6 ms·

Honestly, I hope this doesn't change. As an author, I think the reason why the comments section of my newsletter is such a positive place is because all of the

Honestly, I hope this doesn't change. As an author, I think the reason why the comments section of my newsletter is such a positive place is because all of the commenters are doxed and have a profile. In addition, that's how I find other writers to follow—you can see who follows what and follow that thread which is nice.

teddyh 5y ago
https://geekfeminism.fandom.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Real_Names%22_policy%3F https://geekfeminism.fandom.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22R...
mst 5y ago
I would suggest that, as an example, letting people be able to have separate 'technical subscriptions' and 'political subscriptions' identities might still have the positive effects you describe and if anything more so. Also consider somebody who wants to engage honestly and openly with mental health related content without risking that being dragged in to conversations elsewhere via somebody reading a unified profile.
rchaud 5y ago
Are commenters doxed? You can signup with a throwaway email.
alisonatwork 5y ago
I don't think people being "doxed" is the secret to creating positive interactions. See Facebook, for example. Even LinkedIn has a surprising amount of toxic threads, considering people's professional reputations are at stake. The issue I have with Substack in particular is that it was essentially founded around political newsletters. I'm not sure, but I think Bill Bishop might've been their very first newsletter... and he writes about Chinese politics. Of all topics, that is one where people might have good reason to want to be able to preserve their anonymity. Of course, you could get around this by signing up for different newsletters with different email addresses, but that makes it unnecessarily difficult to read paid subscriber-only posts. I feel like the company took a wrong turn in adding social network features instead of keeping the focus on individual writers and their individual audiences.
- garbagetime 5y ago
  I think it's a helpful but not sufficient condition

teddyh 5y ago

https://geekfeminism.fandom.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Real_Names%22_policy%3F https://geekfeminism.fandom.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22R...

mst 5y ago

I would suggest that, as an example, letting people be able to have separate 'technical subscriptions' and 'political subscriptions' identities might still have the positive effects you describe and if anything more so. Also consider somebody who wants to engage honestly and openly with mental health related content without risking that being dragged in to conversations elsewhere via somebody reading a unified profile.

rchaud 5y ago

Are commenters doxed? You can signup with a throwaway email.

alisonatwork 5y ago

I don't think people being "doxed" is the secret to creating positive interactions. See Facebook, for example. Even LinkedIn has a surprising amount of toxic threads, considering people's professional reputations are at stake. The issue I have with Substack in particular is that it was essentially founded around political newsletters. I'm not sure, but I think Bill Bishop might've been their very first newsletter... and he writes about Chinese politics. Of all topics, that is one where people might have good reason to want to be able to preserve their anonymity. Of course, you could get around this by signing up for different newsletters with different email addresses, but that makes it unnecessarily difficult to read paid subscriber-only posts. I feel like the company took a wrong turn in adding social network features instead of keeping the focus on individual writers and their individual audiences.

garbagetime 5y ago
I think it's a helpful but not sufficient condition