Is it possible your own perspective is biasing your thoughts here? You're comparing two completely different things and expecting consistency.. > The platform

Is it possible your own perspective is biasing your thoughts here? You're comparing two completely different things and expecting consistency.. > The platform portrayed itself as a haven for independent writers with fewer resources while offering six-figure advances to several prominent white men. Is just describing how it was formed and indeed the list of 'recruits' was largely male and white (Greenwald, Yglesias, Singal, Deboer, Sullivan, etc). This is perhaps an unfair framing because there were indeed Women and PoC in their list of Substack Pros as well, but they had smaller audiences and their advances were substantially smaller. > "The most successful is the history professor Heather Cox Richardson, who has more than a million paid and unpaid subscribers. Other notable writers include the knighted novelist Salman Rushdie, the punk poet laureate Patti Smith and the Eisner-winning comic book writer James Tynion IV." Is describing who's popular on it today. Those two paragraphs don't have to be consistent for the story to be accurate..