Discussion about this post

User's avatar
samoan62's avatar

Keeping substack non-censored long term is basically a function of their ownership. If they became publicly owned then the censorship is on, period. This would be temping to do so as the site gets larger (i.e. more market value and harder to maintain). If mainstream publications and politicians start putting pressure on a growing substack to censor "hate/misformation/stuff we don't like" it may become tempting for the owners to just cash out and relax. I hope they stick to their guns and don't allow this to happen during whatever the future may hold.

Expand full comment
The Cosmopolitan Reactionary's avatar

In terms of actually subscribing to stuff, I feel like Substack isn’t a great deal. There are probably 8-10 people whose Substack posts I read as soon as I have time for them, but if I were to be a paid subscriber to everyone I like I’d be dropping $100 a month. I could subscribe to multiple magazines and newspapers for that, or I could just go to Unz (as I do) and read a bunch of decent stuff for free instead.

I’m curious why Substack hasn’t approached their subscription model like Spotify or Netflix. Why not just charge me $20 a month and give me access to everything and pay writers “royalties”? Imagine having to subscribe to a musician or band rather than, like, all music ever made. It wouldn’t make sense.

So I think there’s a limit to how far this can go in the current model.

Expand full comment
8 more comments...

No posts