Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Roger Kimber, MD's avatar

I hear you Bill, but I have a reader’s perspective on this: we recently (that is my wife) did our taxes and in the process we encounter an tally our expenses; I think I have been on Substack for a little over a year, maybe longer. At first I was mainly a freeloader, but with time I identified people who I really valued and wanted to support, and often after only an article or two. Then it got to the point that I was subscribed to more than I could reasonably read. Then came tax time & I looked at what I was spending on Substacks and decided I couldn’t afford to keep doing that (I would have to get at least a part time job in my retirement (and then I would not have the time to read all that I had subscribed to).

Bottom line: don’t ascribe to nefarious plots what can be explained by life.

When I compare the cost of Substack (both my free and subscribed) to the traditional subscriptions that we have it is more expensive (albeit with more nutritional meat): you get what you (I) pay for, but one can only pay for so much and one can only eat (read) so much.

Traditional media were able to survive with advertising (which comes at an editorial constraint price).

Sorry, no solutions, just observations.

Expand full comment
Blair's avatar

My guess is Substack is "de-amplifying" substacks that are not mainstream. The "X" CEO, Linda Yaccarino had mentioned doing the same. I'm not surprised. These censors are playing for keeps and they are very determined not to lose. Their power is at stake.

Expand full comment
173 more comments...

No posts