, like was the wording a little silly, maybe. I get what the author is saying, and maybe the wording was silly but....it is nevertheless still a good point to be made, and I am glad they said it. Truthfully I think not being averse to a platform being okay with hosting nazis is maybe something people need to think introspectively about but what do I know.
There's still substacks that I read and perhaps I even might open my own substack at some point, but I am definitely soured on the idea that a social media platform of any kind should necessarily cater to free speech ideals in some absolute sense. I think long-term I'll be more happy on platforms that have a moral center to them that is well telegraphed and everybody can get behind. Tildes is one such a place and I'm finding Bluesky is another.
I am not sure if it is a shift right or more part of the demographic on Tildes. The sentiment of "a platform is just a platform" always has been strong in tech spheres and you can see it being used by all sorts of people. Including people who overall lean pretty left on the political spectrum.
I personally don't agree with it for the most part. Though I think I do understand some of the underlying sentiment. Which seems to be the feeling that is next to impossible to use a product these days without some sort of ideological issue attached to it through the people behind it.
To be extra clear, I am saying I understand the feeling and where it is coming from. Not that I agree with it wholeheartedly. If anything it seems to be more an issue of binary thinking where reality is much complex.
This is true, but I do think it's interesting to compare the reaction to this post to criticisms of other platforms on this site -- criticism of Reddit is low-hanging fruit, but even the recent thread about Kagi's use of Yandex's reverse image search is an interesting source of comparison. Of course these have differences from Substack that may affect people's perspectives, but it's still an interesting comparison with how dismissive people are of Substack's issues in this thread.
That's the thing, in Kagi's case I feel like people have been equally dismissive of any issues. Maybe even more so, as a lot of people position Kagi opposite from Google who they probably consider as a bigger bad.
It's partially what prompted my response here as, to me, it is a recognizable pattern.
I think the recent thread on Kagi using Yandex's reverse image search was, if anything, overwhelmed by criticism of Kagi. But it's true that prior threads about it had been mostly positive.
When I last checked it, what I noticed was a lot of people also voicing the sort of sentiment I was talking about. You are right that there were also a lot of people receptive to the criticism as well in the latest thread. And yeah, as you said, in a thread before that, generally the strongest sentiment did seem to be that of "a platform is just a platform".
Note that I am not saying "everyone", I am talking about the strongest sentiment and part of the demographics on Tildes. I am not sure how big this group of people is on Tildes, I know that they are big enough for me to notice them as a group.
As a person who casually browses Substack periodically, I’m surprised by the article and comments here — I had no idea it was at all controversial.
I’m curious how you all feel about Medium. I found some interesting blogs there a while back and signed up since it seemed worthwhile to support the authors. Hopefully it’s not similarly tainted.