Ok, don't set fire to me, but the problem is the take here. "Forced" equality is socialism at its worst and the minute we start down that path, "Everything" is over. Not just Substack, but anything were objective measurement is an absolute requirement. See "enshittification" h/t cd.
I don't want a World in which the less-charismatic, talented, capable etc-achieve the same as those with more. But more is relative. I'm not on Substack as a writer, but as a reader and I want my reading time to be filled with the best: insight, observation, curation and comprehension. That won't happen if false tides raise all boats. After all, we faced that problem in traditional media and look what we have now: a veritable waste land of declining trust and impossible choices because journalist and their corporate overlords were irresponsible and cowardly. A deadly combo with serious consequences.
If you allow your sympathy for those who are -less- to dominate the reasoning behind why you are removing support from those who are -more- you consign Substack and those who rely on it for discussions we can no longer have in a traditional forum to the same mediocre outcomes. The responsibility is on them to get better, or do something else. They may be better at the something else. Encouraging them to be motionless and mediocre is unfair to us all.
I get it..in a way I feel your pain. My trajectory was those very newsrooms. I had a forced course correction, but now looking back, I'm glad because I
would have been devastated to watch a paper I worked for chopped up and sold off to pander to some ridiculous agenda. Journalism should forever stand apart...but if the Captain of the ship cannot sail, he will soon run around. And that's where we are not; stuck on a sandbar with no hope of freeing ourselves without tearing our hull.
I appreciate the thought you put into this, and I’m definitely not calling for forced equality or some kind of redistribution of readership. I agree that people should have the freedom to succeed based on their talent, insight, and effort. But we have to acknowledge that we don’t live in a pure meritocracy—what sells isn’t necessarily what is good for society or even good quality. The market rewards certain skills—charisma, controversy, network effects—over others, and that has always been the case, whether in Substack, traditional media, or any creative industry.
That doesn’t mean we need rules or interventions, but culture matters. The way we talk about these things, the way we engage with what we read, and the way we support different voices all play a role in shaping what rises to the top. Writing about this isn’t about demanding fairness for fairness’ sake—it’s about fostering a culture where success isn’t purely determined by who shouts the loudest or who is best at self-promotion.
I take your point about traditional media’s decline, but I’d argue that its downfall wasn’t just due to cowardly journalists or corporate meddling—it was also because the business model stopped rewarding good journalism. That’s the bigger pattern here: if we only let “the market” dictate what survives, we often end up with the lowest common denominator. The question isn’t whether the most talented should succeed—it’s how we define talent in the first place.
Talent has a definitive meaning. We don't need to redefine it; Just apply it fairly. Expecting the market to do the work is patently ridiculous. Just look at network TV...if the market were capable of making these judgments, the Kardashians wouldn't be superstars right now. Obviously, the market chooses differently than you or I. I'm not so sure I want you (general) making those choices for me as I'm sure you (general) don't want me making them for you. And if argue that alot of that-what the market pays for-is simply misallocation. In other words, we expected joe public to pay rather than the collective.
Bulk buys might have made the difference, but it was never explored or considered a viable choice.
This is Substack and it's culture is defined by the algo the founders chose. I'm assuming they chose one specific to their goals. That's why I am only a reader here. My goals differ from them. I suspect that most writers haven't yet been subjected to those goals made manifest. I was remembering last night about a founder of a similar platform who put objective views on blast and had his business collapse overnight, but I couldn't remember the specifics. The same scenario could easily happen here...because we let others choose the culture based on their values.. and not ours. I suspect that in the long run we will end up going back to the old way of doing things like this: each with our own separate websites and blogs and rss readers.
In either case, I'm starting to wish I never responded. It turns out, I have less patience for discussions than I thought. Someday, I might be on beehive, but until then I'm setting up on my own site and following POSSE.
I’m not going to write a long response because I know what it feels like when you don’t have the patience for a discussion. I dig your thoughts, though, so please send me a link to where you plan to write in the future. Cheers!
I've thought about this myself, noting that some folks have literally thousands of subscribers at say $80 a year... and then there are folks like me, who don't charge a dime just because. (And I acknowledge that's my choice.) I put it into this idea: I don't mind someone making a solid living by writing. I think a good writer, be it journalist, creative, or philosopher, deserves no less than other professionals. So making anywhere from $80K to $300K a year? Congratulations! Go you! I also know some of the stacks are groups, not individuals like Bulwark and Meidas. They have several folks to pay. So there's that to consider. And there are the costs associated with their research. I'm good with all that IF their content remains true to the original mission. But as always it's good to follow the money and keep them honest, so to speak, so good on you Nolan! Let's keep it real!
The biggest issue that is overlooked by this article is that the measure of material wealth is all consuming.
It has nothing to do with quality or substance; with fact or fiction; with right or wrong; with good or bad. It’s a strict measure of how much money is earned.
I am a progressive liberal. I don’t earn one cent from Substack or the stock market. I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE ACHIEVING MATERIAL WEALTH.
I am more concerned with the manner in which it is attained and when it is done by stepping over other people and smashing their dignity and integrity just to say, “I can do this because I am rich.”
I am concerned about those who are rich and will do everything possible to avoid paying their due to a society which helps them enrich themselves. I admire Mark Cuban and George Soros, but they don’t go about selling fake bibles, fake universities, or gold tennis shoes. I will admit it is not a perfect world and we will find some trying to use both ends to satisfy their needs, but there is something in play when Forbes magazine finds that 56% of the richest people are Republicans, 14% Democrats. 30% will contribute to both parties to achieve their material needs.
There must be a personal reason for these numbers and it is either they can afford to help others, or they will protect their own needs, or the rich Republican mindset: “screw the lower and middle class! I’m gonna buy me a politician.”
(“Are America's Richest Families Republicans or Democrats?”
Katia Savchuk - Forbes Magazine)
I don’t believe things have changed for the better since the article was written)
The founders are very selective tp who they answer to. It's been months, if not a year or two that many writers who can't use Stripe in their country are tagging and writing to Hamish et al, and there is no answer. Not even a 'this isn't our priority at the moment.' About localisation, I am really wondering what they are cooking because I don't what it means to hire a British person to develop the French market 😅🤣. And I am talking as someone with a decade of experience in that field. I am curious to see what they are working on.
I knew someone would bring up Stripe! I actually had a section about it, but it made the article lose focus. I hope they resolve that in the future. As for localization, I thought he just meant that the app would translate according to your location. My app is in Spanish, for instance.
I don't think they'll ever resolve it because, at this point, their silence seems very much deliberate.
I intended localisation as, yes, translating the platform but also developing each market, which means doing what they are doing with their US audience. But if they aren't making any effort to do so, they'll never be global as they pretend to be.
For sure. That's also why I'm a bit wary of the firms that invested in Substack. I don't know what types of hidden motives they have. You'd think making Substack more global would be financially beneficial, but maybe they're pushing American discourse to support the technofeudal nightmare.
I am all about talking and engaging with people with diverging opinions, but it is something else to take their money, so I perfectly understand your wariness. I suspect they want to go global but are realising it is no easy job to localise because it isn't just about translation and people magically flocking to your site. To me, they're definitely pushing American discourse, but each time Hamish or Chris posts, I do not feel they speak to a broader audience.
Everything, especially online, is a popularity contest. People trust what they already know, and they assume that's what they like, because they don't have time or inclination to search out anything different. This also applies to music, art, books -- there are fantastic musicians toiling in obscurity while autotune plonk dominates the charts, and great writers that nobody reads while ghostwritten autobiographies of a b-level celebrity fill the bookstore windows, and so on.
But of course it's also true that many obscure newsletters here don't have much to offer readers, and many of us have lots to learn. And still others who are not chasing money or large readerships at all, happy to write for themselves or a few likeminded friends.
It would be nice if Substack made some engineering or usability changes to try to encourage wider readership. You'd imagine that might be good for Substack, as well as the many writers with tiny followings, sort of a win-win. But maybe that's just fighting human nature.
For me, I know my newsletter is just one blade of grass in a vast meadow and I'm grateful for every subscriber, like, and thoughtful comment. I subscribe almost exclusively smaller newsletters, smart people without huge followings who have interesting things to say. I subscribed to "Letters from an American" for a while, and it was informative and consistent, but just... too much every day.
Have you read “Letters from an American?” by Heather Cox Richardson? The quality of writing and research involved in the daily pieces could also have something to do why her newsletter is at the top.
I read a bit, but it didn’t interest me. It might have been the pieces I read, though. I definitely don't have anything against a writer doing well. I am not saying she doesn't deserve it. She probably adds a lot of value to people’s lives.
I'm also happy to read more. Do you have any recommendations?
I won’t be giving a penny to whatever is in the “top 1%” here, not bc they are the top, but because luck got them there and WE don’t have to perpetuate luck.
Well, technically, "than" can work in certain informal contexts because the comparison is implied. It's acceptable in casual or conversational writing, especially with a modern tone. Anyway, I changed it in case it bothers other people. Cheers.
I’m thinking of just taking this into my own hands, starting community meetups in various cities in Europe, and telling people about Substack. What other solutions do you see, Michael??
Ok, don't set fire to me, but the problem is the take here. "Forced" equality is socialism at its worst and the minute we start down that path, "Everything" is over. Not just Substack, but anything were objective measurement is an absolute requirement. See "enshittification" h/t cd.
I don't want a World in which the less-charismatic, talented, capable etc-achieve the same as those with more. But more is relative. I'm not on Substack as a writer, but as a reader and I want my reading time to be filled with the best: insight, observation, curation and comprehension. That won't happen if false tides raise all boats. After all, we faced that problem in traditional media and look what we have now: a veritable waste land of declining trust and impossible choices because journalist and their corporate overlords were irresponsible and cowardly. A deadly combo with serious consequences.
If you allow your sympathy for those who are -less- to dominate the reasoning behind why you are removing support from those who are -more- you consign Substack and those who rely on it for discussions we can no longer have in a traditional forum to the same mediocre outcomes. The responsibility is on them to get better, or do something else. They may be better at the something else. Encouraging them to be motionless and mediocre is unfair to us all.
I get it..in a way I feel your pain. My trajectory was those very newsrooms. I had a forced course correction, but now looking back, I'm glad because I
would have been devastated to watch a paper I worked for chopped up and sold off to pander to some ridiculous agenda. Journalism should forever stand apart...but if the Captain of the ship cannot sail, he will soon run around. And that's where we are not; stuck on a sandbar with no hope of freeing ourselves without tearing our hull.
I appreciate the thought you put into this, and I’m definitely not calling for forced equality or some kind of redistribution of readership. I agree that people should have the freedom to succeed based on their talent, insight, and effort. But we have to acknowledge that we don’t live in a pure meritocracy—what sells isn’t necessarily what is good for society or even good quality. The market rewards certain skills—charisma, controversy, network effects—over others, and that has always been the case, whether in Substack, traditional media, or any creative industry.
That doesn’t mean we need rules or interventions, but culture matters. The way we talk about these things, the way we engage with what we read, and the way we support different voices all play a role in shaping what rises to the top. Writing about this isn’t about demanding fairness for fairness’ sake—it’s about fostering a culture where success isn’t purely determined by who shouts the loudest or who is best at self-promotion.
I take your point about traditional media’s decline, but I’d argue that its downfall wasn’t just due to cowardly journalists or corporate meddling—it was also because the business model stopped rewarding good journalism. That’s the bigger pattern here: if we only let “the market” dictate what survives, we often end up with the lowest common denominator. The question isn’t whether the most talented should succeed—it’s how we define talent in the first place.
Talent has a definitive meaning. We don't need to redefine it; Just apply it fairly. Expecting the market to do the work is patently ridiculous. Just look at network TV...if the market were capable of making these judgments, the Kardashians wouldn't be superstars right now. Obviously, the market chooses differently than you or I. I'm not so sure I want you (general) making those choices for me as I'm sure you (general) don't want me making them for you. And if argue that alot of that-what the market pays for-is simply misallocation. In other words, we expected joe public to pay rather than the collective.
Bulk buys might have made the difference, but it was never explored or considered a viable choice.
This is Substack and it's culture is defined by the algo the founders chose. I'm assuming they chose one specific to their goals. That's why I am only a reader here. My goals differ from them. I suspect that most writers haven't yet been subjected to those goals made manifest. I was remembering last night about a founder of a similar platform who put objective views on blast and had his business collapse overnight, but I couldn't remember the specifics. The same scenario could easily happen here...because we let others choose the culture based on their values.. and not ours. I suspect that in the long run we will end up going back to the old way of doing things like this: each with our own separate websites and blogs and rss readers.
In either case, I'm starting to wish I never responded. It turns out, I have less patience for discussions than I thought. Someday, I might be on beehive, but until then I'm setting up on my own site and following POSSE.
I’m not going to write a long response because I know what it feels like when you don’t have the patience for a discussion. I dig your thoughts, though, so please send me a link to where you plan to write in the future. Cheers!
I've thought about this myself, noting that some folks have literally thousands of subscribers at say $80 a year... and then there are folks like me, who don't charge a dime just because. (And I acknowledge that's my choice.) I put it into this idea: I don't mind someone making a solid living by writing. I think a good writer, be it journalist, creative, or philosopher, deserves no less than other professionals. So making anywhere from $80K to $300K a year? Congratulations! Go you! I also know some of the stacks are groups, not individuals like Bulwark and Meidas. They have several folks to pay. So there's that to consider. And there are the costs associated with their research. I'm good with all that IF their content remains true to the original mission. But as always it's good to follow the money and keep them honest, so to speak, so good on you Nolan! Let's keep it real!
Thank you! Why do you think a writer deserves less than other professionals, though?
Ack--that was a typo--will fix!
Ah okay! I almost wish it wasn't a typo, haha. I was a bit shocked and very curious.
LOL
The biggest issue that is overlooked by this article is that the measure of material wealth is all consuming.
It has nothing to do with quality or substance; with fact or fiction; with right or wrong; with good or bad. It’s a strict measure of how much money is earned.
I am a progressive liberal. I don’t earn one cent from Substack or the stock market. I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE ACHIEVING MATERIAL WEALTH.
I am more concerned with the manner in which it is attained and when it is done by stepping over other people and smashing their dignity and integrity just to say, “I can do this because I am rich.”
I am concerned about those who are rich and will do everything possible to avoid paying their due to a society which helps them enrich themselves. I admire Mark Cuban and George Soros, but they don’t go about selling fake bibles, fake universities, or gold tennis shoes. I will admit it is not a perfect world and we will find some trying to use both ends to satisfy their needs, but there is something in play when Forbes magazine finds that 56% of the richest people are Republicans, 14% Democrats. 30% will contribute to both parties to achieve their material needs.
There must be a personal reason for these numbers and it is either they can afford to help others, or they will protect their own needs, or the rich Republican mindset: “screw the lower and middle class! I’m gonna buy me a politician.”
(“Are America's Richest Families Republicans or Democrats?”
Katia Savchuk - Forbes Magazine)
I don’t believe things have changed for the better since the article was written)
The founders are very selective tp who they answer to. It's been months, if not a year or two that many writers who can't use Stripe in their country are tagging and writing to Hamish et al, and there is no answer. Not even a 'this isn't our priority at the moment.' About localisation, I am really wondering what they are cooking because I don't what it means to hire a British person to develop the French market 😅🤣. And I am talking as someone with a decade of experience in that field. I am curious to see what they are working on.
I knew someone would bring up Stripe! I actually had a section about it, but it made the article lose focus. I hope they resolve that in the future. As for localization, I thought he just meant that the app would translate according to your location. My app is in Spanish, for instance.
I don't think they'll ever resolve it because, at this point, their silence seems very much deliberate.
I intended localisation as, yes, translating the platform but also developing each market, which means doing what they are doing with their US audience. But if they aren't making any effort to do so, they'll never be global as they pretend to be.
For sure. That's also why I'm a bit wary of the firms that invested in Substack. I don't know what types of hidden motives they have. You'd think making Substack more global would be financially beneficial, but maybe they're pushing American discourse to support the technofeudal nightmare.
I am all about talking and engaging with people with diverging opinions, but it is something else to take their money, so I perfectly understand your wariness. I suspect they want to go global but are realising it is no easy job to localise because it isn't just about translation and people magically flocking to your site. To me, they're definitely pushing American discourse, but each time Hamish or Chris posts, I do not feel they speak to a broader audience.
They should hire us to help expand into the European market :p
I think it's cool that you took the time to write to Hamish, Nolan.Thanks from all of us (who didn't write).
I was happy he responded to my Note!
Definitely!
Everything, especially online, is a popularity contest. People trust what they already know, and they assume that's what they like, because they don't have time or inclination to search out anything different. This also applies to music, art, books -- there are fantastic musicians toiling in obscurity while autotune plonk dominates the charts, and great writers that nobody reads while ghostwritten autobiographies of a b-level celebrity fill the bookstore windows, and so on.
But of course it's also true that many obscure newsletters here don't have much to offer readers, and many of us have lots to learn. And still others who are not chasing money or large readerships at all, happy to write for themselves or a few likeminded friends.
It would be nice if Substack made some engineering or usability changes to try to encourage wider readership. You'd imagine that might be good for Substack, as well as the many writers with tiny followings, sort of a win-win. But maybe that's just fighting human nature.
For me, I know my newsletter is just one blade of grass in a vast meadow and I'm grateful for every subscriber, like, and thoughtful comment. I subscribe almost exclusively smaller newsletters, smart people without huge followings who have interesting things to say. I subscribed to "Letters from an American" for a while, and it was informative and consistent, but just... too much every day.
You're right, Gary. I appreciate you pointing out the unfortunate truths while remaining grateful.
"But maybe that's just fighting human nature" is something I need to give more thought to.
Have you read “Letters from an American?” by Heather Cox Richardson? The quality of writing and research involved in the daily pieces could also have something to do why her newsletter is at the top.
I read a bit, but it didn’t interest me. It might have been the pieces I read, though. I definitely don't have anything against a writer doing well. I am not saying she doesn't deserve it. She probably adds a lot of value to people’s lives.
I'm also happy to read more. Do you have any recommendations?
Exactly.
I won’t be giving a penny to whatever is in the “top 1%” here, not bc they are the top, but because luck got them there and WE don’t have to perpetuate luck.
i think so.
The only consolation is that hearses don’t tow U-Haul trailers to the cemetery.
What, haha? This comment went over my head.
Ultimately, the big bucks mean nothing. You can’t take it with you.
Different from, not than.
Well, technically, "than" can work in certain informal contexts because the comparison is implied. It's acceptable in casual or conversational writing, especially with a modern tone. Anyway, I changed it in case it bothers other people. Cheers.
No, it's wrong, but it's a common error especially among younger people. Glad to see you changed it.
I’m thinking of just taking this into my own hands, starting community meetups in various cities in Europe, and telling people about Substack. What other solutions do you see, Michael??