Annalee Newitz 🍜Way back in 2021, I called out #Substack as a scam because it was masquerading as a service provider when it fact it was paying certain writers (often secretly) to create content for them. (https://buttondown.email/thehypothesis/archive/heres-why-substacks-scam-worked-so-well/) They had an editorial mission and a paid writing staff, but claimed to be a neutral service provider like Etsy for authors. Here's how that story is going ...
Thanks to @nilaypatel's interview with CEO Chris Best about Substack Notes (https://www.tiktok.com/@decoderpod/video/7221602731998498094), the company's questionable ethics are in the headlines again. Nilay points out that Substack needs to prioritize content moderation because Substack Notes are a consumer-facing social media offering. But I would argue that they were social media all along.
Not only that, but they were arguably an actual publication, with a staff of paid writers. I got a lot of pushback on this idea, for reasons I'm still perplexed by. We rail against the Twitter and FB algorithm for shaping content. But Substack was shaping content by paying actual people to write for them. They were creating a content ecosystem. And now, they are selling this ecosystem back to writers -- touting the way paid subscribers come largely from the Substack network.
In a recent newsletter, @parkermolloy points out that the vast majority of her paying subscribers come from recommendations through the Substack network. (https://www.readtpa.com/p/likes-are-now-florps). Chris Best said something similar in his interview with Nilay Patel, pointing out that the value of joining Substack is that it provides paying customers to authors. This means that the main "freedom" of Substack -- the freedom to leave -- is illusory.
If a writer leaves the ecosystem, they risk losing access to tons of paid subscribers who are being recommended to them through the network. So in my book, that makes Substack social media. It creates microcelebrities through its own network effects. And it promises potential writers a captive audience of readers within the network, who will become paying customers.
ʇᴉɯᴉl ɐɯǝɥɔs®I don't begrudge any writer who wants to keep writing for Substack. Make money however you can do it! But I am tired of people saying that there is nothing scammy or problematic about a publication that hides its financials, hides who it is paying, and then says that we should just trust that it is a neutral platform with no agenda. And on top of that, they now refuse to have any kind of coherent moderation policy.
But here are the facts. Substack has promoted hate speech and misinformation by paying and/or not moderating its top authors and celebrities. It claims to offer authors freedom, while at the same time promoting the idea that leaving the network will prevent authors from gaining new paying subscribers. (And, as Parker Molloy showed, it's true that most new subscribers come from within the network, not from Twitter or elsewhere.)
Again, no shade on the many amazing authors who are on Substack (and whose newsletters I pay for). It's not easy to make a living writing, and Substack can be a source of valuable revenue. But let's not pretend it offers freedom, or that readers of one newsletter are somehow shielded from another newsletter's misinformation, racism, and transphobia. If you are an author, Substack is selling its network to you. If you are a consumer, you are being sold to authors. That means ...
... That means that at some point you will be exposed to hate speech, misinformation, and all the other problems that have plagued social media for twenty years. We are not in "new territory." Substack isn't a novel thing whose trajectory we can't predict. Go into this shit with your eyes open. And don't act surprised when it turns out that Substack is flushing you down the toilet and asking you to thank them.
Derek Powazek 🐐@annaleen applause.gif
James Britt@annaleen It feels akin to Uber claiming they don't employ drivers but rather "contractors". A dance done to avoid responsibility.
Matt@jamesbritt @annaleen great analogy
Carlos Sierra 🌹@annaleen totally agree. The fact that they are pretending to do something completely different is hilarious, they’re just creating a new brand for internet’s old tricks.
Jared Newman@annaleen Great thread! Also: Seeing parallels between what you wrote about Pro and the already-popular writers now marveling over how many signups they’re getting from Notes. Seems like another manufactured growth story being sold to the rest of us.
Libation Legacy 🍸@annaleen Oh great, more right wing followers. I agree, no thanks. Out of the bird app, into the pan.
HTTP 1.1/418 Teapot@annaleen Excellent points. Excellent rant.
Ryan Singel@annaleen
This is spot on.
I'm thinking hard on how to build a trusted network effects across subscription/newsletter sites that puts the majority of the value into the nodes, not the connector.
And doesn't include the hate, racism, transphobia, etc.
Simple, right?
Writing drunk, never editing@annaleen You can see Cory Doctorow's Enshittification Cycle playing out in the background too.
elle mundy@annaleen the way he talks about it, you’d think he invented a whole new kind of text or something
Jessamyn@annaleen So true. I continue to send along your original essay and after that Patel interview I'm just like "How are these guys this dumb?" but I guess they just feel like the rules don't apply to them (or their VC) and that just saying something is "new territory" is enough to make it so even when we all know it isn't. Moderation isn't a solved problem, but it's definitely one that's been addressed better than this.
Don Whiteside@jessamyn @annaleen I’m not sure it’s dumb when every indication is they can do this shtick and what most outlets will report is fReE sPeaCH and few will push them on it. It’s more surprising they’re not better at it, since the reporting is always on how hamfisted they are. When they do the stonewall with no stumbling it gets shrugged off.
It’s almost surprising these guys don’t get better media training but not too much so - their defining trait is thinking they’re already best at everything.
Karl Schroeder@annaleen
Well, this is great. I'd just signed up with them. Speaking as someone who is not currently a celebrity, but has had reach before and is about to re-launch in a dozen different ways, what's your alternative to substack? It's all very well to shit on them from a great height when you're not personally dependent on what they do--I have no loyalty to them; the question is, what else, specifically, can take the place of this service? For example, what are your thoughts on beehiiv?
Well, this is great. I'd just signed up with them. Speaking as someone who is not currently a celebrity, but has had reach before and is about to re-launch in a dozen different ways, what's your alternative to substack? It's all very well to shit on them from a great height when you're not personally dependent on what they do--I have no loyalty to them; the question is, what else, specifically, can take the place of this service? For example, what are your thoughts on beehiiv?
@annaleen
And understand, I will build my own newsletter system if I have to. It's just that that would be yet one more thing I'm doing instead of writing.
And understand, I will build my own newsletter system if I have to. It's just that that would be yet one more thing I'm doing instead of writing.
@KarlSchroeder I've been using Buttondown for two years now for my newsletter, and it's terrific -- great service, responsive to my questions within hours. A lot of other folks use Ghost.
@annaleen
Thanks, I'll check it out. Might end up back with Patreon, if I decide to add other services.
Thanks, I'll check it out. Might end up back with Patreon, if I decide to add other services.
Laura J Mixon@annaleen Oh, very well said. I’d love to see us add topics like media ethics and how to recognize disinformation abnd conspiracy theories to our middle school curriculum (not go mention adding Civics back in, which was stripped out of many schools years ago).
Glenn Fleishman@annaleen Fortunately (?), Substack doesn’t appear to be doing well at the valuable revenue for long-tail writers anymore (possibly due to Twitter now disappearing as a good discovery tool). I hope this will promote other, non-terrible platforms for publishing subscription newsletters as better choices. I feel terrible for anyone who hooked their wagon on Substack because it was NOT a bad choice initially. Then you’re locked into something working—hard enough already, as you say.
Dodgy TheoriesYou are being too charitable. Substack is a right wing cesspool.
Michael Vilain@annaleen I wonder when some bright techie is gonna create a redirect from nazibar.com to substack.com. It's just a stupid nginx web site that does a html redirect.
Brian Dear
vandys@annaleen Speaking as a local newspaper, the platform is _very_ good at hosting an independent publication. I know how to build web sites, integrate Paypal, blah blah blah. But they spare me all of that, and do it better to boot.
https://vashonloop.com/
Notes, OTOH. I don't see if this is a good idea yet.
https://vashonloop.com/
Notes, OTOH. I don't see if this is a good idea yet.
@vandys that's good to hear! I'm glad it's working for you.
steev hise@annaleen it’s kind of a perfect little synecdoche of The American Dream: look! These (secretly boosted) people made it! You can too! Anybody can! What an opportunity!
railmeat
Lena@annaleen@waFurthermore, it is essential that they have an effective policy of moderation so as not to put any user at risk while using the platform. Transparency builds credibility which should always be taken into consideration when creating business models.
ndering.shop
ndering.shop
Voron
Kevin Karhan 
@annaleen Which is worse than any conspiracy theory against public broadcasters I know of, since even the worst outlets [KCTV, CGTN & RT] don't try to hide their financials and have to publicly report those...