6 ms·

This post didn't age well – 3 weeks later Substack announced a $100m fundraise at $1.1b valuation. [1] Ana's contention that Substack is "rickety" seems motiva

This post didn't age well – 3 weeks later Substack announced a $100m fundraise at $1.1b valuation. [1] Ana's contention that Substack is "rickety" seems motivated by her conviction that they should adopt a more assertive, aggressive censorship regime, and that "we need a world where a social safety net protects risky writing". There are certainly many interesting questions about the future of media and Substack's business – but the parade of people saying it can't succeed without more moderation keep being proven wrong. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/17/business/substack-fundraising-social-network.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/17/business/substack-fundrai...

elicash 1y ago
This post linked to a different article (former Bloomberg reporter) that said it expected this round to be at $750 million ($50 million above the previous valuation). And so yes, that's significantly less than it ended up being, $1.1 billion, but I'm not sure it impacts the argument being made. Except that the multiple would be even greater!
hiddencost 1y ago
[flagged]
- SilverElfin 1y ago
  Yes, censorship. Which is a bad thing. Ideas, even disagreeable ones, should be permitted. Otherwise you don’t have a real democracy.
  - _Algernon_ 1y ago
    That's no longer a justification once you have algorithmic amplification which Substack introduced with its Twitter immitation. At that point they ceased to just tolerate these ideas but to amplify them. At that point they carry more responsibility, and people rightly blame them for it. Free speech is fine. A private company handing nazis a megaphone and not accepting criticism for it is not.
  - archagon 1y ago
    Should it be the responsibility of a periodical to publish every random Nazi op-ed? (And then send out push notifications for it?) Assholes can self-publish, as always, IMO.
    - SilverElfin 1y ago
      I’m not sure what you mean by “responsibility”. But if thing are published or notified based on content neutral criteria, then it’s fine in my opinion.
  - slg 1y ago
    This is an ironic response to a comment on HN that is being downvoted and soon will be censored by the crowd based flagging and voting system for being "disagreeable".
  - sofixa 1y ago
    > Otherwise you don’t have a real democracy. I don't know how this myth came to be. One would think that the experiences of the Weimar Republic would be enough to learn the lesson. No, a democracy doesn't have to allow forces that literally want to destroy it an equal voice. Fascists and Nazis don't want to be a part of democratic society, they want to abuse it to get power and then dismantle it. As such, it's the duty of real democracies to protect themselves from such malicious actors. Because if they win, everyone loses. And we're seeing this in one of the supposedly more democratic countries, right now - a coup attempt by wannabe fascists was left without consequences, and now fascists are dismantling checks and balances and democratic institutions. An extremely good quote from Nazi Minister of Propaganda on the matter: > “We are an anti-parliamentarian party that for good reasons rejects the Weimar constitution and its republican institutions. We oppose a fake democracy that treats the intelligent and the foolish, the industrious and the lazy, in the same way. We see in the present system of majorities and organized irresponsibility the main cause of our steadily increasing miseries. > So why do we want to be in the Reichstag? > We enter the Reichstag to arm ourselves with the weapons of democracy. If democracy is foolish enough to give us free railway passes and salaries, that is its problem. It does not concern us. Any way of bringing about the revolution is fine by us. > If we succeed in getting sixty or seventy of our party’s agitators and organizers elected to the various parliaments, the state itself will pay for our fighting organization. That is amusing and entertaining enough to be worth trying. > Will we be corrupted by joining parliament? Not likely. Do you think us such miserable revolutionaries that you fear that the thick red carpets and the well-upholstered sleeping halls will make us forget our historical mission? > Is our entry into the Reichstag the beginning of a compromise? Do you really think that we who have stood before you a hundred or a thousand times preaching faith in a new Germany, who have smilingly faced death dozens of times from the red mob, who have joined you in battling every form of resistance whether of official or nonofficial nature, who have bent before no command or terror, do you really think that we would lay down our weapons in exchange for a railroad pass?
add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
She specifically talks about what happens next after raising that $100m. The higher valuation creating more urgency to be profitable, which could lead to a descent into Twitter-style outrage engagement stupidity, influencers, etc. If she's wrong about anything, it's that you can assume enough people will leave a declining platform to keep it from staying alive.
nova22033 1y ago
Counterpoint: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/timeline-softbanks-bets-wework-totaled-194817277.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/timeline-softbanks-bets-wewor...
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
DoctorOW 1y ago
At no point in this post does she even write the word "censor"/"censorship". The post relentlessly criticizes Nazis but wanting silence to her dissent isn't pro-speech, it's just pro-nazi. I'm really sick of this argument. You never see free speech extremists defending anti-fascism or even questioning the decisions of governments as long as they're right wing.
lapcat 1y ago
> This post didn't age well – 3 weeks later Substack announced a $100m fundraise at $1.1b valuation. From the article: Newcomer says Substack is “pitching investors on a round between $50M and $100M that would value it above its roughly $700M last round price.” Also: And if Substack does manage to raise that $100M they’re looking for now? Things will get worse.
- barrrrald 1y ago
  The implication of her article is that they’d have a hard time raising that money and/or that they somehow aren’t doing well - I don’t see any evidence of this cited anywhere in her post.
  - lapcat 1y ago
    No, the implication is that raising such a high level of VC would put huge pressure on Substack to grow and enshittify, thereby ruining the platform for writers who currently think it's good. In other words, their current business model does not support their valuation, which necessitates a pivot.
jemmyw 1y ago
I don't think moderation has anything to do with it and it's not the core of the argument in the article. They've taken a huge valuation and investors will want a return on that. The problem is that there's just not that much loyalty in this space. I don't care where the content is hosted as long as it's not annoying, content makers don't care so long as they can make money. When substack starts needing to extract value they have to do it in a way that's annoying and chances are high we see the next platform appear. We've seen it before. It would be lovely to see a platform get big taking a sustainable approach. But that investment money buys marketing and hype.

elicash 1y ago

This post linked to a different article (former Bloomberg reporter) that said it expected this round to be at $750 million ($50 million above the previous valuation). And so yes, that's significantly less than it ended up being, $1.1 billion, but I'm not sure it impacts the argument being made. Except that the multiple would be even greater!

hiddencost 1y ago

[flagged]

SilverElfin 1y ago
Yes, censorship. Which is a bad thing. Ideas, even disagreeable ones, should be permitted. Otherwise you don’t have a real democracy.
- _Algernon_ 1y ago
  That's no longer a justification once you have algorithmic amplification which Substack introduced with its Twitter immitation. At that point they ceased to just tolerate these ideas but to amplify them. At that point they carry more responsibility, and people rightly blame them for it. Free speech is fine. A private company handing nazis a megaphone and not accepting criticism for it is not.
- archagon 1y ago
  Should it be the responsibility of a periodical to publish every random Nazi op-ed? (And then send out push notifications for it?) Assholes can self-publish, as always, IMO.
  - SilverElfin 1y ago
    I’m not sure what you mean by “responsibility”. But if thing are published or notified based on content neutral criteria, then it’s fine in my opinion.
- slg 1y ago
  This is an ironic response to a comment on HN that is being downvoted and soon will be censored by the crowd based flagging and voting system for being "disagreeable".
- sofixa 1y ago
  > Otherwise you don’t have a real democracy. I don't know how this myth came to be. One would think that the experiences of the Weimar Republic would be enough to learn the lesson. No, a democracy doesn't have to allow forces that literally want to destroy it an equal voice. Fascists and Nazis don't want to be a part of democratic society, they want to abuse it to get power and then dismantle it. As such, it's the duty of real democracies to protect themselves from such malicious actors. Because if they win, everyone loses. And we're seeing this in one of the supposedly more democratic countries, right now - a coup attempt by wannabe fascists was left without consequences, and now fascists are dismantling checks and balances and democratic institutions. An extremely good quote from Nazi Minister of Propaganda on the matter: > “We are an anti-parliamentarian party that for good reasons rejects the Weimar constitution and its republican institutions. We oppose a fake democracy that treats the intelligent and the foolish, the industrious and the lazy, in the same way. We see in the present system of majorities and organized irresponsibility the main cause of our steadily increasing miseries. > So why do we want to be in the Reichstag? > We enter the Reichstag to arm ourselves with the weapons of democracy. If democracy is foolish enough to give us free railway passes and salaries, that is its problem. It does not concern us. Any way of bringing about the revolution is fine by us. > If we succeed in getting sixty or seventy of our party’s agitators and organizers elected to the various parliaments, the state itself will pay for our fighting organization. That is amusing and entertaining enough to be worth trying. > Will we be corrupted by joining parliament? Not likely. Do you think us such miserable revolutionaries that you fear that the thick red carpets and the well-upholstered sleeping halls will make us forget our historical mission? > Is our entry into the Reichstag the beginning of a compromise? Do you really think that we who have stood before you a hundred or a thousand times preaching faith in a new Germany, who have smilingly faced death dozens of times from the red mob, who have joined you in battling every form of resistance whether of official or nonofficial nature, who have bent before no command or terror, do you really think that we would lay down our weapons in exchange for a railroad pass?

add-sub-mul-div 1y ago

She specifically talks about what happens next after raising that $100m. The higher valuation creating more urgency to be profitable, which could lead to a descent into Twitter-style outrage engagement stupidity, influencers, etc. If she's wrong about anything, it's that you can assume enough people will leave a declining platform to keep it from staying alive.

nova22033 1y ago

Counterpoint: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/timeline-softbanks-bets-wework-totaled-194817277.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/timeline-softbanks-bets-wewor...

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

DoctorOW 1y ago

At no point in this post does she even write the word "censor"/"censorship". The post relentlessly criticizes Nazis but wanting silence to her dissent isn't pro-speech, it's just pro-nazi. I'm really sick of this argument. You never see free speech extremists defending anti-fascism or even questioning the decisions of governments as long as they're right wing.

lapcat 1y ago

> This post didn't age well – 3 weeks later Substack announced a $100m fundraise at $1.1b valuation. From the article: Newcomer says Substack is “pitching investors on a round between $50M and $100M that would value it above its roughly $700M last round price.” Also: And if Substack does manage to raise that $100M they’re looking for now? Things will get worse.

barrrrald 1y ago
The implication of her article is that they’d have a hard time raising that money and/or that they somehow aren’t doing well - I don’t see any evidence of this cited anywhere in her post.
- lapcat 1y ago
  No, the implication is that raising such a high level of VC would put huge pressure on Substack to grow and enshittify, thereby ruining the platform for writers who currently think it's good. In other words, their current business model does not support their valuation, which necessitates a pivot.

jemmyw 1y ago

I don't think moderation has anything to do with it and it's not the core of the argument in the article. They've taken a huge valuation and investors will want a return on that. The problem is that there's just not that much loyalty in this space. I don't care where the content is hosted as long as it's not annoying, content makers don't care so long as they can make money. When substack starts needing to extract value they have to do it in a way that's annoying and chances are high we see the next platform appear. We've seen it before. It would be lovely to see a platform get big taking a sustainable approach. But that investment money buys marketing and hype.