8 ms·
Is Substack the Media Future We Want?
- PaulHoule 6y agoThe main trouble I have with Substack right now is that it looks so much like Medium it's hard not believe it is going to turn out the same in the end. Unlike Medium, however, it's attracted some quality writing. (e.g. Medium seems to attract writers who are (a) blown away by much easier it is to get usage numbers compared to a real blog, and (b) are blown away by getting 70 "views" on an article.)
- dionidium 6y agoI’m sure I’ve read hundreds of pieces on Medium, but I don’t associate those pieces with anybody or anything and I definitely never gave them any money. On the other hand, I subscribe to multiple substacks and I’ve been really happy with the experience, one that I associate very directly with the specific writers I’m paying to read. That feels like a big difference.
- nicoburns 6y ago> Unlike Medium, however, it's attracted some quality writing. IIRC Medium was like this too in the beginning. There was a time where I wanted to read articles on Medium because they were higher quality than average. I agree that it's hard to see Substack turning out differently. Although if the company isn't acquired / doesn't IPO then it's also true that these things can vary based on who is running the company.
- ghaff 6y ago>IIRC Medium was like this too in the beginning. I think that's right. And one of the things that made Medium attractive to me to cross-post from my own blog to every now and then was that people who mostly didn't know any better saw the overall quality and assumed that there was some filtering going on. Which in turn made it seems more authoritative than a "blog." I stopped bothering once the quality went down and the paywalls went up.
- smnrchrds 6y agoI don't remember the beginnings of Medium, but I vividly remember Quora back in the day. It was full of successful CEOs, entrepreneurs, subject matter experts, scientists, etc. It was THE place to ask a question if you wanted high quality responses. Now, it is just a Google spam and growth hacking platform.
- ghaff 6y agoI guess the difference here is that low-quality content (however you care to define) mostly won't be paid for and likely won't even be seen. The concept is interesting although I for one am very selective about the things I subscribe to. (And I'm also pretty newslettered out in general.)
- guildmaster 6y agoLet me tell you a story about Yahoo answers...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- AnthonyMouse 6y agoThe "problem" with Medium is that the quality of many of the articles is poor. But so what? That only matters if you're using presence on the site as your mechanism of quality filtering. If the site has mixed quality posts, read the ones from high quality authors. There could be a market for a service that just does quality filtering as a news aggregation service. So basically the opposite of what YouTube is doing -- don't show anything from OAN or CNN or similar partisan outlets, don't show garbage blogs, show the good ones. Maybe easier said than done, but I bet there's a market there.
- wongarsu 6y agoThat's basically what sites like Reddit or HN set out to do: aggregate the good articles, using the wisdom of the crowd. Of course that's not that easy, and not necessary what people even want
- bbarn 6y agoThe wisdom of the crowd quickly gets overwhelmed by the idiocy of the mob.
- names_are_hard 6y agoI agree. Another potential solution is a kind of service that will enable users to look for articles that meet some criteria, and the service could prioritize articles of higher quality. Then you wouldn't need to browse Medium, you'd just look for what you want and the service would recommend quality articles. Of course the question is always how to properly rank an article's quality. I'd say the best approach is to crowdsource it - develop an algorithm that takes into account how many other highly ranked articles reference a given article, and give a higher rank to articles that have more references. If you do this, make sure to give the algorithm a clever name. Ideally name it after yourself, unless your name is Smith. You'll never do well with a business built around something called SmithRank. Now if your last name happened to be something related the things you're ranking, like, say..."Article"...wow, call it ArticleRank! Just remember you heard it first here on HackerNews.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- draw_down 6y agoIt’s funny to see the old media panic over Substack. Authors can go directly to their audience without their intermediation and institutional decrepitude, it must be dangerous. Don’t they have another piece to write about how Trump is a crazy dictator?
- black6 6y agoBetteridge's law came to mind when I saw the headline, especially when "We" is taken to mean Conde Nast and the traditional, gatekeeper media.
- ketamine__ 6y agoAre people willing to pay for multiple newsletters? I'm paying for one but would find it hard to pay for two or three or five.
- misiti3780 6y agoI'm paying for 5. They are worth every penny.
- ketamine__ 6y agoFor entertainment or are you using them to make money?
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y agoThat's wierd dichotomy. I remember back in the 1990s when I had subscriptions to on the order of 8 "dead tree" magazines. If you had asked me "are they for entertainment or to make money", I don't think I could have answered that. They were a part of my continuing personal education, my personal identity. Entertainment? Probably. Making money? Some of them probably contributed. But really ... it can be a lot more complicated than that.
- misiti3780 6y agoHow would I be using them to make money?
- Aaronstotle 6y agoI know there are some investor style newsletters so maybe that's what they meant? As in paying for a letter that gives information used to buy/sell an asset.
- misiti3780 6y agoYa, I misunderstood. I pay for all news related newsletters. Can you suggest any technology newsletters that are worth paying for ?
- tedjdziuba 6y agoIt's only a matter of time before Substack gets enough pressure from its employees or its payments provider and starts censoring "inappropriate" content. (The definition of "inappropriate" being "whatever people on Twitter dislike today".)
- vslira 6y agoConsidering that Substack's model is designed to attract independent thinkers with a following, I assume they are taking a very close look at their talent pipeline to avoid this issue. That would actually be a competitive advantage for them.
- kurthr 6y agoIt seems like they let anything on, if it generates income. When you have Dana Loesch, I'm not sure you can be described as attracting independent thinkers, unless that's new code for outrage warrior. Looks to me like another platform (e.g. not Patreon/FansOnly) for influencers to monetize their more affluent (e.g. have $3/mo to spend) clientele. Substack still likes drama, "In November, an anonymous Substack account published a newsletter titled “vote_pattern_analysis,” with a single, elaborate post claiming election fraud. On Twitter, the link was tagged with a fact-check label. For a time in December, the newsletter became one of the top free publications on Substack.", but I doubt it will descend into reddit territory.
- geodel 6y ago>.. independent thinkers, unless that's new code for outrage warrior. Good one. Kinda similar to third rate marketers become thought leaders when they are on linkedin.
- tootie 6y agoLetting SV entrepreneurs set the standard for editorial ethics is guaranteed to suck. They'll either cash in on conspiracy nonsense or censor arbitrarily.
- baggy_trough 6y agoI'm not sure, but I'm not liking the media present we have.
- bosswipe 6y agoNeed to reinforce your bubble.
- tootie 6y agoI think it's not possible to have an opinion on "the media". It's an industry not an entity. The MSM has mostly done an outstanding job, newspapers in particular. There's a lot of terrible media too.
- high_derivative 6y ago> The MSM has mostly done an outstanding job, newspapers in particular. I really genuinely cannot tell whether you are being sarcastic.
- tootie 6y agoSincere. The NY Times, WaPo, NPR and even CNN have not let much get past them. It's a meme that they're terrible because they made a few mistakes in thousands of pages of reporting. For the most part, they have dug deep and gotten tons of information to light. Information that amateur opinion writers on platforms like Substack can't match. Even the slightly outsider orgs like ProPublica or The Intercept are doing their work via professional newsrooms with editors. I don't recall ever seeing a major story be broken by a blogger or newsletter writer.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- amadeuspagel 6y agoWhat a vapid essay. Full of stupid cliches, like "newsletters have existed since time immemorial". Long lists and descriptions not just of substacks, but even of other newsletters. Little to no discussion of why people prefer substacks to traditional media. But perhaps this is unfair. Perhaps the essay is an attempt to illustrate just that, by parodying the intellectual emptyness of traditional media.
- Pils 6y ago> intellectual emptyness of traditional media. What do you mean by this? What does "traditional media" mean in this context? Anything that isn't self-published?
- AndrewUnmuted 6y agoI think pretty clearly he's referring to the specific schism of corporate media that The New Yorker occupies. A specific term coined by Curtis Yarvin, "The Cathedral," comes to mind.
- Pils 6y agoAh yes, clearly he meant "the specific schism of corporate media that The New Yorker occupies." I missed some obvious contextual clues there. If the alternative to traditional media is more Moldbug, I'll pass.
- yawnxyz 6y agoI was just thinking how I prefer reading the Substacks I follow over articles like this one in the New Yorker
- echlebek 6y agoI doubt "We" includes me, from the perspective of the New Yorker.
- d33lio 6y agoThis is a dying legacy news company trying to shit on what is and will be the future of long form real journalism - plain and simple. Ironically, platforms like SubStack strike a fantastic balance. They're generally populated by journalists who can actually write or have huge notoriety (Glenn Greenwald and the like) who are writing substantive news and not JS tutorials. I think "freedom of speech" in time will be promulgated as metered and well thought out arguments that don't seek to slander or directly attack any singular person. This is how real adults talk, not how activists talk. To be fair, Medium is shit. It's already started to become susceptible to similar "creator negatives" that have emerged on YouTube in the last 5 years (Casey Neistat personified this trend). People now just write clickbait / click-driven sharticles that sell ads. Granted, it's still better than what the NYT generally publishes. Moreover - the boomer concept of physical newspaper delivery is equivalent to how millennials perceive well structured html / css emails that contain "news" or "journalism". It's a place I expect to see longer-ish form content and it's not in an app or platform that wants me to look at ads, boobs or something else they want to glue my eyeballs to.
- kordlessagain 6y ago> This is a dying legacy news company trying to shit Nice story, bro. Typical negative sentiment backed by biased arguments revolving around a silly belief that technology will continue to destroy all those boomer things and improve what will be for those who embrace it willingly. Meanwhile, Facebook is rewiring the way you think. Don't like my story? Then read this: > The UK company continues to be the best forming international subsidiary, generating an estimated £10-15m of profit (before transfer charges) at margins not seen anywhere else in Condé Nast. That was on nearly $1.5B in revenue. "Dying", ha ha.
- d33lio 6y agoHi Anna Wiener or internet person? > Typical negative sentiment backed by biased arguments Yet ironically, most of your work at The NewYorker has been writing articles shitting on SF and a silly belief that technology will continue to destroy all those CA things. If you hate tech so much maybe you should stop covering Silicon Valley and "innovation" or you know... leave SF? Or idk, write another book about it? Obviously startups didnt exactly work out for you? You know you've done something right when you trigger a journalist who can't defend or argue their work with a real argument ;) ~ To be frank, you're almost as endearing as the Lambda School guy who replies to every single comment in HN threads critical of lambda school.
- anshumankmr 6y agoIn other words, a dinosaur is worried about an incoming meteor.
- pron 6y agoMost meteors miss. A dinosaur looking up at the sky, worried about a meteor and saying, nah, this one's probably harmless was right a hundred thousand times out of a hundred thousand and one. And even the dinosaurs knew they'd become extinct one day, they didn't know how it would happen and when.
- jtdev 6y agoLOL, yeah - I want The New Yorker telling me what media future I want. What a joke.
- fevangelou 6y agoAh, the New Yorker. Spot-on commentary on the important things in life.
- dang 6y agoPlease don't post unsubstantive comments here.
- golemotron 6y ago> Is Substack the Media Future We Want? If you're the New Yorker, no. Duh.
- cblconfederate 6y agoProbably not, substack will be great until it begins censoring content. The end goal is to rediscover self-hosted blogs, but this time with a paid option to view the premium content.
- SllX 6y agoStratechery then? I would be okay with that.
- say_it_as_it_is 6y agoSubstack's success is a reaction to the pervasive authoritarian BLM religious cult [1] wrecking media companies. Heterodoxy cannot exist in many places where it once did. Substack is currently an outlet for free thinking. Yet, its founders haven't been tested by woke cancel culture. What will they stand for when those moments present themselves? [1] https://www.wsws.org/en/topics/event/1619 https://www.wsws.org/en/topics/event/1619
- Pils 6y agoGuess I never saw it that way, thanks. Could you go more into the religious aspects of the Black Lives Matter movement?
- say_it_as_it_is 6y agohttps://samharris.org/podcasts/217-new-religion-anti-racism/ https://samharris.org/podcasts/217-new-religion-anti-racism/
- Pils 6y agoFrom the description, this podcast episode doesn't seem to talk about religion at all. Do you have a better source?
- drannex 6y agoThis is such a garbage take, and you know it. Stop trying to bait others with takes that are entirely nonsensical to the article at hand. Linking to flawed critiques of the 1619 project and proclaiming "BLM" both authoritarian (it's not, and decentralized) and calling it a religious cult (not a religion, nor a cult, nor a formalized central power structure) is just totally irrelevant and implicit subversive racism. Your comment stands out for nothing substantive but bigotry.
- say_it_as_it_is 6y agoProve that what I said is bigotry or "implicit subversive racism". I chose a recent, controversial event illustrating an influential media company -- The New York Times -- doubling down on costly mistakes made in the name of social justice. The heterodox thinkers of the Times will move on to the Substacks of the world where their critical reasoning skills and rejection of cult membership make them even more valued. No bigotry or racism here.
- hombre_fatal 6y agoWith a title like that, you'd think the article would make a more obvious enumeration of the reasons Substack might not be the future we want. Instead it spends most of its time in a declarative, historian's voice. But while the author drops a few implications along the way, it's not really until the fifth or so paragraph from the end do they finally reveal a more concrete suspicion: > A robust press is essential to a functioning democracy, and a cultural turn toward journalistic individualism might not be in the collective interest. It is expensive and laborious to hold powerful people and institutions to account, and, at many media organizations, any given article is the result of collaboration between writers, editors, copy editors, fact checkers, and producers. Dunno, it kinda seems like wondering if there can be room for a multi-million dollar HBO special like Game of Thrones in a world where niche Patreon creators are making thousands of dollars. I guess we don't even need analogy: how do paid niche blogs (which is a far more accurate description of Substack than "premium newsletters") threaten large publications? But to answer their question: yes, I think Substack is definitely part of the future we want. For years we've wondered if we could back out of our ad-driven internet economy where small players had no shot at making a living if they couldn't attract ad dollars. We've brainstormed so much about what that could even look like. Then platforms like Patreon and Substack popped up and demonstrated what a lot of us assumed was impossible: people opening their wallet to support an individual. Looks like there actually is a way through this ad-driven mess.
- nine_k 6y agoMore glaringly, a piece with a title like that in a major media outlet lays bare an obvious conflict of interest. "No, not the future you want."
- hombre_fatal 6y agoI was ready for some interesting points about the downsides of Substack. But reading the article, especially with the 15(!!) inset ads and the Creative Cloud sidebar ad that followed me the whole length of the article, I realized how hard it is to damn Substack with anything that doesn't pale in comparison to ad-captured traditional media.
- 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- bryzaguy 6y agoI mostly feel bad for the node.js developer, James Halliday, who goes by substack. Seeing this article (ad?) and their recruiting ads on HN reminds me of his tweets: https://twitter.com/substack/status/1323049757615353856?s=21 https://twitter.com/substack/status/1323049757615353856?s=21 Unsure of the validity to those claims. But it did seem like they capitalized on the familiarity of his username to gain traction early on.
- ulisesrmzroche 6y agoThat’s ridiculous, maybe familiar to a few node devs who are knee deep in code all day but let’s not pretend that he’s a household name on the level of Steve Wozniak
- ulisesrmzroche 6y agoIt would be nice if it doesn’t wind up like Medium, where’ it’s all productivity porn and identity politics but I don’t have much hope unless they do some sort of signup gating
- SecurityMinded 6y agoNot a big fan of substack but anything better than liberal media, like Newyorker or NYT. Suck it idiots!