Maybe beside the point, but my question is: why do certain Substack writers feel compelled to promote and/or defend Substack in the first place — especially Substack as a company? I've read some posts that read like borderline sponcon by otherwise reputable writers. I can understand first amendment arguments, etc. But it gets a little weird when the argument turns to how awesome and innovative the Substack C-suite is...even more so when writers are encouraging people to buy Substack stock options... (to be clear, not accusing Sam of falling into this category; I don't actually know).
Hi Jordan, speaking for myself, I don’t have any relationship with Substack Co and don’t benefit in any way from speaking favorably of the platform. I do need to distinguish between Substack the company and Substack the platform. Personally, I happen to like the company. They’ve built a fabulous product and they’ve made some difficult decisions that, on the whole, I agree with. But when I write about this, I’m really just writing about the platform - which is a kind of Blogging Central that’s rapidly turning into something different - more like the Writers’ Archipelago. Substack Corporate set this up and deserves a lot of credit, but even if something were to happen to Substack Co - if they run into business problems, or if something like the sale to Musk had gone through - the model that Substack represents would still be a very powerful new force, and I think a force for good.
As an early blog reader, I find SK more convincing. The originals often featured established journalists like Mickey Kaus or Andrew Sullivan. No fees nor comments. Few were “literary”. You could email the author directly but I never did. Slate was an early online Mag with diverse takes on culture, lit & public affairs. When Microsoft $ washed in, it was curated into a small corner. The new, New Republic followed. As BR observed, magazines can expose a reader to ideas and opinions hard to sort at SS . When that happens, I am grateful for curation and might subscribe. That rarely happens and IMO curation is an unreliable filter at best and at worst reflect editorial preoccupations. Substack offers efficient search engine for new voices to sample at low cost with diverse commenters. Magazines are doable there & I would be glad to see more.
Very amused that I now have to leave Substack to read the rest of the convo. Well played, The Point.
Maybe beside the point, but my question is: why do certain Substack writers feel compelled to promote and/or defend Substack in the first place — especially Substack as a company? I've read some posts that read like borderline sponcon by otherwise reputable writers. I can understand first amendment arguments, etc. But it gets a little weird when the argument turns to how awesome and innovative the Substack C-suite is...even more so when writers are encouraging people to buy Substack stock options... (to be clear, not accusing Sam of falling into this category; I don't actually know).
Hi Jordan, speaking for myself, I don’t have any relationship with Substack Co and don’t benefit in any way from speaking favorably of the platform. I do need to distinguish between Substack the company and Substack the platform. Personally, I happen to like the company. They’ve built a fabulous product and they’ve made some difficult decisions that, on the whole, I agree with. But when I write about this, I’m really just writing about the platform - which is a kind of Blogging Central that’s rapidly turning into something different - more like the Writers’ Archipelago. Substack Corporate set this up and deserves a lot of credit, but even if something were to happen to Substack Co - if they run into business problems, or if something like the sale to Musk had gone through - the model that Substack represents would still be a very powerful new force, and I think a force for good.
Good to know, thanks for the response.
As an early blog reader, I find SK more convincing. The originals often featured established journalists like Mickey Kaus or Andrew Sullivan. No fees nor comments. Few were “literary”. You could email the author directly but I never did. Slate was an early online Mag with diverse takes on culture, lit & public affairs. When Microsoft $ washed in, it was curated into a small corner. The new, New Republic followed. As BR observed, magazines can expose a reader to ideas and opinions hard to sort at SS . When that happens, I am grateful for curation and might subscribe. That rarely happens and IMO curation is an unreliable filter at best and at worst reflect editorial preoccupations. Substack offers efficient search engine for new voices to sample at low cost with diverse commenters. Magazines are doable there & I would be glad to see more.