3 ms·

I find the current criticism of Substack quite interesting. It seems to be on the assumption that they are a publisher, or at least a visible brand in the publi

I find the current criticism of Substack quite interesting. It seems to be on the assumption that they are a publisher, or at least a visible brand in the publishing process, and they do indeed appear to be in the middle unlike most companies. It's obvious that the NYT are responsible for what's published on their site, after all it says NYT across the top, NYT on the subscription fee, and they (theoretically) have editorial control. On the other hand it's obvious that Stripe (for example) are not responsible for what's published on Stratechery, they are invisible to the customer, and I think most reasonable people would not suggest that Stripe exercise moral judgement on Stratechery and decline the business unless Ben Thompson crossed a line that is very far from acceptable (likely bordering on illegality). But Substack is both. Their name is in the URL, writers are found via Substack, articles say "published on Substack" on them. They are trying to claim that they are just a backend and that it's up to writers what they publish, but they are in fact a frontend at least in part for the customer, and therefore any decision or lack thereof is taking a moral standpoint. I think Substack are going to have to decide whether they want to own that responsibility, and become known for a certain "type" of content, or whether they want to fade into the background and let the writers' brands take over.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
They are just using the same playbook as the rest of Silicon Valley. Twitter and Facebook manage to never be considered a platform or a publisher, and they won't be until legislation requires it.
- danpalmer 6y ago
  People view things like Substack as closer to traditional news publishing/writing and quite differently to social media so I think they're starting from a position of far higher expectations. But regardless, Twitter and Facebook are becoming more well known for their positions on these issues. Twitter is known for having a "lefty bubble" and taking a long time to "ban nazis". Facebook is known for having everyone's conspiracy theory loving Uncle.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
What do you think about Wordpress as a counterexample? There was a time a decade ago when lots of blogs under the wordpress.com domain; I don't remember anyone being confused or arguing that Wordpress the company was responsible for their content.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  Blogspot is a weird example too, because there are some very fringe, extremist people using that domain.
- danpalmer 6y ago
  That's a good counter example. I wonder if it has something to do with the discovery flow and perhaps even the theming? Did Wordpress provide an index of all the websites? They don't appear to now? Also the fact that every site could be themed meant that many sites looked really quite different and so the website brand was stronger than the Wordpress brand. Just hypothesising. I feel like it is quite different but I'm not entirely sure why as, you're right, Wordpress worked in a similar way.
- rchaud 6y ago
  That's because WP arrived at a time when corporations weren't selling people pipe dreams about how to get famous and rich on the web through their platform. The motivation to wrote blogs on Xanga, Angelfire, Geocities etc was for recreation, not monetization. Wordpress offered a self-hosted, open-source blogging platform from day 1, in addition to WYSIWIG Wordpress.org. The idea that WP would attempt to use its audience as some sort of competitive moat is something I could imagine had they arrived 10 years later. Which it did, in the form of Medium.com
bko 6y ago
The publisher model gets thrown around a lot in regards to social media companies like substack. The basic line of reasoning is that, as a publisher, substack would be "responsible" for its content. But what ways are traditional publishers "responsible" for their content? There's some internal self-imposed responsibility (e.g. someone will be fired due to insensitive tweet), but that's more politics than anything else. Large publishers regularly print patently incorrect data and narratives with no consequences. So maybe this publisher/platform distinction isn't all that meaningful
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

ceilingcorner 6y ago

They are just using the same playbook as the rest of Silicon Valley. Twitter and Facebook manage to never be considered a platform or a publisher, and they won't be until legislation requires it.

danpalmer 6y ago
People view things like Substack as closer to traditional news publishing/writing and quite differently to social media so I think they're starting from a position of far higher expectations. But regardless, Twitter and Facebook are becoming more well known for their positions on these issues. Twitter is known for having a "lefty bubble" and taking a long time to "ban nazis". Facebook is known for having everyone's conspiracy theory loving Uncle.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

What do you think about Wordpress as a counterexample? There was a time a decade ago when lots of blogs under the wordpress.com domain; I don't remember anyone being confused or arguing that Wordpress the company was responsible for their content.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
Blogspot is a weird example too, because there are some very fringe, extremist people using that domain.
danpalmer 6y ago
That's a good counter example. I wonder if it has something to do with the discovery flow and perhaps even the theming? Did Wordpress provide an index of all the websites? They don't appear to now? Also the fact that every site could be themed meant that many sites looked really quite different and so the website brand was stronger than the Wordpress brand. Just hypothesising. I feel like it is quite different but I'm not entirely sure why as, you're right, Wordpress worked in a similar way.
rchaud 6y ago
That's because WP arrived at a time when corporations weren't selling people pipe dreams about how to get famous and rich on the web through their platform. The motivation to wrote blogs on Xanga, Angelfire, Geocities etc was for recreation, not monetization. Wordpress offered a self-hosted, open-source blogging platform from day 1, in addition to WYSIWIG Wordpress.org. The idea that WP would attempt to use its audience as some sort of competitive moat is something I could imagine had they arrived 10 years later. Which it did, in the form of Medium.com

bko 6y ago

The publisher model gets thrown around a lot in regards to social media companies like substack. The basic line of reasoning is that, as a publisher, substack would be "responsible" for its content. But what ways are traditional publishers "responsible" for their content? There's some internal self-imposed responsibility (e.g. someone will be fired due to insensitive tweet), but that's more politics than anything else. Large publishers regularly print patently incorrect data and narratives with no consequences. So maybe this publisher/platform distinction isn't all that meaningful

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]