2 ms·

I wonder if Substack subsumed newspapers and other aggregated media would we be in a better or worse position? For me at least Substack presents a solid wall w

I wonder if Substack subsumed newspapers and other aggregated media would we be in a better or worse position? For me at least Substack presents a solid wall with very little to help discovery. Who do I subscribe to and why? The website is awful at showing me interesting writing. Right now they seem heavily reliant on the writer already having a platform and there is no opportunity for serendipitous discovery. I've also got the sinking feeling that it won't reduce the proliferation of low quality content for clicks because that business model is perfectly feasible in the subscription world. It might even speed it up as people gravitate towards paying for content that they agree with or tickles them. I'm also concerned about what this paywalled, atomisation of information and ideas does to society. Looking at the subscription rates it looks very expensive to maintain a rounded view or even to subscribe to more than a handful of writers. If we're going to complain about newspapers and journalism losing their way (in a value to society sense) does the model of Substack actually fix it or is it just a way for a minority of writers to find financial success?

ceilingcorner 6y ago
> For me at least Substack presents a solid wall with very little to help discovery. Who do I subscribe to and why? The website is awful at showing me interesting writing. This is by design, because if they did recommend "controversial" people, they'd be accused of being a [bad thing.]
- meheleventyone 6y ago
  That sounds quite conspiratorial. Are you saying the majority of popular content on Substack is actually just "controversial" people rather than quality journalism?
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    No. I can't find the original post, but I do remember reading a Substack post (by the founders) saying that they deliberately don't like using content recommendation systems.
  - ameister14 6y ago
    It doesn't have to be the majority of popular content. If they actively recommend anyone, they will end up recommending people that are controversial to some groups, and they will be attacked as curators and 'platformers' of these people.
    - meheleventyone 6y ago
      They're going to get that anyway for hosting people. And if you read their writing on the subject they do want to improve discovery as well as giving direct support to specific writers: https://blog.substack.com/p/substacks-view-of-content-moderation https://blog.substack.com/p/substacks-view-of-content-modera... "At the same time, while we take a hands-off approach with who may use the platform, we will continue to take an active approach in helping and promoting promising writers. We are doing this by improving discovery on the platform and building programs, such as fellowships, grants, and mentorship, to support writers. Our partnerships team will also continue to work with high-revenue and high-potential writers." So I'm not sure this claim about avoiding recommendations is actually true.
  - HKH2 6y ago
    Nobody is arguing that the majority of popular content on YouTube is controversial, but there have definitely been arguments that YouTube radicalizes people. If they can say that for YouTube, why not for Substack if it implements similar discoverability?
wainstead 6y ago
> I've also got the sinking feeling that it won't reduce the proliferation of low quality content for clicks because that business model is perfectly feasible in the subscription world. It might even speed it up as people gravitate towards paying for content that they agree with or tickles them. Agree. One of the functions of major news outlets in the past was to be gatekeepers, but in a good sense: they would not countenance a journalist going off on flat earth conspiracy theories, for example, because their editorial process filters out stuff like that. Of course there are the negative aspects of gatekeeping; nothing's perfect. Substack will likely see the day, if it hasn't happened already, where a content creator is pushing bogus information and Substack will come under public scrutiny. It's another variation on the 8chan situation: if you allow anyone to publish, you're gonna get a lot of illegal or harmful content.

ceilingcorner 6y ago

> For me at least Substack presents a solid wall with very little to help discovery. Who do I subscribe to and why? The website is awful at showing me interesting writing. This is by design, because if they did recommend "controversial" people, they'd be accused of being a [bad thing.]

meheleventyone 6y ago
That sounds quite conspiratorial. Are you saying the majority of popular content on Substack is actually just "controversial" people rather than quality journalism?
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  No. I can't find the original post, but I do remember reading a Substack post (by the founders) saying that they deliberately don't like using content recommendation systems.
- ameister14 6y ago
  It doesn't have to be the majority of popular content. If they actively recommend anyone, they will end up recommending people that are controversial to some groups, and they will be attacked as curators and 'platformers' of these people.
  - meheleventyone 6y ago
    They're going to get that anyway for hosting people. And if you read their writing on the subject they do want to improve discovery as well as giving direct support to specific writers: https://blog.substack.com/p/substacks-view-of-content-moderation https://blog.substack.com/p/substacks-view-of-content-modera... "At the same time, while we take a hands-off approach with who may use the platform, we will continue to take an active approach in helping and promoting promising writers. We are doing this by improving discovery on the platform and building programs, such as fellowships, grants, and mentorship, to support writers. Our partnerships team will also continue to work with high-revenue and high-potential writers." So I'm not sure this claim about avoiding recommendations is actually true.
- HKH2 6y ago
  Nobody is arguing that the majority of popular content on YouTube is controversial, but there have definitely been arguments that YouTube radicalizes people. If they can say that for YouTube, why not for Substack if it implements similar discoverability?

wainstead 6y ago

> I've also got the sinking feeling that it won't reduce the proliferation of low quality content for clicks because that business model is perfectly feasible in the subscription world. It might even speed it up as people gravitate towards paying for content that they agree with or tickles them. Agree. One of the functions of major news outlets in the past was to be gatekeepers, but in a good sense: they would not countenance a journalist going off on flat earth conspiracy theories, for example, because their editorial process filters out stuff like that. Of course there are the negative aspects of gatekeeping; nothing's perfect. Substack will likely see the day, if it hasn't happened already, where a content creator is pushing bogus information and Substack will come under public scrutiny. It's another variation on the 8chan situation: if you allow anyone to publish, you're gonna get a lot of illegal or harmful content.