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.
There are solutions for distributed publishing. One example is using IPFS.
The important thing to remember is to backup all the markdown of the posts and to find a DNS service somewhere outside of the anglosphere censorship influence.
Take James Lindsay, all his Twitter posts are gone now, and in case they were a mess. This is done by design in all platforms. That’s why publications were so great, you get a DOI and you can access that info forever.
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.
You can't really be a brand, have many people from all over the political spectrum and not censor at the same time. Choose 2 out of those 3 at most.
If you try to be a brand name like Substack is, then you will get associated with the worst things that are written on your platform over time. This will likely scare off the people most opposed to these opinions. People just don't want to be associated with others who make arguments defending NAMbLA or Hitler. (Taking some extreme examples here)
The only way to avoid this is to not be a brand or at least remain pure infrastructure and stay out of the limelight. No one blames Microsoft for Nazis using Word.
Otherwise there will come a point where your biggest contributors will threaten to walk unless you ban someone who is drawing too much negative attention. Then you have to decide between growth reversing or doing stricter moderation.
"Due to this, I am short-term optimistic about Substack, and a long-term pessimistic. These content guidelines have to be removed for long-term survival."
Create your own platform or you're fucked. If you do you will run into the same obstacles sooner or later.
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.
I agree. Best case scenario is that Thiel teams up with some people to keep controlling % of stock in hands of people with anti-censorship views.
There are solutions for distributed publishing. One example is using IPFS.
The important thing to remember is to backup all the markdown of the posts and to find a DNS service somewhere outside of the anglosphere censorship influence.
Take James Lindsay, all his Twitter posts are gone now, and in case they were a mess. This is done by design in all platforms. That’s why publications were so great, you get a DOI and you can access that info forever.
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.
You can't really be a brand, have many people from all over the political spectrum and not censor at the same time. Choose 2 out of those 3 at most.
If you try to be a brand name like Substack is, then you will get associated with the worst things that are written on your platform over time. This will likely scare off the people most opposed to these opinions. People just don't want to be associated with others who make arguments defending NAMbLA or Hitler. (Taking some extreme examples here)
The only way to avoid this is to not be a brand or at least remain pure infrastructure and stay out of the limelight. No one blames Microsoft for Nazis using Word.
Otherwise there will come a point where your biggest contributors will threaten to walk unless you ban someone who is drawing too much negative attention. Then you have to decide between growth reversing or doing stricter moderation.
"Due to this, I am short-term optimistic about Substack, and a long-term pessimistic. These content guidelines have to be removed for long-term survival."
Create your own platform or you're fucked. If you do you will run into the same obstacles sooner or later.
I read articles in Quillette. It has recently published fantastic articles on trans/gender issues and anthropology as a compromised field.
Can you tell us specifically what that censorship entails?
I used to write for Quillette. Claire never censored me, but she censored a superb writer who had worked at Taki’s Magazine.
Typo: reading/leading
Paying all content providers for the good work of a few does not seem like the answer.
Sort of like paying a monthly price for Direct TV packages throws a bone to CNN who would have otherwise gone away by now.