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.