Despite having trouble with authority at almost every stage in my life, I actually agree with all the points in this article. I was what I'd called a failed-case on Instagram because maybe I joined the party too late. But I have been having an amazing growth trajectory since I joined Substack about 3 weeks ago. The algorithm here isn't shit. Notes do go viral. Subscribers really do care. Community is a real thing. And real writing is rewarded.
that is a great post, I’ve been on all the other platforms and still are on some, but I still want Substack to be my home. There are so many inspirational and creative people on it. I really enjoyed being on it simply because you have so many great writers always something to learn. Thank you.💕✌️
Hey Paul, thanks for a really well considered article. I've had my misgivings for years about the motives of big tech, and I've seen it play out the same way again and again.
Honestly, I thought I would 'give Substack a go' because I was starting to feel disillusioned about social media in general.
I did not expect to be so enraptured by a platform (and it's people), causing me to re-think how I spend my time online.
I love it here, and your article typifies the reason why.
The attitude that every social media platform must share the same priorities, follow the same course, and eventually succumb to the enshittification of the Internet—as if the problem was inherent to the Internet, and not the result of strategic personal choices by individual owners, drawn from the bondage to the inertial “monetization efficiency” materialism that runs their values—is Operant Conditioning passed off as final wisdom. It’s telling you to Love Big Brother. It’s shilling for the Troff’n’Bru.
Substack’s algorithm could be so much better. A chronological timeline should be an option, and the category tabs feel stale—always showing older content. The recommended newsletters are the same big names over and over. Why not add a “hot” tab like Reddit to surface trending Notes? And instead of pushing “top” newsletters, recommend similar ones based on what we already read. Discovery should feel fresh, not repetitive.
Thank you, I get why people are so afraid to lose a good thing—because we have a good thing!—but this platform is fundamentally built different and so many of these worries are unfounded.
Hi Paul, good rebuttal! I agree with most of your points and I think your arguments are more convincing. However, one thing you haven't mentioned are the VCs and funders of Substack. We know they are never just about the greater good and "limited audiences", they always want something in return, and they want exponential profits, so I'd still keep my guard up.
Good points Paul. I also was struck by Finnegan’s original piece and linked out to it as a cautionary point of interest in a recent “Why I’m Switching…” - type blog, even though I found his “this is all inevitable” tone a bit over-the-top, even smug. However, the way he laid out the progression (corruption?) of social media platforms to what they’ve become: I think this resonated so strongly with what people have experienced, that readers like me found themselves saying “hmm… yeah…” Hindsight’s 20-20 I guess.
I get the feeling the people using Substack have worked very, very hard to recover their sense of purpose and value in sharing their creativity from the toxic mess that is social media. We’re not about to be burned again. So even if it misunderstands some design differences about Substack, I’m glad he put that out there because it sketches out “how it can all go south”.
Agree Mike. I think it's a really important issue and having a robust debate about it brings it out into the open and lets the founders know how people feel about all the issues involved. I feel like there is a lot of PTSD with social platforms!
I think we can also look at Flickr as an example of a platform that hasn’t fallen prey to enshittification at the hands of billionaires. No ads, no algorithms, just slow, organic growth over the years. It’s still rocking the original ethos 20 years on.
I really liked your rebuttal, and you expressed very well some of my sentiments when I read William's post. I still have some additional questions, though, which I have left in my restack of your post: https://substack.com/@noeliaamoedo/note/c-96040190
Maybe it’s the wine, but I really dig this reply, especially how you recommend his writing at the end. Respectful, thoughtful, classy.
Despite having trouble with authority at almost every stage in my life, I actually agree with all the points in this article. I was what I'd called a failed-case on Instagram because maybe I joined the party too late. But I have been having an amazing growth trajectory since I joined Substack about 3 weeks ago. The algorithm here isn't shit. Notes do go viral. Subscribers really do care. Community is a real thing. And real writing is rewarded.
Great post Paul but I disagree with your first point about the revenue model:
https://substack.com/@michaelginsburg/note/c-95249311
that is a great post, I’ve been on all the other platforms and still are on some, but I still want Substack to be my home. There are so many inspirational and creative people on it. I really enjoyed being on it simply because you have so many great writers always something to learn. Thank you.💕✌️
Hey Paul, thanks for a really well considered article. I've had my misgivings for years about the motives of big tech, and I've seen it play out the same way again and again.
Honestly, I thought I would 'give Substack a go' because I was starting to feel disillusioned about social media in general.
I did not expect to be so enraptured by a platform (and it's people), causing me to re-think how I spend my time online.
I love it here, and your article typifies the reason why.
Thank you
This was insightful, Paul. Thank you.
The attitude that every social media platform must share the same priorities, follow the same course, and eventually succumb to the enshittification of the Internet—as if the problem was inherent to the Internet, and not the result of strategic personal choices by individual owners, drawn from the bondage to the inertial “monetization efficiency” materialism that runs their values—is Operant Conditioning passed off as final wisdom. It’s telling you to Love Big Brother. It’s shilling for the Troff’n’Bru.
Substack’s algorithm could be so much better. A chronological timeline should be an option, and the category tabs feel stale—always showing older content. The recommended newsletters are the same big names over and over. Why not add a “hot” tab like Reddit to surface trending Notes? And instead of pushing “top” newsletters, recommend similar ones based on what we already read. Discovery should feel fresh, not repetitive.
Yeah, I agree. There is definitely a lot more they could do. I think you get more of a chronological timeline if you select the 'Following' tab.
Thank you, I get why people are so afraid to lose a good thing—because we have a good thing!—but this platform is fundamentally built different and so many of these worries are unfounded.
Hi Paul, good rebuttal! I agree with most of your points and I think your arguments are more convincing. However, one thing you haven't mentioned are the VCs and funders of Substack. We know they are never just about the greater good and "limited audiences", they always want something in return, and they want exponential profits, so I'd still keep my guard up.
“Guard up” = export your subscriber email list every week or so.
So you should be ready to leave and stay connected.
Good points Paul. I also was struck by Finnegan’s original piece and linked out to it as a cautionary point of interest in a recent “Why I’m Switching…” - type blog, even though I found his “this is all inevitable” tone a bit over-the-top, even smug. However, the way he laid out the progression (corruption?) of social media platforms to what they’ve become: I think this resonated so strongly with what people have experienced, that readers like me found themselves saying “hmm… yeah…” Hindsight’s 20-20 I guess.
I get the feeling the people using Substack have worked very, very hard to recover their sense of purpose and value in sharing their creativity from the toxic mess that is social media. We’re not about to be burned again. So even if it misunderstands some design differences about Substack, I’m glad he put that out there because it sketches out “how it can all go south”.
Agree Mike. I think it's a really important issue and having a robust debate about it brings it out into the open and lets the founders know how people feel about all the issues involved. I feel like there is a lot of PTSD with social platforms!
I agree that Substack won’t go the same way. I made this same comment on that post.
You made the point that writers can leave.
Substack makes it easy to export the emails of our subscribers. Its email-first approach serves writers best.
Those other platforms don’t provide emails of our followers, etc.
That’s the only point to make. We can easily export and go to another platform if Substack doesn’t serve our interests.
I think we can also look at Flickr as an example of a platform that hasn’t fallen prey to enshittification at the hands of billionaires. No ads, no algorithms, just slow, organic growth over the years. It’s still rocking the original ethos 20 years on.
Really enjoyed this piece, thank you for writing it!
I really liked your rebuttal, and you expressed very well some of my sentiments when I read William's post. I still have some additional questions, though, which I have left in my restack of your post: https://substack.com/@noeliaamoedo/note/c-96040190
Some introduction and one argument of your article into Spanish:
https://substack.com/profile/232996458-david/note/c-95625145
Thanks David! That's great.