Enriching and empowering through discoverability, or locking-in to roles as drones in a malevolent attention-hacking and harvesting grift? The unfinished battle for online publishing’s soul…
My peeve as a reader is Substack's "You can read this article to teh end IF YOU USE OUR APP". hell no!
Idk who controls this - teh writer or Substack, but it is insanely annoying and nothing more than a demand to hand over contact information or pay the writer even if there is a free option.
I would just like to point out that there is a finite amount of eyeball time. Novelists complain of declining incomes, but fail to understand that supply has been booming for a while.
IDK how the blogosphere has or has not expanded, but I have to limit who I read, or I would spend all day reading and doing nothing else. I have to curate who I read, and that means discoverability on Substack is wasted on me. I agree with sPh, I will read a note if recommended by a writer, which may translate into further reading, but I do not accept Substack's recommendations.
Huh. I do not think I have ever heard of or seen that. I have seen the message that an email gateway may have cut off the end of the text. But I thought it then directed you to the website—not the mobile app. May I please ask you to send it along the next time I see it?:
> Alex Tolley: 'My peeve as a reader is Substack's "You can read this article to teh end IF YOU USE OUR APP". hell no! Idk who controls this - teh writer or Substack, but it is insanely annoying and nothing more than a demand to hand over contact information or pay the writer even if there is a free option. I would just like to point out that there is a finite amount of eyeball time. Novelists complain of declining incomes, but fail to understand that supply has been booming for a while. IDK how the blogosphere has or has not expanded, but I have to limit who I read, or I would spend all day reading and doing nothing else. I have to curate who I read, and that means discoverability on Substack is wasted on me. I agree with sPh, I will read a note if recommended by a writer, which may translate into further reading, but I do not accept Substack's recommendation...
Good point on eyeball time. As far as I understand matters, the supply of opinion writers is near-unlimited. There is plenty of fervor on the left, and plenty of money on the right. The demand is peculiarly structured, as far as I understand matters. The modal left-opinion reader, as far as I can tell, is an overeducated retiree. This isn't a very large group, and there are many writers fighting for eyeball time. Being old, the readers are calmer than their more perfervid writers. And also being old, they tend to be creatures of habit: not much into discovery.
I'm definitely an "overeducated retiree". But my curiosity is directed far more in the direction of science and technology, and much less in social issues and opinions on such matters.
Substack "discoverability" has NEVER brought me to even one substack creator. I find writers that I like due to their history, their posts on other places, and even searches for some topic - or just links from other people.
NONE of which has anything to do with whether they are on Substack or some other place. Now, I can understand easily how a platform can make the blogger/writers job easier or better - and that can be a very good reason to choose that platform - but "substack" is of no value to me in any way shape or form other than it happens to host some very good writers.
Speaking as someone who had a Substack newsletter and abandoned it: 1) I don't think Substack is as evil as some seem to think it is, but at the same time having a Substack newsletter ties your writing and your personal reputation to the Substack brand in a way that alternatives do not. I wasn't comfortable with that. 2) Even with improved discoverability, I think the chances of being even somewhat successful with a Substack newsletter are extremely low, unless you bring a pre-existing reputation and/or are willing to hustle *a lot*. I have gained more readers and followers by participating in very niche communities and writing about topics of interest to them; I even make a small bit of money out of one of them.
I honestly don't understand what you mean by "discoverability layer". Do you mean it is easy for people to follow a link from a blog, or a Mastodon or Bluesky post to a writer's page on Substack? OK, but that's what hyperlinks are right? Or do you mean that there are people who actively spend time looking at their Substack account's algorithm-driven recommended list and clicking on authors they don't already have a reference to from another source? If so, good for them, but how many people have that kind of time and patience? If you recommend a post on another author's Substack page I'll click over and link to it, but if you recommend a post on John Quiggen's personal blog I'll click to that also. But I don't randomly click on links because Substack's algorithm presents them to me.
I wonder how you'd relate this discussion to the dying institution of the newspaper...? My other thought is the Polanyian one of the seeming need for expanded public subsidy of the print-literacy-promoting parts of the media ecology.
If one is complaining about Substack and still uses Xitter, then I have no sympathy. Anything on the Internet gives potential access to 8 billion consumers, thus the first mover advantage and the winner takes all, for both the platform owners and the performers. Then we are stuck with the Kardashians and Zuckerbergs.
We need to fracture the social media Leviathan into much smaller pieces, from which we can easily walk away. We need nodes concentrated on local geography for local governance, business, and to find friends in the flesh. We need attachments to many nodes so that we don't confuse our identity with a cult, and so that we see a diversity of ideas. We need not just short notes, but dedicated locations for essays, serialized fiction, poetry, music, images, and fusions.
There is no law that these nodes are on the same platform. Perhaps that is how we can use AI, as a bridge and aggregator across many social media platforms. This can create a social media identity outside of and bigger than any single platform. It can store (with consent) our favorite contacts for communication beyond a specific media. It would give platforms more competition and less power.
The risk is that such a tool could also be used to shout across all platforms and nodes. Controls must be put in place. There should be a fine or fee for shouting at 8 billion souls, whether you call it rage, narcissism, or advertising.
Methinks the Professor doth protest too much! Culture wars are only there if you believe in them and go down the rabbit hole. The value of Substack is that readers choose who they want to follow and who they want to pay. I have about 12 subscriptions, three are either free or that I choose not to pay (comments are turned off in those cases). I have also terminated several subscriptions over the past three years as the content no longer interested me.
I spent most of 2020 putting out a daily Covid-19 newsletter (https://www.alangoldhammer.com/COVID_19/index.html) and understand the difficulty of generating content each day. My own Substack that by my choice does not engage in political commentary as there is already too much of that and my readers can go elsewhere for that.
This was such a low VAR article that it’s not worth much of a comment from me. What you basically did was throw a bunch of Anna data and angst at me. First, you don’t need subs to do that. Second I can find that in a zillion places on the Internet. Really, one of your lowest tear pieces of writing. To put on my armchair, psychologist hat for a minute, it kind of sounds like you are pretty conflicted about this. But I don’t read you to read about your conflicts. I reuse find out interesting new information and solutions.
I (perhaps like you) feel like the risk/reward calculation for substack is strongly positive. I get a lot of value from it and, if something were to change my mind, I wouldn't suffer financially from leaving.
One of the writers I've found valuable to read is S. Peter Davis who is thoughtful about the problems of trying to evaluate the risks in trying to use Substack as a platform for building a career.
My peeve as a reader is Substack's "You can read this article to teh end IF YOU USE OUR APP". hell no!
Idk who controls this - teh writer or Substack, but it is insanely annoying and nothing more than a demand to hand over contact information or pay the writer even if there is a free option.
I would just like to point out that there is a finite amount of eyeball time. Novelists complain of declining incomes, but fail to understand that supply has been booming for a while.
IDK how the blogosphere has or has not expanded, but I have to limit who I read, or I would spend all day reading and doing nothing else. I have to curate who I read, and that means discoverability on Substack is wasted on me. I agree with sPh, I will read a note if recommended by a writer, which may translate into further reading, but I do not accept Substack's recommendations.
Huh. I do not think I have ever heard of or seen that. I have seen the message that an email gateway may have cut off the end of the text. But I thought it then directed you to the website—not the mobile app. May I please ask you to send it along the next time I see it?:
> Alex Tolley: 'My peeve as a reader is Substack's "You can read this article to teh end IF YOU USE OUR APP". hell no! Idk who controls this - teh writer or Substack, but it is insanely annoying and nothing more than a demand to hand over contact information or pay the writer even if there is a free option. I would just like to point out that there is a finite amount of eyeball time. Novelists complain of declining incomes, but fail to understand that supply has been booming for a while. IDK how the blogosphere has or has not expanded, but I have to limit who I read, or I would spend all day reading and doing nothing else. I have to curate who I read, and that means discoverability on Substack is wasted on me. I agree with sPh, I will read a note if recommended by a writer, which may translate into further reading, but I do not accept Substack's recommendation...
Good point on eyeball time. As far as I understand matters, the supply of opinion writers is near-unlimited. There is plenty of fervor on the left, and plenty of money on the right. The demand is peculiarly structured, as far as I understand matters. The modal left-opinion reader, as far as I can tell, is an overeducated retiree. This isn't a very large group, and there are many writers fighting for eyeball time. Being old, the readers are calmer than their more perfervid writers. And also being old, they tend to be creatures of habit: not much into discovery.
I'm definitely an "overeducated retiree". But my curiosity is directed far more in the direction of science and technology, and much less in social issues and opinions on such matters.
Overeducated retiree. Me too.
Substack "discoverability" has NEVER brought me to even one substack creator. I find writers that I like due to their history, their posts on other places, and even searches for some topic - or just links from other people.
NONE of which has anything to do with whether they are on Substack or some other place. Now, I can understand easily how a platform can make the blogger/writers job easier or better - and that can be a very good reason to choose that platform - but "substack" is of no value to me in any way shape or form other than it happens to host some very good writers.
Speaking as someone who had a Substack newsletter and abandoned it: 1) I don't think Substack is as evil as some seem to think it is, but at the same time having a Substack newsletter ties your writing and your personal reputation to the Substack brand in a way that alternatives do not. I wasn't comfortable with that. 2) Even with improved discoverability, I think the chances of being even somewhat successful with a Substack newsletter are extremely low, unless you bring a pre-existing reputation and/or are willing to hustle *a lot*. I have gained more readers and followers by participating in very niche communities and writing about topics of interest to them; I even make a small bit of money out of one of them.
I honestly don't understand what you mean by "discoverability layer". Do you mean it is easy for people to follow a link from a blog, or a Mastodon or Bluesky post to a writer's page on Substack? OK, but that's what hyperlinks are right? Or do you mean that there are people who actively spend time looking at their Substack account's algorithm-driven recommended list and clicking on authors they don't already have a reference to from another source? If so, good for them, but how many people have that kind of time and patience? If you recommend a post on another author's Substack page I'll click over and link to it, but if you recommend a post on John Quiggen's personal blog I'll click to that also. But I don't randomly click on links because Substack's algorithm presents them to me.
I wonder how you'd relate this discussion to the dying institution of the newspaper...? My other thought is the Polanyian one of the seeming need for expanded public subsidy of the print-literacy-promoting parts of the media ecology.
If one is complaining about Substack and still uses Xitter, then I have no sympathy. Anything on the Internet gives potential access to 8 billion consumers, thus the first mover advantage and the winner takes all, for both the platform owners and the performers. Then we are stuck with the Kardashians and Zuckerbergs.
We need to fracture the social media Leviathan into much smaller pieces, from which we can easily walk away. We need nodes concentrated on local geography for local governance, business, and to find friends in the flesh. We need attachments to many nodes so that we don't confuse our identity with a cult, and so that we see a diversity of ideas. We need not just short notes, but dedicated locations for essays, serialized fiction, poetry, music, images, and fusions.
There is no law that these nodes are on the same platform. Perhaps that is how we can use AI, as a bridge and aggregator across many social media platforms. This can create a social media identity outside of and bigger than any single platform. It can store (with consent) our favorite contacts for communication beyond a specific media. It would give platforms more competition and less power.
The risk is that such a tool could also be used to shout across all platforms and nodes. Controls must be put in place. There should be a fine or fee for shouting at 8 billion souls, whether you call it rage, narcissism, or advertising.
Richard is not so bad - he spends most his time attacking the far right now...
Methinks the Professor doth protest too much! Culture wars are only there if you believe in them and go down the rabbit hole. The value of Substack is that readers choose who they want to follow and who they want to pay. I have about 12 subscriptions, three are either free or that I choose not to pay (comments are turned off in those cases). I have also terminated several subscriptions over the past three years as the content no longer interested me.
I spent most of 2020 putting out a daily Covid-19 newsletter (https://www.alangoldhammer.com/COVID_19/index.html) and understand the difficulty of generating content each day. My own Substack that by my choice does not engage in political commentary as there is already too much of that and my readers can go elsewhere for that.
This was such a low VAR article that it’s not worth much of a comment from me. What you basically did was throw a bunch of Anna data and angst at me. First, you don’t need subs to do that. Second I can find that in a zillion places on the Internet. Really, one of your lowest tear pieces of writing. To put on my armchair, psychologist hat for a minute, it kind of sounds like you are pretty conflicted about this. But I don’t read you to read about your conflicts. I reuse find out interesting new information and solutions.
Hard disagree. This is a deep question and Brad's thoughts are very interesting to me.
Thanks for responding. My take is that the question is important, not deep. That's why it deserves an analysis based on data, not anecdotes.
I too thought that Brad's ideas were very interesting and well-reasoned. I learned a lot from this post.
I (perhaps like you) feel like the risk/reward calculation for substack is strongly positive. I get a lot of value from it and, if something were to change my mind, I wouldn't suffer financially from leaving.
One of the writers I've found valuable to read is S. Peter Davis who is thoughtful about the problems of trying to evaluate the risks in trying to use Substack as a platform for building a career.
For example:
"Being a Writer Means Learning to Survive Platform Collapse" -- https://speterdavis.substack.com/p/being-a-writer-means-learning-to
or "Relax, You'll Never Make a Living on Substack" -- https://speterdavis.substack.com/p/relax-youll-never-make-a-living-on
And, most recently, "Substack Is Your Boss, and He's Dissatisfied With Your Performance" -- https://speterdavis.substack.com/p/substack-is-your-boss-and-hes-dissatisfied