Some really interesting points and it is really nice to see that the complexities of the discussion are being spoken about and considered on here. There are two things though that I haven’t seen highlighted yet. Firstly most discussion seems to assume we are talking about comments from individuals who can be debated, blocked, muted etc. These responses however do not apply when there is an orchestrated campaign in play that could bombard an individual or group with hate speech etc in a way that cannot be managed by these tools and whose goal is effectively to silence and remove the speech of others. The second is the role of misinformation (and particularly orchestrated misinformation campaigns). For both of these issues I could see the subscription model become even more problematic, especially with notes effectively making it a social media site, as substack directly profits from growing subscriber on these accounts. By actively connecting them with others that may be sympathetic (without any attempt at verification or moderation) a case could be made that they are promoting and facilitating campaigns of hate/misinformation for direct profit. I am absolutely not saying this is the case, I do think that substack has been created and is being managed with the best of intentions, but if I were musk or any other competitor trying to take them down I would be actively looking for problematic accounts that substack is profiting from and reporting to the relevant legal authorities. Even if they found a legal way around it the legislation, fees and negative publicity could be fatal.
Some really interesting points and it is really nice to see that the complexities of the discussion are being spoken about and considered on here. There are two things though that I haven’t seen highlighted yet. Firstly most discussion seems to assume we are talking about comments from individuals who can be debated, blocked, muted etc. These responses however do not apply when there is an orchestrated campaign in play that could bombard an individual or group with hate speech etc in a way that cannot be managed by these tools and whose goal is effectively to silence and remove the speech of others. The second is the role of misinformation (and particularly orchestrated misinformation campaigns). For both of these issues I could see the subscription model become even more problematic, especially with notes effectively making it a social media site, as substack directly profits from growing subscriber on these accounts. By actively connecting them with others that may be sympathetic (without any attempt at verification or moderation) a case could be made that they are promoting and facilitating campaigns of hate/misinformation for direct profit. I am absolutely not saying this is the case, I do think that substack has been created and is being managed with the best of intentions, but if I were musk or any other competitor trying to take them down I would be actively looking for problematic accounts that substack is profiting from and reporting to the relevant legal authorities. Even if they found a legal way around it the legislation, fees and negative publicity could be fatal.
4. Leave everything open, no paywall, and trust that 5% to 10% of your readers will become paying readers.
Social media battles commence, but Substack is so much more than just a chat and social platform. Nice writing here as always