9 Comments

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.

Expand full comment

Excellent point, that is part of why I mentioned a different business model as a possible way to counteract that kind of weaponisation. But other methods, on a technical as well as a human level, should probably also be involved to prevent that from happening.

Expand full comment

4. Leave everything open, no paywall, and trust that 5% to 10% of your readers will become paying readers.

Expand full comment

I have definitely considered this. Am willing to consider this as an option as well, especially if paying subscribers like the idea. I really like the idea of offering something extra to paying subscribers too, which is why that was my approach. Have you had experience with making everything freely accessible?

Expand full comment

It's subjective, of course, and has to work for you. Some of your subscribers are fellow writers, of course, who can help you in ways other than paying. Your peers. And in fairness, most people can't afford more than, say, five or six Substack subscriptions. In my personal experience, when I encounter too many paywalls, I unsubscribe. And there's a lot to be said for maximizing your total audience -- which might be just as important or even more important than money. But I respect you reaching other conclusions.

Expand full comment

No I totally agree with that, which is why I wanted to keep my content open. Especially because I believe in making information accessible to everyone. I figured by giving paying subs an extra I could offer them extra value without restricting the main content.

Expand full comment

I'm not an expert, but I think people with paid subscriptions on Substack are looking to reward their favorite writers. Seems like going with that, trusting that, may be the best bet. Even if it takes longer to make good money. Just my opinion. I might be wrong.

Expand full comment

Like I said, I don't know myself what would be best, but not fencing off my main content has been something that I felt strongly about too. Will consider not putting in paywalls with bonus content, especially now that I found out substack does not allow for me to do that without locking the comments section. I'll add it to the poll. Thanks for the input!

Expand full comment

Social media battles commence, but Substack is so much more than just a chat and social platform. Nice writing here as always

Expand full comment