This is a very silly article. Writers like Matt Yglesias have been upfront that Substack paid him an upfront salary to hedge his payment in the first year. And,

This is a very silly article. Writers like Matt Yglesias have been upfront that Substack paid him an upfront salary to hedge his payment in the first year. And, it is pretty clear if you look at the subscriber numbers he is bringing in way more revenue than he is being paid. The author is arguing against a straw man that doesn't really exist. For instance the author says "That’s right -- Substack is taking an editorial stance, paying writers who fit that stance" as some sort of gotcha. However, literally anyone can sign up for a Substack so while they do perhaps promote certain authors it is hardly an editorial stance. It is like comparing the editorial decisions of Netflix (a closed environment - where they greenlight/buy all productions) to YouTube (where they sponsor some videos - but largely depend on independent creators). There is a real distinction from the two - which the author ignores - and also assumes the Netflix/newspaper model is inherently insidious without any justification.