Advertisers must be kept as far away from Substack as possible. It might seem more profitable to allow ads. Some writers may even favor this option. However, it will ultimately lead to bias and censorship, and will incentivize the algorithm to become more polarizing to best ensnare users’ attention.
The fastest way to pervert and kill this place is to allow advertising to get into it and then have any sort of say in how things are done.
Absolutely!! I'm scared of it happening—especially since some writers might actually support the switch. It would potentially offer greater profits in the short-term, but it would ruin everything that made Substack a good place to publish in the first place.
If Substack wants to survive long-term, it will need to venture into fintech to avoid being suddenly debanked one day. Current near-total dependence on Stripe is the most worrying single thing about the situation.
Malone might have slightly exaggerated his troubles with Stripe (those were quite quickly resolved after he offered™ to sue them) but the article contains rather informative links.
As far as I can tell, with a very quick, short, set of searches, Substack's a private company and the 3 founders are in control. So far, Best, et al, seem to call the shots and are satisfied with the monetary returns.
Until and unless they go public I suspect the things we (We being all right thinking people, of course. Grin.) like will stay that way.
Yes, of course, sooner or later things will change, but now, it's great while it's lasting.
Going public means that entities such as BlackRock and Larry Fink can gain control just by purchasing shares for their retirement funds of millions and millions of people. That is more leverage that the stock price itself because the volume of shares can be withdrawn instantly, and the stock crushed. This is new mechanism that is driving so many companies to make the strangest choices for their brands. That is not market forces, it’s a masked form of intimidation.
Remaining independent is THE primary goal if Substack is to thrive.
I hope they don't go public. So many entrepreneurs have lost control of their companies opening it up to the stock market. I'd rather have the consistent profits and freedom to do whatever I want than deal with stockholders.
To my eyes Notes was solidly twitteroid. Since Notes began, the rest of Substack has gradually become more like the other media, where Team A and Team B get all the money and attention, while non-team players fade away. We don't know the intentions of the managers, but it looks from the outside like they're preparing the ground for an IPO or a buyout.
I can see what you're saying, although I've been optimistic that while the big Substacks have continued to grow proportionally with their size, there's been opportunity for us little guys, too.
A buyout was what I was concerned about when writing this, but an IPO would accomplish the same thing. You may be right, but I really, really hope you're wrong.
Sorry but that sounds kind of paranoid. Notes is where you have informal chats with intelligent people, and posts are where you present more reasoned, thought out formal ideas. The compliment each other IMO.
I appreciate the depth of what’s created on Substack going far beyond 140 characters. I appreciate that there’s actual humans behind most accounts, activists are easily identifiable and the discourse is relatively respectful. No ad dollars makes that possible. Lets hope the biz model keeps it that way.
Completely agreed. They've really created a great thing here. As long as they don't go back on everything they did to make it that way, it should stay for a while.
Excellent writing piece, Melissa! While I have the gift of gab, I am predominately an introvert. I do not seek out " social media " in general . What draws me to Substack is to be in a sea of writers and to read what other writers are not only writing, but thinking. I could care less about places where people seem to brag or show off, I am the polar opposite to that. Deep thinkers draw deep thinkers. I actually pray for Substack to keep going and to evolve well. A heartfelt thanks to you, Melissa, for writing this and other commenters here for thoughts. I learn SO much from comments on Notes! Blessings to all, WEW
Except that the lamestream platforms don't make money. Every single one of them has lost money every single year. Why are they still around? Subsidizing propaganda.
So if Substack becomes another soy platform kept around as a means of subsidizing propaganda, I agree that's a terrible thing, but it is that and not fiat currency that is the measure of profit.
Though, I wonder where Substack does get their money? Some small percentage of paid subscribers (that could be shut down at any instant because Stripe has a reputation for that)? Because I've definitely seen some posters that look like plants so they won't lose this new platform like they lost tiktok.
Stripe is the reason why I won't be posting any paid content here and will primarily be using it as a promotion for my paid content. And most men with sense are in the same position, I remember someone bragging about their first paid sub and even that doxes you on Stripe lol.
10% is a small cut though, and as mentioned, Stripe could shut it down at any moment even for unrelated wrongthink. Oh, you bought a silly red hat, so we're denying you income!
Then consider that even as a small team, they still likely have significantly more staff than necessary, they're in Commiefornia, so it was monopoly money even before the holocoof, and bandwidth also costs money, though not that much since you can't post long videos. Does that measure out as a net profit? Dunno, but you can only operate at a loss if you're wasting someone else's money or money isn't an object.
I think over the long run Substack will make more money than Twitter, Facebook and all the other social media as long as they stick to the core principles that made people come to them in the first place. The reality is that people like not being censored and if you think that would make them less money, that's insane.
The thing is, though, substack’s business model relies on people shelling out their own money to support the platform, versus the other business models, which profit off of users’ attention. It seems like the vast majority of people just don’t want to pay for what they can get for free.
Plus, the external (political?) pressure towards censorship must be really high.
Right now my biggest concern is the decision to sell or go public, both of which will promise really huge sums of money in the short-term. Who knows? It’s just a thought. Right now it’s up in the air, could go either way.
Let us hope they can, I came here to write Tolkienian styled fantasy lit and to do lit and philosophy essays, not to be drowned in an algorithm consumed with social justice.
That's a reassuring thought. I'm always impressed by Substack's leadership. I think it's actually run by genuine people—something so rare, it actually gives me hope for the world.
Substack will follow the pattern of all living things. It will be born. It will be young, fresh, and innocent. It will mature, develop and advance. It will age and become a bit wiser. And then it will enter a period of decline, ending in death.
I have been asking for a while, what is our Plan B? Even if Substack hold fast to their principles, rather than go for the bigger profits, nation states may decide to shut them down nationally for not censoring. It won't happen now, but when they decide to roll in the next crisis, that requires total population brainwashing, it will inevitably follow that the infrastructure we built during this covid crisis to give ourselves a platform, absolutely must be destroyed before the next crisis can be rolled in successfully.
The repression may not be as crude as having to shut the platforms down altogether, as long as they can be made ineffective, and currently what is going on with the "substack doctors" is a great example of substack becoming ineffective in the medical field. At the start of covid, we had little choice but to trust the doctors we needed to survive. What we did not know is that they were deliberately placed to mop up the free thinkers and take us down blind alleys. We are now questioning those doctors and their blind alleys. Now for as long as the space on substack can be dominated by the doctors who are leading us down blind alleys, then substack can be allowed to survive into the next pandemic. But if we actually get past the current point to actual health truth, where we are able to sort out the controlled opposition from the good guys, then we must be shut down. With or without an active pandemic, that can never be allowed. And we are close to seeing how we have been "had" by which doctors.
I don't have the same insight into other arenas, but I would guess the same issues are going on. While the controlled opposition dominates, substack is safe. Once it is fully exposed, then the next stage of the operation must begin, whatever form that takes. And we won't like it.
Big money can be alluring. So, perhaps what will keep the Stack vibrant is to find a way to enhance the Stack's bottom line without destroying the current open and supportive environment. Since creativity abounds here, I think it can be done. The suggestions of streamlining the production of physical products for sale, books, tee-shirts etc could be a lucrative feature. Etsy has done OK with individual producers. I'm sure there are other options as well. Or maybe the lure of big money is not a threat after all. Wouldn't that be revolutionary?
Haha, if the lure of big money ceased to be a threat, that might be the single biggest accomplishment of all time. Physical products are a great idea. Anything that would solidify Substack's reputation as a space for creators, instead of just a social media platform.
I am a paper cut artist as well as a writer so I have a bias, but IMO Substack should branch out and monetize all the photographers, painters, and other makers we have here. I like selling my work here, because it's so much more personal, and I get to know my customers, unlike Etsy, or Satchi, etc.
“Substack has come under fire numerous times for refusing to deplatform writers who express extreme beliefs such as anti-semitism and white supremacy. Despite these criticisms, its creators have stood firm in their opposition to censorship. This is one of the reasons why Substack has remained such an attractive place for writers—most of us like the idea of enabling all viewpoints and leaving it up to the public to decide what is right.”
I was surprised that you chose anti-semitism and white supremacy as your examples. Both belief systems include specific objectives of harming or eliminating entire people groups. Usually, one person's rights and freedoms only extend so far as they don't infringe on another person's rights and freedoms. So, when you express support for freedom of speech and freedom from censorship, do you believe that extends to hate speech and incitement to harm? I see this type of argument floated more and more frequently, and often wonder how proponents reconcile what seem to be conflicting views on freedom.
You bring up an interesting point about freedoms extending so far as they don’t infringe upon another’s rights and freedoms. This is why incitement to harm is a tricky one, and I’m hesitant to make any definitive statements on the subject (although at this moment I lean very strongly towards outlawing it rather than permitting it).
Hate speech is an entirely different matter, and despite the fact that I think hate speech is egregious, I think it should be protected. Moral judgments aside, disagreement is not a crime, and aside from the damage it might do to someone’s feelings, it does not cause any quantifiable harm.
One might argue that hate speech can lead to violence, but this is a ‘slippery slope’ argument, and once we start permitting those, lines begin to blur.
Might sharing a true but unflattering statistic about a particular group be considered a precursor to violence? What about jokes? What if something that seems benign to us now is labeled ‘hate speech’ in the future?
Plus, who decides these questions? The classification of what is and isn’t ‘hate speech’ is subjective. In practice, outlawing hate speech would result in a law that is so vague that each judge will have their own view of what is actionable and what isn’t. This makes it a bad law—one should ever be in doubt as to whether or not they are committing a crime.
Plus, unrestricted free speech is the only way to reverse the harmful effects of hateful ideas, because discussion is the main way we determine truth and reflect on our beliefs. This will not ‘cure’ everybody, and there will always be people holding hateful ideas that the majority of us won’t agree with. However, stamping out disagreement suggests a despotic desire for control which I don’t think belongs anywhere in our legal system.
As with all difficult topics, my beliefs are not set in stone, although they are chosen purposefully. I’m curious to hear your thoughts.
My first thought is that you’re abstracting free speech to the point where there can be no standard or accountability. As a matter of practical reality, the vast bulk of hate speech just isn’t as nuanced or tricky to define as you imply. You also draw a false equivalence between disagreement and hate speech, and a false equivalence between hurt feelings and hate speech.
You also stated as fact that, “unrestricted free speech is the only way to reverse the harmful effects of hateful ideas, because discussion is the main way we determine truth and reflect on our beliefs.” But that’s not consistent with findings in the fields of psychology and human behavior. Hateful ideas, like white supremacy and anti-semitism, are disordered thinking, deeply rooted in emotion, anxiety and unstable sense of self, and aren’t persuaded just by discussion.
Psychology and human behavior also recognize that verbal bullying and verbal abuse cause real, actual harm. It doesn’t reflect a despotic desire for control to suggest that freedom of speech does not include the right to verbally assault others. It reflects a desire for a society regulated by law and order, working to establish those appropriate boundaries in the verbal arena just as we do in the physical arena.
I think your article hits the proverbial nail on the head. Substack needs to grow, one of the things about growth is how it is managed. I really hope that the challenges facing Substack wont diminish the product.
You also mentioned shying away from censorship, thats a good thing, in my humble opinion. As you mentioned antisemetic writers and far right writers which includes people commenting on articles pertaining to the ongoing war in Israel and Gaza can be eyeopeners.
This is a writers forum, let them write.
If you dont like what is being written or said just move on, and if need be block them.
I never even thought about it, but one of the (many) reasons this platform is so enjoyable is the fact that there are no ads. I really hope we can keep it this way.
100% THIS:
Advertisers must be kept as far away from Substack as possible. It might seem more profitable to allow ads. Some writers may even favor this option. However, it will ultimately lead to bias and censorship, and will incentivize the algorithm to become more polarizing to best ensnare users’ attention.
The fastest way to pervert and kill this place is to allow advertising to get into it and then have any sort of say in how things are done.
Absolutely!! I'm scared of it happening—especially since some writers might actually support the switch. It would potentially offer greater profits in the short-term, but it would ruin everything that made Substack a good place to publish in the first place.
I agreee
If Substack wants to survive long-term, it will need to venture into fintech to avoid being suddenly debanked one day. Current near-total dependence on Stripe is the most worrying single thing about the situation.
Wow, that's a great point. I would've never thought about it.
Should the censorship pressure really continue to escalate, this might actually be the thing that makes them cave.
Related: https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/stripe-substack-demand-financial
Malone might have slightly exaggerated his troubles with Stripe (those were quite quickly resolved after he offered™ to sue them) but the article contains rather informative links.
They should 100% partner with Patreon instead, or at least offer Patreon integration, so it creates competition and Stripe doesn't have the monopoly.
As far as I can tell, with a very quick, short, set of searches, Substack's a private company and the 3 founders are in control. So far, Best, et al, seem to call the shots and are satisfied with the monetary returns.
Until and unless they go public I suspect the things we (We being all right thinking people, of course. Grin.) like will stay that way.
Yes, of course, sooner or later things will change, but now, it's great while it's lasting.
Yes, going public is another risk that I didn't even think about!!
I suppose you're right that it's bound to change eventually. I just hope it's later rather than sooner.
Going public means that entities such as BlackRock and Larry Fink can gain control just by purchasing shares for their retirement funds of millions and millions of people. That is more leverage that the stock price itself because the volume of shares can be withdrawn instantly, and the stock crushed. This is new mechanism that is driving so many companies to make the strangest choices for their brands. That is not market forces, it’s a masked form of intimidation.
Remaining independent is THE primary goal if Substack is to thrive.
I hope they don't go public. So many entrepreneurs have lost control of their companies opening it up to the stock market. I'd rather have the consistent profits and freedom to do whatever I want than deal with stockholders.
To my eyes Notes was solidly twitteroid. Since Notes began, the rest of Substack has gradually become more like the other media, where Team A and Team B get all the money and attention, while non-team players fade away. We don't know the intentions of the managers, but it looks from the outside like they're preparing the ground for an IPO or a buyout.
I can see what you're saying, although I've been optimistic that while the big Substacks have continued to grow proportionally with their size, there's been opportunity for us little guys, too.
A buyout was what I was concerned about when writing this, but an IPO would accomplish the same thing. You may be right, but I really, really hope you're wrong.
Sorry but that sounds kind of paranoid. Notes is where you have informal chats with intelligent people, and posts are where you present more reasoned, thought out formal ideas. The compliment each other IMO.
‘Looks like we’ve got ourselves some readers.’ -
I appreciate the depth of what’s created on Substack going far beyond 140 characters. I appreciate that there’s actual humans behind most accounts, activists are easily identifiable and the discourse is relatively respectful. No ad dollars makes that possible. Lets hope the biz model keeps it that way.
Completely agreed. They've really created a great thing here. As long as they don't go back on everything they did to make it that way, it should stay for a while.
Excellent writing piece, Melissa! While I have the gift of gab, I am predominately an introvert. I do not seek out " social media " in general . What draws me to Substack is to be in a sea of writers and to read what other writers are not only writing, but thinking. I could care less about places where people seem to brag or show off, I am the polar opposite to that. Deep thinkers draw deep thinkers. I actually pray for Substack to keep going and to evolve well. A heartfelt thanks to you, Melissa, for writing this and other commenters here for thoughts. I learn SO much from comments on Notes! Blessings to all, WEW
Thank you so much, Wendy! That’s what draws me to Substack, too, and I think a lot of people on here feel the same way.
At the very least, even if Substack grows and changes, I hope this little ‘corner’ of it can stay as it is and be left alone.
>Substack making money like lamestream platforms
Except that the lamestream platforms don't make money. Every single one of them has lost money every single year. Why are they still around? Subsidizing propaganda.
So if Substack becomes another soy platform kept around as a means of subsidizing propaganda, I agree that's a terrible thing, but it is that and not fiat currency that is the measure of profit.
Though, I wonder where Substack does get their money? Some small percentage of paid subscribers (that could be shut down at any instant because Stripe has a reputation for that)? Because I've definitely seen some posters that look like plants so they won't lose this new platform like they lost tiktok.
That's an interesting take. I hadn't considered the subsidizing propaganda thing, but honestly, it makes way too much sense...
(also, I'm learning a lot about Stripe today—I had no idea they were so unreliable.)
Stripe is the reason why I won't be posting any paid content here and will primarily be using it as a promotion for my paid content. And most men with sense are in the same position, I remember someone bragging about their first paid sub and even that doxes you on Stripe lol.
Substack gets their money from the 10% they take. That's actually a huge amount especially if you are a big creator.
10% is a small cut though, and as mentioned, Stripe could shut it down at any moment even for unrelated wrongthink. Oh, you bought a silly red hat, so we're denying you income!
Then consider that even as a small team, they still likely have significantly more staff than necessary, they're in Commiefornia, so it was monopoly money even before the holocoof, and bandwidth also costs money, though not that much since you can't post long videos. Does that measure out as a net profit? Dunno, but you can only operate at a loss if you're wasting someone else's money or money isn't an object.
I think over the long run Substack will make more money than Twitter, Facebook and all the other social media as long as they stick to the core principles that made people come to them in the first place. The reality is that people like not being censored and if you think that would make them less money, that's insane.
That’s a good point, and I hope you’re right.
The thing is, though, substack’s business model relies on people shelling out their own money to support the platform, versus the other business models, which profit off of users’ attention. It seems like the vast majority of people just don’t want to pay for what they can get for free.
Plus, the external (political?) pressure towards censorship must be really high.
Right now my biggest concern is the decision to sell or go public, both of which will promise really huge sums of money in the short-term. Who knows? It’s just a thought. Right now it’s up in the air, could go either way.
Let us hope they can, I came here to write Tolkienian styled fantasy lit and to do lit and philosophy essays, not to be drowned in an algorithm consumed with social justice.
100%!!!
Thanks, really have come to despise youtube and the other tech sites, they’ve nothing to offer as platforms anymore.
"If we pivoted to ads, it would destroy Substack and be shitty for the world." - Hamish McKenzie
https://substack.com/@hamish/note/c-53174498
If Substack sticks to its core convictions, we should be fine. If they begin to float the idea, call it out. At this point, I take Hamish at his word.
Thanks so much for sharing this!!
That's a reassuring thought. I'm always impressed by Substack's leadership. I think it's actually run by genuine people—something so rare, it actually gives me hope for the world.
In all of reality, everything is temporary.
On the Internet, everything is temporary faster.
Substack will follow the pattern of all living things. It will be born. It will be young, fresh, and innocent. It will mature, develop and advance. It will age and become a bit wiser. And then it will enter a period of decline, ending in death.
Very true!
I have been asking for a while, what is our Plan B? Even if Substack hold fast to their principles, rather than go for the bigger profits, nation states may decide to shut them down nationally for not censoring. It won't happen now, but when they decide to roll in the next crisis, that requires total population brainwashing, it will inevitably follow that the infrastructure we built during this covid crisis to give ourselves a platform, absolutely must be destroyed before the next crisis can be rolled in successfully.
The repression may not be as crude as having to shut the platforms down altogether, as long as they can be made ineffective, and currently what is going on with the "substack doctors" is a great example of substack becoming ineffective in the medical field. At the start of covid, we had little choice but to trust the doctors we needed to survive. What we did not know is that they were deliberately placed to mop up the free thinkers and take us down blind alleys. We are now questioning those doctors and their blind alleys. Now for as long as the space on substack can be dominated by the doctors who are leading us down blind alleys, then substack can be allowed to survive into the next pandemic. But if we actually get past the current point to actual health truth, where we are able to sort out the controlled opposition from the good guys, then we must be shut down. With or without an active pandemic, that can never be allowed. And we are close to seeing how we have been "had" by which doctors.
I don't have the same insight into other arenas, but I would guess the same issues are going on. While the controlled opposition dominates, substack is safe. Once it is fully exposed, then the next stage of the operation must begin, whatever form that takes. And we won't like it.
Big money can be alluring. So, perhaps what will keep the Stack vibrant is to find a way to enhance the Stack's bottom line without destroying the current open and supportive environment. Since creativity abounds here, I think it can be done. The suggestions of streamlining the production of physical products for sale, books, tee-shirts etc could be a lucrative feature. Etsy has done OK with individual producers. I'm sure there are other options as well. Or maybe the lure of big money is not a threat after all. Wouldn't that be revolutionary?
Haha, if the lure of big money ceased to be a threat, that might be the single biggest accomplishment of all time. Physical products are a great idea. Anything that would solidify Substack's reputation as a space for creators, instead of just a social media platform.
I am a paper cut artist as well as a writer so I have a bias, but IMO Substack should branch out and monetize all the photographers, painters, and other makers we have here. I like selling my work here, because it's so much more personal, and I get to know my customers, unlike Etsy, or Satchi, etc.
Hi Melissa, first time reader.
“Substack has come under fire numerous times for refusing to deplatform writers who express extreme beliefs such as anti-semitism and white supremacy. Despite these criticisms, its creators have stood firm in their opposition to censorship. This is one of the reasons why Substack has remained such an attractive place for writers—most of us like the idea of enabling all viewpoints and leaving it up to the public to decide what is right.”
I was surprised that you chose anti-semitism and white supremacy as your examples. Both belief systems include specific objectives of harming or eliminating entire people groups. Usually, one person's rights and freedoms only extend so far as they don't infringe on another person's rights and freedoms. So, when you express support for freedom of speech and freedom from censorship, do you believe that extends to hate speech and incitement to harm? I see this type of argument floated more and more frequently, and often wonder how proponents reconcile what seem to be conflicting views on freedom.
Hi Sydney,
Great question!
You bring up an interesting point about freedoms extending so far as they don’t infringe upon another’s rights and freedoms. This is why incitement to harm is a tricky one, and I’m hesitant to make any definitive statements on the subject (although at this moment I lean very strongly towards outlawing it rather than permitting it).
Hate speech is an entirely different matter, and despite the fact that I think hate speech is egregious, I think it should be protected. Moral judgments aside, disagreement is not a crime, and aside from the damage it might do to someone’s feelings, it does not cause any quantifiable harm.
One might argue that hate speech can lead to violence, but this is a ‘slippery slope’ argument, and once we start permitting those, lines begin to blur.
Might sharing a true but unflattering statistic about a particular group be considered a precursor to violence? What about jokes? What if something that seems benign to us now is labeled ‘hate speech’ in the future?
Plus, who decides these questions? The classification of what is and isn’t ‘hate speech’ is subjective. In practice, outlawing hate speech would result in a law that is so vague that each judge will have their own view of what is actionable and what isn’t. This makes it a bad law—one should ever be in doubt as to whether or not they are committing a crime.
Plus, unrestricted free speech is the only way to reverse the harmful effects of hateful ideas, because discussion is the main way we determine truth and reflect on our beliefs. This will not ‘cure’ everybody, and there will always be people holding hateful ideas that the majority of us won’t agree with. However, stamping out disagreement suggests a despotic desire for control which I don’t think belongs anywhere in our legal system.
As with all difficult topics, my beliefs are not set in stone, although they are chosen purposefully. I’m curious to hear your thoughts.
My first thought is that you’re abstracting free speech to the point where there can be no standard or accountability. As a matter of practical reality, the vast bulk of hate speech just isn’t as nuanced or tricky to define as you imply. You also draw a false equivalence between disagreement and hate speech, and a false equivalence between hurt feelings and hate speech.
You also stated as fact that, “unrestricted free speech is the only way to reverse the harmful effects of hateful ideas, because discussion is the main way we determine truth and reflect on our beliefs.” But that’s not consistent with findings in the fields of psychology and human behavior. Hateful ideas, like white supremacy and anti-semitism, are disordered thinking, deeply rooted in emotion, anxiety and unstable sense of self, and aren’t persuaded just by discussion.
Psychology and human behavior also recognize that verbal bullying and verbal abuse cause real, actual harm. It doesn’t reflect a despotic desire for control to suggest that freedom of speech does not include the right to verbally assault others. It reflects a desire for a society regulated by law and order, working to establish those appropriate boundaries in the verbal arena just as we do in the physical arena.
Melissa
I think your article hits the proverbial nail on the head. Substack needs to grow, one of the things about growth is how it is managed. I really hope that the challenges facing Substack wont diminish the product.
You also mentioned shying away from censorship, thats a good thing, in my humble opinion. As you mentioned antisemetic writers and far right writers which includes people commenting on articles pertaining to the ongoing war in Israel and Gaza can be eyeopeners.
This is a writers forum, let them write.
If you dont like what is being written or said just move on, and if need be block them.
Thanks for your article.
I never even thought about it, but one of the (many) reasons this platform is so enjoyable is the fact that there are no ads. I really hope we can keep it this way.