6 ms·

> but with any talent the content should go viral (on both the Substack app/network but also Twitter) A lack of ethics also helps. Fringe views are more likely

> but with any talent the content should go viral (on both the Substack app/network but also Twitter) A lack of ethics also helps. Fringe views are more likely to gather attention. If you optimize for attention (revenue) then you basically end up getting paid to spread lies. Way more clicks for well written conspiracy bait than debunking conspiracies.

the_shivers 4y ago
This is also true of mainstream media publications.
- asdff 4y ago
  I have often thought about how easy it must be to be one of these crazy conservative talking heads. All you have to do is be loud, angry, and say the obvious bigoted talking points they have, and people will flock to you because you are doing it with no shame. Then once you have a bit of a base you are a player in that game for life with a career of conservative podcasting to always fall back on. Maybe you even have a shot for higher office. Of course, this all requires selling your soul, so there is some cost.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    See all these messages for just how few qualms people have for selling out their country’s future. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/20/technology/fox-news-dominion-texts.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/20/technology/fox-news-domin...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - scarface74 4y ago
    And it came out in the Dominion trial that the Fox talking heads didn’t even believe the “election was stolen” narrative.
    - asdff 4y ago
      It came out in Alex Jones's divorce trail that his entire persona is an act for commercial use. He's always selling weird testosterone supplements and such, he's a total snake oil salesman. Of course you know his fans would say that was fake news even if you showed them that evidence. "“He’s playing a character” and is nothing like his online persona, attorney Randall Wilhite reportedly insisted in a Texas courtroom at a pre-trial hearing ahead of the right wing radio jock’s custody battle with ex-wife Kelly Jones." https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/not-fake-news-infowars-alex-jones-performance-artist-n747491 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/not-fake-news-infowars-...
monero-xmr 4y ago
[flagged]
- fnimick 4y ago
  The Hunter Biden laptop story turned out to be true? Since when? Last I heard, nobody has any idea who the laptop belonged to, how it found its way into the computer shop man's hands, why Rudy Giuliani spent time with it, or how it's been modified. There's zero trustworthy evidence that there was ever any evidence of any illicit activity at all.
  - sys32768 4y ago
    From a New York Times article last March [0]: >People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity. Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation. [0] https://archive.is/IdTMj https://archive.is/IdTMj Edit: Hunter Biden suing laptop shop owner for violation of privacy: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/03/17/hunter-biden-lawsuit-computer-repairman/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/03/17/hunter-bi...
nradov 4y ago
Lack of journalistic ethics is a problem. But let's not forget how many mainstream media outlets beyond Substack made huge profits during the COVID-19 pandemic by spreading lies that weren't even considered "fringe". This was misinformation that came straight from government officials, corporate executives, and credentialed scientists. https://nypost.com/2023/02/27/10-myths-told-by-covid-experts-now-debunked/ https://nypost.com/2023/02/27/10-myths-told-by-covid-experts... Or to look a little further back, how much money did the New York Times make by publishing lies and conspiracy theories about WMDs in Iraq? Do we think they wouldn't do something similar again?
ctrlp 4y ago
This is a pretty strange way to think about viewpoints. Fringe as opposed to what? The "common" view of things in the modern media environment is highly manufactured. To have a knee-jerk filter that privileges the mainstream consensus in this information environment is a surefire way to guarantee you have "approved" viewpoints that offend no one and rock no boats. After all the revelations of intelligence service infiltration of content moderation boards at the major media companies, one might expect this attitude to be largely discredited by now.
mrangle 4y ago
Can you demonstrate that the substack accounts on the list largely profit on false-conspiracy promotion? I assume that you don't apply your logic to the MSM. Otherwise, your statement's inherent neutrality would make it pointless in a relative sense. Because the statement can't be neutral lest it be time wasting, it de facto correlates profitable writing, only outside of the MSM, to lies. This is one of the more implausible political statements I've read. You're essentially accusing consumers of supposed non-fiction writing to be tabloid readers. Only outside of MSM consumption, of course. What accounts for the stark difference in motivation of people paying for true MSM writing and false substack writing? I must be hallucinating the contradiction, because otherwise it would frame your model as nonsense that some might correlate with false-conspiracy thinking.

the_shivers 4y ago

This is also true of mainstream media publications.

asdff 4y ago
I have often thought about how easy it must be to be one of these crazy conservative talking heads. All you have to do is be loud, angry, and say the obvious bigoted talking points they have, and people will flock to you because you are doing it with no shame. Then once you have a bit of a base you are a player in that game for life with a career of conservative podcasting to always fall back on. Maybe you even have a shot for higher office. Of course, this all requires selling your soul, so there is some cost.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  See all these messages for just how few qualms people have for selling out their country’s future. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/20/technology/fox-news-dominion-texts.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/20/technology/fox-news-domin...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- scarface74 4y ago
  And it came out in the Dominion trial that the Fox talking heads didn’t even believe the “election was stolen” narrative.
  - asdff 4y ago
    It came out in Alex Jones's divorce trail that his entire persona is an act for commercial use. He's always selling weird testosterone supplements and such, he's a total snake oil salesman. Of course you know his fans would say that was fake news even if you showed them that evidence. "“He’s playing a character” and is nothing like his online persona, attorney Randall Wilhite reportedly insisted in a Texas courtroom at a pre-trial hearing ahead of the right wing radio jock’s custody battle with ex-wife Kelly Jones." https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/not-fake-news-infowars-alex-jones-performance-artist-n747491 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/not-fake-news-infowars-...

monero-xmr 4y ago

[flagged]

fnimick 4y ago
The Hunter Biden laptop story turned out to be true? Since when? Last I heard, nobody has any idea who the laptop belonged to, how it found its way into the computer shop man's hands, why Rudy Giuliani spent time with it, or how it's been modified. There's zero trustworthy evidence that there was ever any evidence of any illicit activity at all.
- sys32768 4y ago
  From a New York Times article last March [0]: >People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity. Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation. [0] https://archive.is/IdTMj https://archive.is/IdTMj Edit: Hunter Biden suing laptop shop owner for violation of privacy: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/03/17/hunter-biden-lawsuit-computer-repairman/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/03/17/hunter-bi...

nradov 4y ago

Lack of journalistic ethics is a problem. But let's not forget how many mainstream media outlets beyond Substack made huge profits during the COVID-19 pandemic by spreading lies that weren't even considered "fringe". This was misinformation that came straight from government officials, corporate executives, and credentialed scientists. https://nypost.com/2023/02/27/10-myths-told-by-covid-experts-now-debunked/ https://nypost.com/2023/02/27/10-myths-told-by-covid-experts... Or to look a little further back, how much money did the New York Times make by publishing lies and conspiracy theories about WMDs in Iraq? Do we think they wouldn't do something similar again?

ctrlp 4y ago

This is a pretty strange way to think about viewpoints. Fringe as opposed to what? The "common" view of things in the modern media environment is highly manufactured. To have a knee-jerk filter that privileges the mainstream consensus in this information environment is a surefire way to guarantee you have "approved" viewpoints that offend no one and rock no boats. After all the revelations of intelligence service infiltration of content moderation boards at the major media companies, one might expect this attitude to be largely discredited by now.

mrangle 4y ago

Can you demonstrate that the substack accounts on the list largely profit on false-conspiracy promotion? I assume that you don't apply your logic to the MSM. Otherwise, your statement's inherent neutrality would make it pointless in a relative sense. Because the statement can't be neutral lest it be time wasting, it de facto correlates profitable writing, only outside of the MSM, to lies. This is one of the more implausible political statements I've read. You're essentially accusing consumers of supposed non-fiction writing to be tabloid readers. Only outside of MSM consumption, of course. What accounts for the stark difference in motivation of people paying for true MSM writing and false substack writing? I must be hallucinating the contradiction, because otherwise it would frame your model as nonsense that some might correlate with false-conspiracy thinking.