4 ms·

Substack Is Now a Playground for the Deplatformed

26 points by thm 5y ago

cblconfederate 5y ago
Substack being deplatformed by those who think they are still 'the platform'? Who would have ever guessed! It's interesting to watch these dynamics from a sociological perspective when so called 'established' blogs are basically weaponizing their audience against their competition. I m not sure how people on the 'left' (whatever that is) feel about being herded like that even though a large percentage of them will follow their advice, however reluctantly.
- pasquinelli 5y ago
  plenty of lefties write on substack.
  - cblconfederate 5y ago
    I know, which is why this article reads like a dog whistle for them to leave. It conveniently and glaringly ignores e.g. matt taibbi who criticises all of this more than anyone. The article is also self contradictory and contains a number of lies - It says the NYtimes becoming subscriber-only is "good journalism", but substack being subscriber-only cannot be good because only ad-supported journalism can be centrist (silliest twist of argument i ve heard in a long time - While the subject of the article is deplatforming, none of the journalists mentioned were actually deplatformed. In fact Greenwald , Weiss etc could easily find a high paying job in almost any newspaper of their liking, but they choose not to.
    - hkt 5y ago
      I saw the same flaws in the article as you: it is clearly clickbait junk.
    - rchaud 5y ago
      The difference between the NYTimes/WSJ type publication and a Substack soloist should be obvious. Last month, the NYT broke the story that one of the Ozy Media cofounders impersonated a Youtube executive on a call w/ GS, and a cascading series of developments now has Ozy execs facing federal charges. The WSJ's reporting of course broke the story of the Theranos scam. A soloist on Substack has no incentive to break stories. They are basically writing op-eds on news stories others have broken.
      - cblconfederate 5y ago
        I m not sure i follow. Substack exists for 4 years. Why wouldn't e.g. greenwald break a big story, like he did before? Also what incentive did WSJ have to break the Theranos story? Both WSJ and nytimes had written accolades about Theranos in the past and, of course, certain lies. Do they have some kind of monopoly to the truth?
    - happytoexplain 5y ago
      I don't normally read Wired, so I'm not defending them as a publication, but I can't find any of your accusations in the article. They don't suggest even implicitly that their readers should avoid Substack - they just point out the good and the bad, and quote perspectives from multiple sides about their business model, and don't seem to be cherry-picking those perspectives or engineering an image. They even say multiple times that Substack's founder's arguments against the traditional attention-economy model are true and valid. In fact, this seems to paint Substack in a more positive and objective light than I usually see people write about it in. >the NYtimes becoming subscriber-only is "good journalism" Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, but it says "[social media] broke the preexisting business models[, but] plenty of publications, The New York Times perhaps chief among them, are managing to make big bucks from good writing." They seem to be contrasting the models of NYT and Substack, not comparing them, saying that NYT is an example of the traditional model. Now, if I'm right, that's really dumb, since NYT makes most of its money from subscriptions, not from the ads (I think), but they don't seem to be committing a double-standard like you're describing. >substack being subscriber-only cannot be good because only ad-supported journalism can be centrist Are you referring to this part, where they paraphrase a professor? >the majority of ad-supported TV networks, Fox News excepted, are resolutely centrist and play to the lowest common denominator in order to attract the broadest possible range of advertisers If so, that was only a single counter-example, not presented as evidence that Substack's model is bad, and it matches my experience. Yes, they shouldn't have singled out Fox as their example of an exception, but the point that polarized outlets are technically a minority seems correct. They seem like the majority, because they have a dominant mind share and they are all people talk about. The ad model pushes outlets in one of two directions: Cater hard to one audience (be extreme and opinionated), or cater broadly to as many people as possible (be boring and non-offensive), and, numerically, most outlets still attempt the latter strategy, however otherwise flawed (e.g. technical incompetence) some subset of those outlets may be. Even regardless, they don't seem to go on from that perspective to say anything like "being subscriber-only cannot be good", not of Substack nor of any other outlet. >none of the journalists mentioned were actually deplatformed Though Greenwald, you, and I don't think he was deplatformed, everybody I know who likes Greenwald, and many people I don't know, it seems, believe he was. They usually say he was effectively forced to resign. It was definitely wrong not to touch on that disagreement, but it is apparently a popular opinion among his proponents.
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  >a large percentage of [people on the left] will follow their advice, however reluctantly That's pretty uncharitable. It's essentially just identity politics shit-flinging to say, "I know a 'large percentage' of those people with X politics will do this thing, and I know it's the wrong thing to do, and I know they'll do it reluctantly, indicating a dumb herd mentality."
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bigger_inside 5y ago
Are we starting to realize that the playbook is "label everything not controlled by a transnational corporation and their hyperrestrictive Standards and Practices department 'right wing' until everything that isn't corporate wash is moral-panicked out of existence?"
cyanydeez 5y ago
everytime i see a substack article on HN i know its some far right screed. very amusing
- rchaud 5y ago
  Substack links on HN remind me of Medium.com links on HN from a few years back. A lot of people trying to build their personal brand by attempting to attach themselves to a perceived source of expertise.
mark_l_watson 5y ago
What a bullshit article from a conventional media company. Sub stack is fantastic. I support Matt Taibbi and Katy Halpert. I enjoy their material a lot and I like getting a different perspective from people who are not paid to promote a corporate/Wall Street agenda. I also support Glen Greenwald, just because, but I don’t consume much of his material. Anyone who thinks that they receive balanced news from the likes of MSNBC or Fox News is an idiot. They literally exist to push a pro Wall Street and pro elites agenda. I am not advising to totally give up on corporate news media, but balance it out and think for yourself which sources you personally trust more. I also trust ex-presidential candidate Marianne Williamson. Follow her on Twitter to get a sample of news that might get you thinking outside your box.
- selimthegrim 5y ago
  Mika Brzezinski huffing and puffing that it was their (MSNBC’s) job to tell people what to think was a real eye opener. Williamson owes an apology to AIDS sufferers for her earlier behavior though.
foolzcrow 5y ago
Substack is great. Anti-free speech authoritarians hate it. Wired most likey hates free speech because their ideas can't compete in the free market of information. It's intellectual snake oil sold by well scripted carnival barkers.

26 points by thm 5y ago

Substack being deplatformed by those who think they are still 'the platform'? Who would have ever guessed! It's interesting to watch these dynamics from a sociological perspective when so called 'established' blogs are basically weaponizing their audience against their competition. I m not sure how people on the 'left' (whatever that is) feel about being herded like that even though a large percentage of them will follow their advice, however reluctantly.

pasquinelli 5y ago
plenty of lefties write on substack.
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  I know, which is why this article reads like a dog whistle for them to leave. It conveniently and glaringly ignores e.g. matt taibbi who criticises all of this more than anyone. The article is also self contradictory and contains a number of lies - It says the NYtimes becoming subscriber-only is "good journalism", but substack being subscriber-only cannot be good because only ad-supported journalism can be centrist (silliest twist of argument i ve heard in a long time - While the subject of the article is deplatforming, none of the journalists mentioned were actually deplatformed. In fact Greenwald , Weiss etc could easily find a high paying job in almost any newspaper of their liking, but they choose not to.
  - hkt 5y ago
    I saw the same flaws in the article as you: it is clearly clickbait junk.
  - rchaud 5y ago
    The difference between the NYTimes/WSJ type publication and a Substack soloist should be obvious. Last month, the NYT broke the story that one of the Ozy Media cofounders impersonated a Youtube executive on a call w/ GS, and a cascading series of developments now has Ozy execs facing federal charges. The WSJ's reporting of course broke the story of the Theranos scam. A soloist on Substack has no incentive to break stories. They are basically writing op-eds on news stories others have broken.
    - cblconfederate 5y ago
      I m not sure i follow. Substack exists for 4 years. Why wouldn't e.g. greenwald break a big story, like he did before? Also what incentive did WSJ have to break the Theranos story? Both WSJ and nytimes had written accolades about Theranos in the past and, of course, certain lies. Do they have some kind of monopoly to the truth?
  - happytoexplain 5y ago
    I don't normally read Wired, so I'm not defending them as a publication, but I can't find any of your accusations in the article. They don't suggest even implicitly that their readers should avoid Substack - they just point out the good and the bad, and quote perspectives from multiple sides about their business model, and don't seem to be cherry-picking those perspectives or engineering an image. They even say multiple times that Substack's founder's arguments against the traditional attention-economy model are true and valid. In fact, this seems to paint Substack in a more positive and objective light than I usually see people write about it in. >the NYtimes becoming subscriber-only is "good journalism" Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, but it says "[social media] broke the preexisting business models[, but] plenty of publications, The New York Times perhaps chief among them, are managing to make big bucks from good writing." They seem to be contrasting the models of NYT and Substack, not comparing them, saying that NYT is an example of the traditional model. Now, if I'm right, that's really dumb, since NYT makes most of its money from subscriptions, not from the ads (I think), but they don't seem to be committing a double-standard like you're describing. >substack being subscriber-only cannot be good because only ad-supported journalism can be centrist Are you referring to this part, where they paraphrase a professor? >the majority of ad-supported TV networks, Fox News excepted, are resolutely centrist and play to the lowest common denominator in order to attract the broadest possible range of advertisers If so, that was only a single counter-example, not presented as evidence that Substack's model is bad, and it matches my experience. Yes, they shouldn't have singled out Fox as their example of an exception, but the point that polarized outlets are technically a minority seems correct. They seem like the majority, because they have a dominant mind share and they are all people talk about. The ad model pushes outlets in one of two directions: Cater hard to one audience (be extreme and opinionated), or cater broadly to as many people as possible (be boring and non-offensive), and, numerically, most outlets still attempt the latter strategy, however otherwise flawed (e.g. technical incompetence) some subset of those outlets may be. Even regardless, they don't seem to go on from that perspective to say anything like "being subscriber-only cannot be good", not of Substack nor of any other outlet. >none of the journalists mentioned were actually deplatformed Though Greenwald, you, and I don't think he was deplatformed, everybody I know who likes Greenwald, and many people I don't know, it seems, believe he was. They usually say he was effectively forced to resign. It was definitely wrong not to touch on that disagreement, but it is apparently a popular opinion among his proponents.
happytoexplain 5y ago
>a large percentage of [people on the left] will follow their advice, however reluctantly That's pretty uncharitable. It's essentially just identity politics shit-flinging to say, "I know a 'large percentage' of those people with X politics will do this thing, and I know it's the wrong thing to do, and I know they'll do it reluctantly, indicating a dumb herd mentality."

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bigger_inside 5y ago

Are we starting to realize that the playbook is "label everything not controlled by a transnational corporation and their hyperrestrictive Standards and Practices department 'right wing' until everything that isn't corporate wash is moral-panicked out of existence?"

cyanydeez 5y ago

everytime i see a substack article on HN i know its some far right screed. very amusing

rchaud 5y ago
Substack links on HN remind me of Medium.com links on HN from a few years back. A lot of people trying to build their personal brand by attempting to attach themselves to a perceived source of expertise.

mark_l_watson 5y ago

What a bullshit article from a conventional media company. Sub stack is fantastic. I support Matt Taibbi and Katy Halpert. I enjoy their material a lot and I like getting a different perspective from people who are not paid to promote a corporate/Wall Street agenda. I also support Glen Greenwald, just because, but I don’t consume much of his material. Anyone who thinks that they receive balanced news from the likes of MSNBC or Fox News is an idiot. They literally exist to push a pro Wall Street and pro elites agenda. I am not advising to totally give up on corporate news media, but balance it out and think for yourself which sources you personally trust more. I also trust ex-presidential candidate Marianne Williamson. Follow her on Twitter to get a sample of news that might get you thinking outside your box.

selimthegrim 5y ago
Mika Brzezinski huffing and puffing that it was their (MSNBC’s) job to tell people what to think was a real eye opener. Williamson owes an apology to AIDS sufferers for her earlier behavior though.

foolzcrow 5y ago

Substack is great. Anti-free speech authoritarians hate it. Wired most likey hates free speech because their ideas can't compete in the free market of information. It's intellectual snake oil sold by well scripted carnival barkers.