With his mention of McDonald's and your comment of mayor... I can't get the image of Mayor McCheese with Ted's face out of my mind. Might need to log into copilot and create that vision in an attempt to purge.
I was all set up to think grand, noble, righteous thoughts today...then I got hit by a snowball with a rock inside, and things started going downhill.
The snowball started with the Mayor McCheese...what the heck is that? Dunno.
So off to DuckDuckGo I go.
Oh...that?
For some reason this made me think of Boaty McBoatface...so I had to look that up, too. Well, that was sort of cute!
Then: what other cute names start with Mc?
This time, instead of the Duck, I did an AI inquiry for the first time ever. For real. I am so proud of myself! I typed: "funny names starting with mc."
The results: McLovin, McFlurry, and McNugget.
I won't copy the whole explanatory commentary, but it did have the phrase "humorous twist" in it, which I am sure is true.
So this is our world: miles of high-speed cables, satellites, server farms, gigabytes, terabytes, Googolplexes, Tesla-years of scientific progress to deliver a:
Hey 😇, I’ve started a small writing project for quiet builders like us. Only 25 people are reading right now, but I’m proud of it. If you have 2 minutes, I’d love your thoughts.
Can Substack please be like Canada in this scenario (massive growth, poised for takeover) and just say, "Substack will never be For Sale. Never." Please?
At which point someone will start a new platform and we'll all slowly move there until it sells out too. I remember when Instagram was a fun app for sharing photos. And then it turned into a bunch of video ads.
I think that this is a genuine concern, though I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of Substack's financing and strength or will to remain independent, if tempted enough ...
Then someone will take the idea and build 'PreshiitifiedStack' and the rest of us, hopefully following Ted, can have a few more years on this new platform just quietly getting on, paying for what we value and not being led by the nose which is what even YouTube feels like nowadays.
If you can't beat, join 'em. Is this the beginning of the enshittification of Substack though? The LIVE feature, AI writing, video, mainstream media... I hope it doesn't all go downhill from here.
Such a great thought! "May the friction of text protect us."
Since to rise and fall is the way of the world, I can only wonder about the role of text. Does it furnish the historical record which binds us, reminds us, inspires us, patterns us, warns us?
The drag of language binds us. A writer's word contains memories and mistakes, wishes and warnings, left up to the reader to purchase with their investment. Feels diametrically opposite to the notification frenzy of the attention economy.
For real. I also wonder is Substack is going to be used as a kind of money laundering scheme for politicians and other grifters, especially as it seems some of the NGO money is drying up.
Thanks for this informative post, @Ted Gioia. I am by no means convinced that this new crowd of Right-wingers and other political figures will add anything to substack. Is the site even geared for the potential influx of millions of groupies?
This should be a site for writers. I have lately been approached the bimbos and con artists trying to hustle me (lots of luck!), and I'm waiting for the Nigerian prince to make an appearance. We shall see what happens as Stage Four and Stage Five develop...
I’ve always pictured Ted as a clown. A clown from a parallel universe, where clowns tell stories that mean something. Where clowns write in a style that works. Where clowns see behind the smoke and mirrors and tell us what is really happening. Where clowns encourage others to not accept the direction of the current clown world as inevitable. I’ve always disliked clowns of all kinds. Except Red Skelton. But I like parallel universe clown Ted.
Clowns wore disguise so they couldn't be identified in real life. In particular (being a Brit) im thinking of our short Commonwealth when Oliver Cromwell was Governor of England and himself a moderate man allowed the banning of theatres and plays and FUN!!,so rich folk had travelling acting bands come into their grand houses for private performances and such bands might put on a penny show for the villagers at the barn but put on this heavy disguise so (even though people probably knew who they were) they could be unidentifiable legally if a snitch or snooper was at the show. Maybe same in Europe. Sorry,subject so interesting I went a bit off topic. I'm more concerned than happy about seeing all the big names on SS I don't follow them. Those concerns have a horribly successful way of taking over and subsuming independent businesses. I can't see them not wanting to control SS. Wanting to and Trying to at least.
Response motivated by tom Violett's response to Ted Gioia's *The Honest Broker*: "Substack has changed over the last 30 days." I would prefer no 'monetizing' (is monetize really a word?) or, at the very least no restrictions on reading or comment that exclude free subscribers.
This is a world of rich and poorer - usually extremely poorer, and this not only applies to financial wealth but to information, ideas, explanations, education, ability to recognise prejudice, opportunity to engage and much more.
My view is that money and capitalism, whether private or state, is the major causal factor for this situation and only prolongs inequity. This is particularly true when socialisation inculcates materialism and false ideas of what defines 'success' or 'life achievement', when in reality those concepts have nothing to do with riches or power and actually designate 'living' rather than 'life.'
I have extremely mixed feelings about Winston Churchill's character but he was certainly articulate and intelligent and I have long remembered a statement he made that is so very true, even if perhaps somewhat contradictory to his own lifestyle - and I paraphrase: "What you get gives you a living, what you give gets you a life."
The writers I value here are those that see the undeserved privilege, the inequities, the deceit, the corruption and the fraud and who speak out articulately and strongly not only to criticise but to support the victims, (i.e. billions of us), and to suggest how we can arrest and dismantle this inequity by providing both information and models to those who don't yet understand that they can have a voice.
However, when one reads a valuable article, hits 'like' and goes to comment - only to receive a dialogue that: "Only paid subscribers can comment" or some such, it is belittling and often seems quite contrary to the sense of the content one has just read and wished to reference or commend.
Surely that goes against what so many purportedly believe and at least what I thought was the point of Substack and why I switched to it.
Of course, perhaps I'm just a 'bleeding heart' and have it all wrong. After all, I'm almost 80 (so invisible to most) and a fixed low income pensioner who donates most of what little disposable income I have to charities ...
Yes, I understand what you say in your first sentence. So do I, though my children are all grown now.
Only some here, I'd suggest a relative few though I can't know, are primarily earning income solely from writing, let alone solely from writing on this platform.
My comment did not claim that writers oughtn't to be able to earn a living from their work but rather it was a reference to the fundamentals that make Substack 'special' or 'different' as discussed by Ted Gioia and specifically to the comment that: "Only individuals, creatives themselves should be able to monetize." That last sentence being somewhat indeterminate or presumptive, perhaps even elitist in its implication though, that may well not have been and I doubt that it was the intention of its author.
Your response is a common one to any opposition at all to paid subscriptions, restrictions on access or such. Whilst on the surface it is valid, inevitably such responses fail to address any arguments made in the content and do little more than state the obvious which, somehow, is presented as a rebuttal of all points in the content to which they purport to be a reply.
Of course, if that is how you see the situation, then nothing I can say or write is likely to change your mind.
However, I wish you well and hope that your writing allows you to support yourself and your family in an adequate way.
Thank you, Roger, I wish you all the best too! I imagine very few people here earn a full living from their writing, but with the gig economy, I suspect it forms a valuable part of the income for quite a few.
I’m not supported by my writing -I give it away for free. It’s not my job; I’m an animation director, and sadly, animation is far too expensive to fund through Substack.
What I appreciate about Substack is that you’re free to monetise or not, and the incentive structure feels more aligned between the writer and the platform. That seems like a better setup than many other models out there.
In fairness, I ought also to have mentioned that some of those who require paid subscriptions for full access, have been kind/generous enough to give me a gift subscription to access their work - something I very much appreciate though I accept that if one is depending on their writing on Substack to support their living expenses, then they do need to be paid.
Having only subscribers being able to comment may provide a block to the bot-farm swamping of a lot of social media. It may also dilutes the anonimity that gives the anonymous an opportunity to comment negatively.
Roger, well said. I’d add, if you don’t want to swim, don’t get in the pool. But if you do, don’t try to change the water. I detest the “paywall” model. Perhaps Substack could be seen as pro bono work. You do it so people can read your work, and comment. An opportunity to be seen/read. If the reader likes what they read (and can comment on, like here) they can upgrade their subscription, or buy a cup of coffee. I dare say turning Substack into a revenue stream will be turning many readers away, and to a platform that offers readers the ability to read first and then support. Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
Hi Roger. Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I agree with your analysis of capitalism and to an extent socialism. I differ in that since we are currently in a system that requires money I don't have issue with spending a few dollars a month supporting the amazing creators I learn so much from everyday. Perhaps there shouldn't be a paywall. Would enough people support the artist if all content was free? I don't know. Anyone have a better wird than monetize? I'd be happy to use it!
Thanks, Tom. I don’t disagree with you. I don’t have a problem with creators being supported, either, where those supporting can afford to pay.
Perhaps I have expressed myself badly. I know only too well that it can be difficult and for many is difficult to earn a living. I’ve experienced it for most of my life, probably all of it. However, I also accept that billions of others are in much greater need than I - but I won’t say more about that here for I’ll get on my soap-box if I do.
My main concern, as i said perhaps not expressed well, is that if we are to change the inequity in society then we need to inform, ‘educate’ if you like, and model where the problems are and why they are problems. Sadly, the ‘norm’ is accepted as an inevitable reality by most, yet it is not, it is an insidiously socialised one which serves the interests of a few at the cost of the many.
So, I know, people have to live and those talented enough to write well and put time and effort into their creative efforts deserve to be able to do so full time and not have to be paupers to follow their craft. Unfortunately, it is the case that for so many who are engaged in the arts or intangible production or endeavours, they are undervalued and find it hard to make a living unless perhaps they are at the elite level.
Anyway, I’ll shut up and go away. I am probably too passionate about inequity and inequality and the degree of poverty and distress in our world. I just didn’t mean to criticise either those who need to earn from their writing nor those who are able to pay - that was not my intention and to anyone who has taken offence, I apologise.
Is a self inflicted "ad hominim" attack collateral damage? Perhaps you are a "bleeding heart" but the entire "paywall" system is a core issue near & dear to my non-bleeding heart («equity» IMHO is an appeal to pity argument.)
Firstly, that a lot of "science" is behind paywalls means critique of what's published is limited to ivory tower denizens. IMHO a complex technological society creates a fatal fissure where blindfolded "follow the science" lemmings leap & crash. E.g., vax without data => don't get the jab!
Secondly, that paywalls are used for research, partially or fully taxpayer funded, is being looked at by RFKjr with the goal of ensuring that it is freely accessible to the public.
Thirdly, paywalls are really only the start of "transparency" issues that go to the issue of governance & accountability: why is so much government activity classified? IMHO not to protect the public, but to hide the guilty.
Lastly, there's only a limited budget: love the one you will. The only real ugly issue is censorship. When that arrives on Substack, we're all doomed.
I'm not sure what your actual point was for this comment.
Equity is *not* "an appeal to pity argument" and it makes no sense to suggest that it is.
Censorship is the tool of dictators and bigots and, I agree, should that take place on Substack, it will no longer be a good place to be, however it is certainly not the "only real ugly issue."
RFKjr is no model for any rational and intelligent person to follow.
Most scientific research is not behind paywalls, unless you consider that specialist journals which are costly to produce and have very limited circulation need subscriptions to fund them. I'd like them to be free but even if they were, the vast majority of lay people would not have either the literacy or the skills to understand them.
Paywalls, as such, are simply about profit, for an individual or for a business.
Unfortunately you are too right on this. So many of the amazing achievements haven't pushed the needle one iota towards improving the existence of mankind. They're masters at manufacturing need but it is never fulfilling.
Great piece, even better reminder. Stay true to you. The pioneers are often the pariahs until they are all at once regarded as the prominent, popular and privileged. It still feels good to be an alternative essayist and rebel healer who plays the part of the poet and the provocateur all in the name of progress.
I've read some fantastic articles on Substack, and I'm happy that the writers I like are doing well on the platform. But, I have to admit that I kind of hate how everyone abandoned their blogs. A well-done blog is more personal and personalized--it's like visiting a unique house with character, whereas Substack feels like a giant apartment complex or a new-build neighbourhood of cookie-cutter houses. Granted, some blogs are almost unreadable due to ads and popups and inserts, but I personally tend to be a one-time visitor to sites like that, and I'm sure that's not uncommon!
I wish there was a way for the people who want to stay on their own property (blog) to still be able to get their message out and reach people. Substack seems to be truly helpful in connecting writers to an audience. Traditional bloggers, on the other hand, seem to be throttled at every turn: social media platforms lock down outbound links and keep people scrolling on-platform. Google favours big brands and legacy media who abuse their domain authority to scoop up topics and keywords that are completely off-brand for them. And most of the Substack writers I follow, who are generous with their links, almost always just link to other Substackers!
I just don't think Substack is the end-all, be-all for indie creators. Definitely helpful for some, but what about the people who don't want to climb in the sandbox?
Agreed, even though Substack is a blogging platform with a few added benefits, pretty much. And a uniform layout that makes me feel like one URL is the same as the next, even though no two are alike.
When I was a kid, books and films like The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit were a thing (corporate drones). Then there was sociologist David Reisman's book, The Lonely Crowd. And other books, TV shows - and movies like Invasion of the Body Snatchers - that riffed on many of the same themes. Am a couple of years older than TG and a fair bit younger than many who comment here. I wonder if any of you see these topics being recycled in the kinds of dystopian narratives common today?
If Big Tech is the bad guy, then let's talk about the impact it's having in Washington. I'm much more concerned about DNA databases (of immigrant and migrant farmworkers' kids) and security networks by the likes of Palantir. Oh and - traffic cam footage being used to track women suspected of having abortions. All three things have made headlines (The Guardian's US edition, the NYT) within the past 24 hours.
Ted, I just joined Substack to support you after watching your podcast with Rick Beato. While I am a strong songwriter. (#1Hits and an Emmy loser) I don’t feel qualified to be a real writer like those of you who really are. All of the sudden I am flooded daily with a list of friends and acquaintances that I should follow or are following me. I really liked it be a place for writers. Clearly it is morphing and going viral. I’m not sure about what to do?
I suggest turning off email notifications. We don't have to use all the features here. This is my vocation, but even I pick and choose, and know when to turn it off. But thanks for joining our community here. Let's try to use it for the common good.
My favorite Substack feature is being able to mute anyone who appears uninvited on my feed. I cast them away, never to bother me again! (At least, I hope that’s how that works ….)
Reminds me of the Ghandi quote “first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win”
Yes but another (probably mis-)quote:
“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance”
Watch out guys- remember Jerry Rubin became a stockbroker (or was that Abi Hoffmann…anyhoo…)
Rubin.
He was assassinated...
Exactly! This is what is experienced when starting non profit / community org.s that challenge long-held, entrenched, generational behaviors!
I still think of you as the Mayor of Substack BTW
If he’s the Mayor then he’s got my vote 🗳️… This post made my day 🥰 …
With his mention of McDonald's and your comment of mayor... I can't get the image of Mayor McCheese with Ted's face out of my mind. Might need to log into copilot and create that vision in an attempt to purge.
I was all set up to think grand, noble, righteous thoughts today...then I got hit by a snowball with a rock inside, and things started going downhill.
The snowball started with the Mayor McCheese...what the heck is that? Dunno.
So off to DuckDuckGo I go.
Oh...that?
For some reason this made me think of Boaty McBoatface...so I had to look that up, too. Well, that was sort of cute!
Then: what other cute names start with Mc?
This time, instead of the Duck, I did an AI inquiry for the first time ever. For real. I am so proud of myself! I typed: "funny names starting with mc."
The results: McLovin, McFlurry, and McNugget.
I won't copy the whole explanatory commentary, but it did have the phrase "humorous twist" in it, which I am sure is true.
So this is our world: miles of high-speed cables, satellites, server farms, gigabytes, terabytes, Googolplexes, Tesla-years of scientific progress to deliver a:
"McFlurry."
Not even a McSnowStorm?
A McFlurry.
Our sad future: all McBrainDead, all the time.
Hey 😇, I’ve started a small writing project for quiet builders like us. Only 25 people are reading right now, but I’m proud of it. If you have 2 minutes, I’d love your thoughts.
Stage 6 is getting bought by Zuckerberg or being enshittified by private equity
Can Substack please be like Canada in this scenario (massive growth, poised for takeover) and just say, "Substack will never be For Sale. Never." Please?
At which point someone will start a new platform and we'll all slowly move there until it sells out too. I remember when Instagram was a fun app for sharing photos. And then it turned into a bunch of video ads.
I think that this is a genuine concern, though I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of Substack's financing and strength or will to remain independent, if tempted enough ...
This has been a concern for a long time. Well said.
Then someone will take the idea and build 'PreshiitifiedStack' and the rest of us, hopefully following Ted, can have a few more years on this new platform just quietly getting on, paying for what we value and not being led by the nose which is what even YouTube feels like nowadays.
The establishment is expert at co-opting anything.
BINGO!!
Before continuing to read about stage 5, I paused, wondered and then thought ”enshittification“.
Actually after reading the entire article. I love Ted’s writing.
Sorry. I could have been more clear: I was pausing and thinking about what stage 5 might be. I did read the entire piece.
Sorry too. I could have been less twitchy.
😱
If you can't beat, join 'em. Is this the beginning of the enshittification of Substack though? The LIVE feature, AI writing, video, mainstream media... I hope it doesn't all go downhill from here.
May the friction of text protect us.
Yes. I suspect so. Sadly.
Just block and move on.
every time i see an ai image in notes, i block the user that posted it
Such a great thought! "May the friction of text protect us."
Since to rise and fall is the way of the world, I can only wonder about the role of text. Does it furnish the historical record which binds us, reminds us, inspires us, patterns us, warns us?
The drag of language binds us. A writer's word contains memories and mistakes, wishes and warnings, left up to the reader to purchase with their investment. Feels diametrically opposite to the notification frenzy of the attention economy.
“But the clearest sign of Substack’s ascendancy may be the number of aspiring politicians who are now on the platform.”
I liked our quiet little backwater with little overt politicking. I get it but…
For real. I also wonder is Substack is going to be used as a kind of money laundering scheme for politicians and other grifters, especially as it seems some of the NGO money is drying up.
This is an incredible point. It’s not even soft money, it’s personal income.
Thanks for this informative post, @Ted Gioia. I am by no means convinced that this new crowd of Right-wingers and other political figures will add anything to substack. Is the site even geared for the potential influx of millions of groupies?
This should be a site for writers. I have lately been approached the bimbos and con artists trying to hustle me (lots of luck!), and I'm waiting for the Nigerian prince to make an appearance. We shall see what happens as Stage Four and Stage Five develop...
Check your subscriber list and you might find a couple of Nigerian addresses 😂
Amen Lenny
Hello, this is Prince Nukambako, from Nigeria…. I must speak to you immediately!
Apologies, my dear friend, but I have just spent my last penny on a terrific deal: ocean-front real estate in Iowa!
Hmmm, you too? I was told I was the first to buy in..
I’ve always pictured Ted as a clown. A clown from a parallel universe, where clowns tell stories that mean something. Where clowns write in a style that works. Where clowns see behind the smoke and mirrors and tell us what is really happening. Where clowns encourage others to not accept the direction of the current clown world as inevitable. I’ve always disliked clowns of all kinds. Except Red Skelton. But I like parallel universe clown Ted.
Is the term Jester more appropriate? Clown has a negative connotation & Jester implies telling truth to power.
How about: holy fool?
Court jester?
Devil's advocate?
All imply breaking with orthodoxy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ7gUvpyuy0
Clown need not mean "clownish"
Clowns wore disguise so they couldn't be identified in real life. In particular (being a Brit) im thinking of our short Commonwealth when Oliver Cromwell was Governor of England and himself a moderate man allowed the banning of theatres and plays and FUN!!,so rich folk had travelling acting bands come into their grand houses for private performances and such bands might put on a penny show for the villagers at the barn but put on this heavy disguise so (even though people probably knew who they were) they could be unidentifiable legally if a snitch or snooper was at the show. Maybe same in Europe. Sorry,subject so interesting I went a bit off topic. I'm more concerned than happy about seeing all the big names on SS I don't follow them. Those concerns have a horribly successful way of taking over and subsuming independent businesses. I can't see them not wanting to control SS. Wanting to and Trying to at least.
Sometimes clowns use a pencil, rather that a red nose:
https://www.mcny.org/story/thomas-nast-takes-down-tammany-cartoonists-crusade-against-political-boss
Good point!
That is one of the highest accolades you can give a person: clown.
Daniel, your reply to Ted’s article rang a bell for me. Made me think of this song about “influencers”, side-show barkers and clowns:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V3HVIMeSVwY
The court Jester
Thanks for this Ted. I really hope they don't find a way to fuck this up. Only individuals, creatives themselves should be able to monetize.
Response motivated by tom Violett's response to Ted Gioia's *The Honest Broker*: "Substack has changed over the last 30 days." I would prefer no 'monetizing' (is monetize really a word?) or, at the very least no restrictions on reading or comment that exclude free subscribers.
This is a world of rich and poorer - usually extremely poorer, and this not only applies to financial wealth but to information, ideas, explanations, education, ability to recognise prejudice, opportunity to engage and much more.
My view is that money and capitalism, whether private or state, is the major causal factor for this situation and only prolongs inequity. This is particularly true when socialisation inculcates materialism and false ideas of what defines 'success' or 'life achievement', when in reality those concepts have nothing to do with riches or power and actually designate 'living' rather than 'life.'
I have extremely mixed feelings about Winston Churchill's character but he was certainly articulate and intelligent and I have long remembered a statement he made that is so very true, even if perhaps somewhat contradictory to his own lifestyle - and I paraphrase: "What you get gives you a living, what you give gets you a life."
The writers I value here are those that see the undeserved privilege, the inequities, the deceit, the corruption and the fraud and who speak out articulately and strongly not only to criticise but to support the victims, (i.e. billions of us), and to suggest how we can arrest and dismantle this inequity by providing both information and models to those who don't yet understand that they can have a voice.
However, when one reads a valuable article, hits 'like' and goes to comment - only to receive a dialogue that: "Only paid subscribers can comment" or some such, it is belittling and often seems quite contrary to the sense of the content one has just read and wished to reference or commend.
Surely that goes against what so many purportedly believe and at least what I thought was the point of Substack and why I switched to it.
Of course, perhaps I'm just a 'bleeding heart' and have it all wrong. After all, I'm almost 80 (so invisible to most) and a fixed low income pensioner who donates most of what little disposable income I have to charities ...
Writers need to pay their rent and feed their kids. If they don’t monetise, how are they supposed to do that?
When it comes to anything you create, there are only three models:
1. The artist pays to create and gives it away.
2. The person enjoying the work pays.
3. A third party pays — a patron, sponsor, or advertiser.
Of course you can combine them. All 3 are valid, and I imagine many people would love the privilege of option 1.
Yes, I understand what you say in your first sentence. So do I, though my children are all grown now.
Only some here, I'd suggest a relative few though I can't know, are primarily earning income solely from writing, let alone solely from writing on this platform.
My comment did not claim that writers oughtn't to be able to earn a living from their work but rather it was a reference to the fundamentals that make Substack 'special' or 'different' as discussed by Ted Gioia and specifically to the comment that: "Only individuals, creatives themselves should be able to monetize." That last sentence being somewhat indeterminate or presumptive, perhaps even elitist in its implication though, that may well not have been and I doubt that it was the intention of its author.
Your response is a common one to any opposition at all to paid subscriptions, restrictions on access or such. Whilst on the surface it is valid, inevitably such responses fail to address any arguments made in the content and do little more than state the obvious which, somehow, is presented as a rebuttal of all points in the content to which they purport to be a reply.
Of course, if that is how you see the situation, then nothing I can say or write is likely to change your mind.
However, I wish you well and hope that your writing allows you to support yourself and your family in an adequate way.
Thank you, Roger, I wish you all the best too! I imagine very few people here earn a full living from their writing, but with the gig economy, I suspect it forms a valuable part of the income for quite a few.
I’m not supported by my writing -I give it away for free. It’s not my job; I’m an animation director, and sadly, animation is far too expensive to fund through Substack.
What I appreciate about Substack is that you’re free to monetise or not, and the incentive structure feels more aligned between the writer and the platform. That seems like a better setup than many other models out there.
Agreed.
In fairness, I ought also to have mentioned that some of those who require paid subscriptions for full access, have been kind/generous enough to give me a gift subscription to access their work - something I very much appreciate though I accept that if one is depending on their writing on Substack to support their living expenses, then they do need to be paid.
Having only subscribers being able to comment may provide a block to the bot-farm swamping of a lot of social media. It may also dilutes the anonimity that gives the anonymous an opportunity to comment negatively.
Roger, well said. I’d add, if you don’t want to swim, don’t get in the pool. But if you do, don’t try to change the water. I detest the “paywall” model. Perhaps Substack could be seen as pro bono work. You do it so people can read your work, and comment. An opportunity to be seen/read. If the reader likes what they read (and can comment on, like here) they can upgrade their subscription, or buy a cup of coffee. I dare say turning Substack into a revenue stream will be turning many readers away, and to a platform that offers readers the ability to read first and then support. Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
Interesting comments, thank you! I would like your opinion on this view of monetization on Substack :https://open.substack.com/pub/mattgiaro/p/do-not-monetize-substack-with-subscriptions?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=22bbma
Hi Roger. Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I agree with your analysis of capitalism and to an extent socialism. I differ in that since we are currently in a system that requires money I don't have issue with spending a few dollars a month supporting the amazing creators I learn so much from everyday. Perhaps there shouldn't be a paywall. Would enough people support the artist if all content was free? I don't know. Anyone have a better wird than monetize? I'd be happy to use it!
Thanks, Tom. I don’t disagree with you. I don’t have a problem with creators being supported, either, where those supporting can afford to pay.
Perhaps I have expressed myself badly. I know only too well that it can be difficult and for many is difficult to earn a living. I’ve experienced it for most of my life, probably all of it. However, I also accept that billions of others are in much greater need than I - but I won’t say more about that here for I’ll get on my soap-box if I do.
My main concern, as i said perhaps not expressed well, is that if we are to change the inequity in society then we need to inform, ‘educate’ if you like, and model where the problems are and why they are problems. Sadly, the ‘norm’ is accepted as an inevitable reality by most, yet it is not, it is an insidiously socialised one which serves the interests of a few at the cost of the many.
So, I know, people have to live and those talented enough to write well and put time and effort into their creative efforts deserve to be able to do so full time and not have to be paupers to follow their craft. Unfortunately, it is the case that for so many who are engaged in the arts or intangible production or endeavours, they are undervalued and find it hard to make a living unless perhaps they are at the elite level.
Anyway, I’ll shut up and go away. I am probably too passionate about inequity and inequality and the degree of poverty and distress in our world. I just didn’t mean to criticise either those who need to earn from their writing nor those who are able to pay - that was not my intention and to anyone who has taken offence, I apologise.
In my experience, people rarely value that which is provided to them at no cost.
Is a self inflicted "ad hominim" attack collateral damage? Perhaps you are a "bleeding heart" but the entire "paywall" system is a core issue near & dear to my non-bleeding heart («equity» IMHO is an appeal to pity argument.)
Firstly, that a lot of "science" is behind paywalls means critique of what's published is limited to ivory tower denizens. IMHO a complex technological society creates a fatal fissure where blindfolded "follow the science" lemmings leap & crash. E.g., vax without data => don't get the jab!
Secondly, that paywalls are used for research, partially or fully taxpayer funded, is being looked at by RFKjr with the goal of ensuring that it is freely accessible to the public.
Thirdly, paywalls are really only the start of "transparency" issues that go to the issue of governance & accountability: why is so much government activity classified? IMHO not to protect the public, but to hide the guilty.
Lastly, there's only a limited budget: love the one you will. The only real ugly issue is censorship. When that arrives on Substack, we're all doomed.
I'm not sure what your actual point was for this comment.
Equity is *not* "an appeal to pity argument" and it makes no sense to suggest that it is.
Censorship is the tool of dictators and bigots and, I agree, should that take place on Substack, it will no longer be a good place to be, however it is certainly not the "only real ugly issue."
RFKjr is no model for any rational and intelligent person to follow.
Most scientific research is not behind paywalls, unless you consider that specialist journals which are costly to produce and have very limited circulation need subscriptions to fund them. I'd like them to be free but even if they were, the vast majority of lay people would not have either the literacy or the skills to understand them.
Paywalls, as such, are simply about profit, for an individual or for a business.
What would/do we call that framework? Is there even an -ism that covers it?
I'm guessing they are already figuring out ways to try.
Unfortunately you are too right on this. So many of the amazing achievements haven't pushed the needle one iota towards improving the existence of mankind. They're masters at manufacturing need but it is never fulfilling.
Too late, I’m afraid.
Ted, this made me proud to be a Substack author. it's taken 63 years for me to be a cool kid.
Better late than never.
I am pinning all my hopes on being a late developer. Coming up to 79 years old.
As the hipsters would say "I was cool before it was cool!"
Hm kinda sounds like its time for me to peace out.
Actually i mostly already have. I pretty much only come here for ted, and my forays into the wider arena have dwindled to almost none.
But ted, i hope it means great things for you. Just dont, you know, jack the price up on us;)
So yeah, let the sheep and the wolves, the mindless and the opportunistic, overrun substack, since theres no way to stop them anyway..
Wonder what the next cool thing will be? I hope i dont find out
Great piece, even better reminder. Stay true to you. The pioneers are often the pariahs until they are all at once regarded as the prominent, popular and privileged. It still feels good to be an alternative essayist and rebel healer who plays the part of the poet and the provocateur all in the name of progress.
I don’t read much on Substack, BUT: thrilled to see it grow.
Good for everyone, except for TimeWarnerDisneyCNNABC, and every other conglomerate information vending filter.
Carry on! You’re the wave of the future.
It reminds me of that Gandhi quote:
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
I've read some fantastic articles on Substack, and I'm happy that the writers I like are doing well on the platform. But, I have to admit that I kind of hate how everyone abandoned their blogs. A well-done blog is more personal and personalized--it's like visiting a unique house with character, whereas Substack feels like a giant apartment complex or a new-build neighbourhood of cookie-cutter houses. Granted, some blogs are almost unreadable due to ads and popups and inserts, but I personally tend to be a one-time visitor to sites like that, and I'm sure that's not uncommon!
I wish there was a way for the people who want to stay on their own property (blog) to still be able to get their message out and reach people. Substack seems to be truly helpful in connecting writers to an audience. Traditional bloggers, on the other hand, seem to be throttled at every turn: social media platforms lock down outbound links and keep people scrolling on-platform. Google favours big brands and legacy media who abuse their domain authority to scoop up topics and keywords that are completely off-brand for them. And most of the Substack writers I follow, who are generous with their links, almost always just link to other Substackers!
I just don't think Substack is the end-all, be-all for indie creators. Definitely helpful for some, but what about the people who don't want to climb in the sandbox?
Agreed, even though Substack is a blogging platform with a few added benefits, pretty much. And a uniform layout that makes me feel like one URL is the same as the next, even though no two are alike.
When I was a kid, books and films like The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit were a thing (corporate drones). Then there was sociologist David Reisman's book, The Lonely Crowd. And other books, TV shows - and movies like Invasion of the Body Snatchers - that riffed on many of the same themes. Am a couple of years older than TG and a fair bit younger than many who comment here. I wonder if any of you see these topics being recycled in the kinds of dystopian narratives common today?
If Big Tech is the bad guy, then let's talk about the impact it's having in Washington. I'm much more concerned about DNA databases (of immigrant and migrant farmworkers' kids) and security networks by the likes of Palantir. Oh and - traffic cam footage being used to track women suspected of having abortions. All three things have made headlines (The Guardian's US edition, the NYT) within the past 24 hours.
The Guardian and the NYT? Not exactly harbingers of truth.
Link to DNA database piece:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/31/cbp-dna-collection-children-immigrants
Good points 👌. Can i translate this note into Spanish with links to you?
You can translate part of this article (up to 500 words) with my permission. But I am not licensing the translation of entire articles right now.
Many thanks, Ted. We did an "article review" of your excelent post in the Substack Journal (a free initiative to promote publications in Substack):
https://columnas.substack.com/p/substacks-ha-cambiado-en-los-ultimos
David, sure (if you were asking me...not sure if I'm following where the nested comments go on Substack!)
Thanks
Ted, I just joined Substack to support you after watching your podcast with Rick Beato. While I am a strong songwriter. (#1Hits and an Emmy loser) I don’t feel qualified to be a real writer like those of you who really are. All of the sudden I am flooded daily with a list of friends and acquaintances that I should follow or are following me. I really liked it be a place for writers. Clearly it is morphing and going viral. I’m not sure about what to do?
I suggest turning off email notifications. We don't have to use all the features here. This is my vocation, but even I pick and choose, and know when to turn it off. But thanks for joining our community here. Let's try to use it for the common good.
I have some similar reservations/doubts/wonders ...
Thanks Ted,
My favorite Substack feature is being able to mute anyone who appears uninvited on my feed. I cast them away, never to bother me again! (At least, I hope that’s how that works ….)