There are already examples of AI-generated articles being used in the news and media industry, such as financial news reports and sports recaps. These AI-generated articles are able to analyze data and report on it in a clear and concise manner, just like a human journalist would.

However, it is important to note that while an AI chatbot can write a good article, it may lack the creativity and unique perspective that a human writer can bring. Additionally, the use of AI-generated content raises ethical concerns about the potential loss of jobs for human writers.

Do you think this article was written by a chatbot or a human? What’s your view about AI-generated content? Share your thoughts and opinions in the comments section.

Leave a comment

The end of one year and start of a new one is an appropriate time to consider past and future changes. In 2022, Substack added features, apps, and, of course, more newsletters. It also lost some newsletters or significant activity on them.

Sub Pub is still here; but it's certainly not the same as it was. Neither am I. Since my last update, I've had more adventures. I have new ideas on what I want to do. Perhaps I'll talk about these things here someday.

For now, the main thing is you can anticipate just a few updates from me in 2023. (I could always change my mind and publish more – that's one nice thing about Substack.)

I hope you'll use my posts on occasion as a place to comment on your Substack experiences and to ask questions to each other. Maybe you'll find information or perspectives in past posts and comments that remain helpful. (I've also started a subscriber chat as another forum for discussion.)

And I hope, as good (or not good) as 2022 was for you, 2023 will be better.

Share

Leave a comment

I’ve been on a bender into the non-Substack world. (Wait … there’s a non-Substack world? 😲 Is it upside-down?)

I’m working half-time for a company developing an ever-more useful (though probably-not-sentient) AI.

In the other half of the time, I’ve completed a few legal research projects and celebrated the return of Kate Bush 🏃‍♀️⬆️⛰️

The weird thing is, while I’m doing non-Substack things, people keep subscribing. Not just to Sub Pub – even to publications I don’t promote (until now) such as This is Not a Newsletter.

Sure, the new subscriptions are free, not paid. What else could I expect?

Even when I published multiple posts per week, I got only a few paid subscriptions. (I vow that when I start Sub Pub up again in earnest, I will search hard for the elusive secret to paid publishing success and report to you anything I find.)

So why the new subscribers?

• The Substack app?

• Recommendations from other Substackers?

• Posts from the archive that occasionally resonate?

• Luck?

I’m guessing all of the above.

You publish enough … you get forward momentum and support from the community … you’ll be running up that road, you’ll be running up that hill ...

I mean, seriously, Kate Bush did nothing but permit use of a song in Stranger Things, and it’s number 1 in the world.

If there’s hope for Kate (and for Max), there’s hope for us too. (I’m not sure that makes any sense … but just go with it.)

May your Substack and mine be running up that hill with no problems.

Share

Leave a comment

…I reckoned I'd embed this clever TikTok video.1 Can you figure out what's going on? I did, eventually…

@christiankesnielgo go power rangers dc:@buqicrew_official

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Share

EARTH, Calif. (Apr. 1, 2022) – Substack Inc., the internet’s most trusted source of information and disinformation, has taken the unprecedented step of banning one of its most prominent newsletter publishers, the Oscar-winning actor Will Smith.

This is the most significant punishment received by Mr. Smith for slapping presenter Chris Rock at the Academy Awards this past Sunday night. The attack was witnessed live by a stunned worldwide audience of dozens of people and subsequently by the entire internet.

Substack’s new VP for First Amendment Operations, P.D.Q. Murdoch, explained, “People have this mistaken impression that Substack is a limitless paradise of free speech absolutism. Well, there are lines. And Mr. Smith crossed one.

Ms. Murdoch added, “There will be no appeals from this decision. There will be no criticism of this decision. That is all.”

In related news, Chris Rock has started a newsletter on Substack.

Also, the cancellation of J.K. Rowling for promoting witchcraft and wizardry on Substack was upheld by a 5-4 vote of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Happy April Fools1 Day!

Share

A quick post, inspired by this tweet:

Once Reader loads, the menu option “Add RSS feed” should appear in the left column of the page, just above “Write on Substack.” You can see it in the Reader image on Substack’s blog post about Reader:

There are various ways to find the feed for a website (or create a feed if the site doesn’t have it already).1 But I think the easiest way, at least for many sites, is to search for the site’s home page (or the subpage you’re interested in) on Feedsearch.

Once you have the feed URL, add it to Substack Reader, and it should appear in the left column after your other subscriptions. Content from that feed should appear in the Reader inbox, just as content would appear for a Substack subscription.

In addition to the app announcement. Substack has a few pages with helpful information about the app:

On Substack

Writer questions answered

While building the new Substack iOS app, we spoke with hundreds of writers to get their feedback. These writers asked us excellent questions. In this post, we share our answers to some of these questions with you. Will I keep the email addresses for readers who read in the app…

Read more

4 years ago · 26 likes · 71 comments

Substack App FAQs

Writer Office Hours [Mar 10, 2022]2

Leave a comment

Share

See what I did there?

The Substack editor doesn’t allow bold or italics in a title or a button caption. However, it does allow Unicode characters other than the ones you normally type.

Unicode has “confusables,” which are characters that look like other characters. You can type letters, numbers, punctuation, etc. on the Unicode confusables page to see all the alternatives.

The confusables include more than bold and italic versions. An easy way to find many possibilities is to input a word or other text in YayText. You can then press the “Copy” button next to the style you want and then paste it in the Substack editor.

The Substack editor might not recognize every style. The style might not work exactly as you expect on both mobile and desktop, or both website and email, which you can check with the Preview button on the editor.1

And the style might not work in some search engines. Google handles many styles well, understanding the transformed characters as a word. Bing acts like you are searching only for pages with the transformed characters. Substack’s search engine typically doesn’t return any results for words with transformed characters, since most newsletters don’t use those characters.

So you are taking a chance in terms of discoverability if you use confusable characters in place of the normal ones. But your text may stand out from the crowd. Remember: Fortune favors the bold.2

Leave a comment

Share

P.S.: I owe you a CBZ file. (I meant to attach it to the earlier post, but forgot.) So, here it is.

Original

6.21KB ∙ CBZ file

Read now

Read now

Don’t open it with a comics file reader. It doesn’t contain a comic. Just rename it as a ZIP file and then unzip it.

As a bonus, it includes another CBZ file, which you can likewise rename as a ZIP file. The contents of both CBZ files are the same; only the file names were changed.

I didn’t include a 1 GB file. But if you want to tempt fate or possibly annoy the engineers at Substack, you could.

Last time, Taylor Swift and I demonstrated the embeds you can use in Substack posts.

Sub Pub

Back to These Embeds (Swiftie's Version)

In this post, I illustrate all the Substack embeds and declare that I'm a Swiftie. Sadly, this post is too long for email. You might need to view it on the web. 😱 Are you ready for it? Video Giphy animations Youtube…

Read more

4 years ago · 4 likes · 2 comments · Sub Pub (Scott Frey)

In addition to particular URLs, images, and GIFs, Substack allows embeds of a few file types: PDF, XLSX, and the comics file types CBZ and CBR.

What are CBZ and CBR? I didn’t know; do you?

🤔

Time’s up.

They’re ZIP and RAR files.

A ZIP or RAR file can contain compressed1 versions of essentially any other files: TXT, DOCX, PPTX, MP4, etc. (You can even pack other ZIP and RAR files in them. I’ve seen it.)

ZIP files are more common than RAR files. If you’re unfamiliar with ZIP files, or think your readers will be unfamiliar, you might want to stop here, since this technique requires some comfort with ZIP files.2 Or, if you’re still interested, you might want a paid subscription, since I’m offering unofficial but useful Substack support.

Subscribe now

CBZ and CBR files usually contain comic books. (“CB” stands for “comic books.”) Image files named in page number order (001.png, 002.png, etc.) are compressed into one CBZ or CBR file. (“Z” and “R” stand for “ZIP” and “RAR.”)

You can put the CBZ or CBR file into a comics reader application, which will display the images for you in the proper order.

Or … you can decompress (aka unzip or extract) the CBZ or CBR file and then access the images or whatever other files are there.

Or … you might be able to access these files while they are still compressed .

Another “or”? Sure, why not. Or … if the ZIP file is a fake – just another file, like a DOCX, renamed as a ZIP – you can just replace “.zip” at the end with the original file type (like “.docx”) and then view it. This might not work for all file types, so I wouldn’t recommend it except to users willing to experiment.

To make a long story short, the newsletter creator would:

• use a ZIP application to pack files into a ZIP file

• rename the file from “.zip” to “.cbz”

• drag the CBZ file into the Substack editor to create an embed

• publish the post

The recipient would:

• download the CBZ file (rather than open it in a comics reader)

• rename it from “.cbz” to “.zip”

• extract the contents

• access the contents

That’s basically it. Now you can send, and others can receive, any kind of file, as long as you and the recipients are comfortable with this technique.

Sure, you could always post the file and make it public on Google Drive, Dropbox, etc. You wouldn’t have to go through compressing, renaming, or decompressing. But maybe you’d prefer attaching a file to the email and web versions of the newsletter.

One reason to do this might be file size. I was able to attach a CBZ file of over 100 MB. I didn’t get the error message that the post was too long for email, and was able to email it successfully to a Gmail address. And it was also downloadable from the web version.

Next time, I’ll try attaching a 1 GB file. 😮 (I wouldn’t recommend attaching such a large CBZ file in real life, unless you warn your recipients. Also, Substack in theory could impose a limit on CBZ or other attachment sizes. And some email services might limit the size of received messages.)

Anyway, try this technique if you’re intrigued, and see what you think.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Share

Sadly, this post is too long for email. You might need to view it on the web. 😱

Are you ready for it?

Video

Giphy animations

Youtube

Vimeo

Audio

Spotify

Apple Podcasts

SoundCloud

Bandcamp

Files

PDFs

201412 Clore December2014

1.02MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Excel spreadsheets (XLSX)2

Ch13ar13 Aarpt

139KB ∙ XLSX file

Download

Download

Comics files (CBZ, CBR)3

Tswift Unsplash

1.93MB ∙ CBZ file

Read now

Read now

Social networks

Twitter

Instagram

Substack newsletters

Post

Tanay’s Newsletter

Music Ownership (Taylor's Version)

Hi friends, Regardless of whether you’re a Swiftie like I am or not, you probably heard that Taylor Swift recently released Red (Taylor’s Version), her second re-recorded album of 2021. I’ll be covering her decision to re-record her fist six albums today, including…

Read more

4 years ago · 6 likes · 1 comment · Tanay Jaipuria

Publication

TSwiftEliot

This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang, but a pop song

Other

Github Gists4

OpenSea

Taylor SwiftNFT CHAIRS

Taylor Alison Swift is an American singer-songwriter. Her narrative songwriting, which is often inspired by her personal experiences, has received widespread media coverage and critical praise. And n…

Created by solidcolorsView on OpenSea

Kindle

?5

Leave a comment

Share

3

If you consider images to be another type of embed, here’s one of the images contained in the CBZ file:

I didn’t expect that an article about Bryan Cranston confronting his white privilege would lead me to publish a post about Substack.

But here we are.

In the play “The Power of Sail,” Cranston plays a professor who invites a white nationalist Holocaust denier to a campus symposium. The professor indicates that he will rebuke the invitee and his ideas, in a debate at the symposium..

As a “free-speech absolutist,” the professor says, “The answer to hate speech is more speech.”

Sounds like Substack’s view, doesn’t it?

In the play, the professor’s privilege

prevents him from seeing the very real harm caused by his actions until it is much too late.

Whether due to privilege or for other reasons, will the story be the same for Substack?

The play asks if there should be limits to free speech, and if so, why? It tests the boundaries of the free speech ideal by examining the traditional arbiters of that speech — those who get to decide whose voice is lifted and whose voice is quashed. It suggests the existence of a moral compass in an age when truth is often called relative by special-interest groups opposed to it.

I imagine Substack would say that it is not an arbiter of speech. But perhaps Substack is nevertheless amplifying the voices of the privileged and those whose voices the privileged have chosen to amplify.

Also, we have a hint in this passage that free speech is challenged not just by hate speech but also by untruth.

In the play, a black academic tries to stop the white professor from hosting the white nationalist at the symposium by

citing 20th century philosopher Karl Popper’s “paradox of tolerance.” Popper’s idea is that if a society — in pursuit of tolerance without limits — tolerates the intolerant, the latter will eventually destroy that society.

Off to Wikipedia’s article on "paradox of tolerance” I went.

The article quotes Popper’s statement of the paradox. I’ll break Popper’s paragraph down into portions, to make it easier to process. (It helped me.)

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.

If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

… I do not imply … that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies;

as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.

But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument;

they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

A lot to think about.

In particular we see, again, a possible connection between intolerance and untruth. Rational argument against intolerance is preferable to suppression of intolerance. However, rational argument may not keep intolerance in check if the intolerant “forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive.” Of course, asserting that rational argument is deceptive is itself deceptive.

The intolerant may teach followers “to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.” Perhaps some followers would answer with metaphorical “fists or pistols.” But others might use threats of violence, or violence itself.

Threats may already be happening.

Bryan Cranston and Karl Popper lead me to Canadian truckers – specifically, to speech about their blockades protesting vaccination mandates.

Note Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s statement against the opposition party: “Conservative Party members can stand with people who wave swastikas.” And the Conservative Party interim leader Candice Bergen’s statement against Trudeau: "I understand the prime minister admires basic dictatorships, but let's remind the prime minister that this is Canada, this is not a dictatorship."

In this dispute, as in many arguments between liberals and conservatives, both sides suggest the other side is intolerant. To put it another way, both suggest the other is associated with wrong and dangerous views.

Back to Substack.

When vaccine supporters express concern about vaccine opponents and vice versa, I think a background to each side’s concern is that they see the other side’s misinformation as related to intolerance.

If each side’s view about the other side has merit, is it impossible then to decide who is intolerant and whose opinions shouldn’t be tolerated?

Or is this a false equivalence? Does one side have a significantly better argument that it favors tolerance and truth while the other side is essentially dangerous?

The paradox of tolerance is that unlimited tolerance results in intolerance. The paradox of information, as I see it, is that unlimited information results in misinformation.

In my view, the dilemma of unlimited freedom of speech – with unlimited tolerance and information – is not that everyone will become intolerant and misinformed. It's that intolerance and misinformation will grow at the expense of tolerance and information. Free reasoned speech will lose out to speech that harms.

How do we begin to resolve the paradoxes of tolerance and information, either on Substack or elsewhere? How might Substack or society promote free speech without it leading to intolerance, misinformation, and harm?

Leave a comment

Share

But not right now.

According to Dr. Jetelina,

Antivaxx groups organized attack campaigns in an attempt to stop some of us from supporting vaccines.

To Dr. Jetelina, who is already facing the pandemic as a parent of young children, the attacks she has faced are worse:

Taken together, the death threats are more serious. The microaggression is deeper. And the punches are coming from every angle.

And I’m tired.

So, I’m taking a break for a week or two.

Dr. Jetelina also notes the

moral debate about dissemination of health disinformation across various platforms, including Substack.

The article she has cited on the debate is available via the Internet Archive. In the article, Dr. Jetelina said:

she has mixed feelings about how Substack should respond [to medical disinformation].

"Proactive solutions" are needed to mend the rifts in society, and Substack's strategy may provide a solution, she said. "I'm willing to give Substack the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not excited or happy about it."

While she said she doesn't want to complain without offering an alternative solution, she did note that she feels the company's solution "is risky and I hope there's recognition in that. Not only risky for the health of our population but risky for the personal safety of me and fellow scientists fighting disinformation every day."

"My life and the lives of my family have been directly threatened throughout this pandemic from followers of this disinformation," Jetelina told MedPage Today. "And we've had to take certain steps to ensure the security of my family. The threat is real and it is scary. It is also incredibly exhausting and I'm tired."

"I do hope," she added, "that it starts a constructive and meaningful conversation around what is the smart way forward and what are effective solutions to some of our societal downfalls."

In September 2021, Substack hosted a panel that included Dr. Jetelina, answering questions using the latest data on kids and covid. Substack described Dr. Jetelina as a health expert “sharing valuable, data-driven information” with readers.

Who wants to bet whether Substack would host a panel with any of the anti-vaccination newsletter writers mentioned in MedPage Today?

Who thinks that Substack would describe these writers as it described Dr. Jetelina?

I’m not saying that Substack shouldn’t ever host such a panel or say such nice things about these writers. I’m just saying: will Substack do that? Like or it not, Substack chooses a side.

Substack’s blog posts about content moderation suggest an ideal world where writers reach audiences and profit through reasoned discourse, rather than misinformation or hate. Dr. Jetelina is an example of the ideal Substack believes in.

And yet, Dr. Jetelina has fear for her life and the lives of her family. Meanwhile, misinformation endangers health and lives.

Substack’s self-congratulation about defending freedom of speech will not make threats of violence go away or misinformation less dangerous. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean so much if others feel free to threaten you about it, or if you're not healthy enough (or alive) to benefit from it.

Are vaccine-skeptical writers on Substack responsible for these threats? I don’t know. I’m not sure that Dr. Jetelina would say that. But she is certainly suggesting the possibility of followers who go too far. This is far from Substack’s ideal world of ideas.

Are certain writers recklessly or intentionally spreading misinformation?2 Again, I don't know for sure. But I am sure that misinformation on a significant subject such as health is dangerous. And maybe we need to figure out as a society how better to distinguish information from misinformation.

Principles and beliefs may be pure. But reality is messy, even harmful or deadly. (I'm sure Substack knows this. I just feel they’ve expressed more realistic views about problems elsewhere than on Substack.)

As noted above, Dr. Jetelina hopes for “a constructive and meaningful conversation” around the smart way forward. She indicates that the goal is “proactive solutions.” I’ve said similar things in a couple of recent posts.

Will Substack seek a constructive and meaningful conversation and proactive solutions regarding free expression and danger? How should we as Substack creators and audiences participate – or lead – in conversations and solutions?

I suppose we might start with this question: What is your opinion about Substack and free speech, misinformation, and threats?

Leave a comment

Share

Subscribe now

This is Joe Rogan. He’s got a podcast on Substack Spotify.

Perhaps you too have content on the internet.

Spotify felt that Joe Rogan’s content was worth $100 million. (I feel your content is worth ten times more! If I had a billion dollars... 🙂)

But whether you’re Joe Rogan or an “average Joe,” you agree to the terms of the service you’re using. Maybe the terms will be applied differently to Rogan than to the average user. Maybe, like Substack, the service will take a hands-off policy in general. But even Substack has limits on content. In any case, content guidelines are available for anyone to cite in favor or against a user’s actions.

These terms typically include what Substack calls “Content Guidelines,” Spotify calls “User Guidelines,” etc. They describe what you may not (or may) post.

A service could change its content guidelines, explain them, and enforce them in various ways.1 It also might incorporate a parent’s service’s guidelines.2 In any case, a conscientious writer or concerned reader should know about the service’s guidelines.

Unlike Joe Rogan, most content creators won’t make headlines for possible guideline violations or removal of content. Neither you nor the head of the service might make public statements about an alleged violation.3

But an allegation against you – or by you, as a reader – may matter a lot to you. And public statements in controversies such as Rogan’s might be relevant to the allegation in your case.

Here are content guidelines from several popular services on which users post content:

• Blogger: https://www.blogger.com/content-policy

• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/introduction

• Gab: https://gab.com/about/tos

• Ghost: https://ghost.org/terms/

• Instagram: https://help.instagram.com/477434105621119

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/legal/professional-community-policies

• Mailchimp: https://mailchimp.com/legal/acceptable_use/

• Medium: https://policy.medium.com/medium-rules-30e5502c4eb4

• Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/policy/guidelines

• Reddit: https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy

• Rumble: https://rumble.com/s/terms

• Spotify: https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/user-guidelines/

• Substack: https://substack.com/content

• TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/community-guidelines

• Twitter: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules

• WordPress: https://wordpress.com/support/user-guidelines/

• YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/policies/community-guidelines/

Perhaps someone will create a chart comparing the content guidelines of some of these services. I’m reluctant to do this, since guidelines may be revised over time4 and may differ from how they’re enforced.5 (But if there’s enough interest, I could try.)

I suppose the main thing is to be aware of the content guidelines (and official commentary on the guidelines) for the service you’re using at the time. (I covered content guidelines for Substack in a previous post.)

If you’re making an argument or allegation regarding a service’s guidelines, you might be interested in how the guidelines have changed. You can find older versions of a web page on the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. I found three versions of Substack’s guidelines6:

• Effective date: November 24, 2021

• Effective date: November 20, 2020

• Effective date: March 26, 2020

As long as the text hasn’t been significantly reordered, you can use a page comparison (or “diff”) tool to view changes between two versions.7 Copyscape’s free comparison tool shows that Substack’s content guidelines don’t differ much from March or November 2020 to present. But some of the changes might be illuminating. For example, while the guidelines previously said

Substack cannot be used to publish content or fund initiatives that call for violence, exclusion, or segregation based on protected classes. Offending behavior includes serious attacks on people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability or medical condition.

they now say

Substack cannot be used to publish content or fund initiatives that incite violence based on protected classes. Offending behavior includes credible threats of physical harm to people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, disability or medical condition.

(emphases added)

If you don’t mind saying, have you experienced or come across any noteworthy (or comment-worthy) controversies about content guidelines on Substack or elsewhere? How did the controversy turn out – or is it still going on?

Leave a comment

I’ve never watched A Few Good Men, except for this scene. But it's such a powerful scene. And it’s relevant to issues of truth and opposing views.

As I was finishing this post, I had a few thoughts about Substack's opinions that startled me and led me to other provocative thoughts about opinions in general. I'll put them all here – even though they should logically go later – because you might also find them surprising and significant.

The Substack co-founders' four blog posts about content moderation (links here) emphasize freedom, openness, reason, discussion, and trust. But ironically the posts themselves aren’t part of an open and reasoned conversation. Some opposing views are strawmen (“pressure” and “censorship”) easily knocked down. I can't find a basis to trust the co-founders’ views about Substack over anyone else's. These ideas appear in a vacuum.

Not a complete vacuum. Implicitly or explicitly, these posts are responses to other views about speech and to perceived ills on other websites. And the posts have many comments, which I presume the authors have read.

But still, there's a vacuum: the statements about Substack's purported benefits don’t appear to be derived from or proved by evidence or refined by discussion. They spring from thought (perhaps refined by passing around drafts amongst themselves?). I'm left with the sense that the argument is “The old way is bad. Substack is a new way that we believe is good. Therefore, Substack is good.” That doesn't compute. In my view, Substack's opinion of itself has become more polarized from differing opinions over time.

Maybe that's the main problem with many ideas on Substack, on the internet, and in the world in general. Is everyone in a bubble, whether a bubble of one, a group of corporate executives, or a larger set of people that still exhibits groupthink? It's hard enough for each person to know and express what they personally think. Maybe going along with a group is easier and gives individuals the satisfying feeling of being right? And maybe defending and even doubling down on what your group is doing is easier than becoming more moderate? (The Substack co-founders themselves talk along these lines in a couple of paragraphs that conclude “The center does not hold.”)

Maybe what Substack needs is larger, more diverse groups, rather than just each newsletter's writers and supporters of the writers' views? (Maybe Substack as a corporation will someday develop opinions in a more distributed manner, like crypto DAOs ideally can do?)

Substack's co-founders have indicated that Substack won't be the judges or arbiters of truth. And perhaps it can't be, except for a small percentage of the thousands of newsletter posts every week.

But I think Substack has a role to play in promoting truth. It can also play a role in fostering lies and other dubious content.

In my view, Substack recognizes it should promote truth and undermine lies. It believes it does this, through a hands-off approach to content moderation. But Substack's confidence rests on flawed perceptions of human behavior and understanding.

My Substack isn't going to resolve the age-old question “What is truth?”

However, I think you'll agree that some things are true and some are false.

• This post appears on Substack: TRUE (once I click “Publish”)

• This post appears in the New York Times: FALSE (unless the Times makes me an offer)

As I see it, a fact should be supported by evidence and not undermined by other evidence.

• Substack Inc. is a corporation: TRUE (due to much evidence in favor and none against, as far as I'm aware)

• Substack Inc. was co-founded by George Soros: Almost certainly FALSE. (It's not impossible that Soros, or someone else, was a secret co-founder. But without evidence, it can't get the label TRUE.)

Some statements are matters of opinion. They're neither true nor false. Reasonable minds may agree or disagree with the opinion. You could cite facts, evidence, or other opinions to argue for or against it.

• Substack is the best place to publish a newsletter: OPINION

• Substack isn't the best place to publish a newsletter: OPINION

An opinion benefits from favorable facts – and is weakened by unfavorable facts – that are supported and not undermined by evidence.

• Substack enables writers to make a good living: An opinion that would be supported by evidence that paid writers on Substack typically make over $50,000 per year more than by evidence of earnings under $5,000 per year.

You get the idea. Evidence-based facts and opinions supported by them have a more solid foundation than assertions with little or no evidence.

Substack's co-founders apparently recognize that some ideas, such as conspiracy theories, can be damaging:

… increasingly, there are questions about how to handle questions of free speech when the internet can spread damaging ideas faster, and when vast conspiracy theories are allowed to take root via social media persuasion.

They go on to say that “the internet is broken” and that media products “distort online discourse.” They contrast these phenomena with “healthy and productive discourse” and “reasonable discussions,” which apparently they believe Substack will facilitate through hands-off policies.

I infer that the Substack co-founders are thinking like I am about facts and opinions. “Vast conspiracy theories” are “damaging” only if they're not based in fact. (Exposing real conspiracies would be good.) Indeed, the Substack cofounders elsewhere indicate that “conspiratorial narratives” are opposed to “the pursuit of truth.” Discourse is “distorted” – rather than “productive” or “reasonable” – if it fosters misinformation and badly supported opinions.

But will a hands-off approach to content make information, ideas, and discourse better?

Substack's co-founders pin much of their hopes on readers. They believe Substack is

empowering readers to thoughtfully evaluate an argument’s merits for themselves.

They suggest that freedom of speech favors “good ideas” while censorship favors “bad ideas”:

Knowing that they are on a platform that defends freedom of expression can give writers and readers greater confidence that their information sources are not being manipulated in some shadowy way. To put it plainly: censorship of bad ideas makes people less likely, not more likely, to trust good ideas.

They assert that paid subscriptions will lead to better content:

People will hate-read and doom-scroll, but they won’t hate-pay or doom-subscribe. While people pay attention to content that makes them agitated, they’ll only pay money for content they trust and value.

I disagree with a few premises of the Substack co-founders' views.

First, I disagree that readers will “thoughtfully evaluate an argument's merits” on Substack even if they don't already do so elsewhere. Why would they? They're just as likely as elsewhere to lack enough subject-matter knowledge, objectivity, time, attention, inclination, etc. to evaluate an argument other than whether it sounds good to them.

Second, I disagree that freedom of expression gives – or should give –readers more confidence that information is trustworthy. Free speech means more license not only to tell the truth but to lie. Free speech means freedom not only to engage in sober analysis of facts but also to make hyperbolic claims about evidence-deprived speculations. Discourse between readers and writers is unlikely to help – subscribers will tend to agree with the writer (who in turn tends to seek subscribers’ approval).

Third, I disagree that “readers won't hate-pay or doom-subscribe.” They will. Simple as that. There's a long history. There's recent history: in populist political campaigns, armed conflicts, the pandemic... People will say outrageous and dangerous things. People will believe and pay for these things, even commit violence or die for them. In other words, they trust and value hate and doom. Some, hopefully most, people won't; but too many will. I'll cite examples if anyone wants. I doubt it's necessary. I await the co-founders' retraction of their statement.

If Substack gets a complaint with evidence that a newsletter is committing a significant violation of the content guidelines, then I don't see why Substack shouldn't examine the situation.

I'm not saying that Substack should ban newsletter creators every day of the week. And I'm not saying the content guidelines are immutable. (I think Substack should engage in dialogue with the community rather than promulgate the guidelines with no input.)

I am saying that substantial allegations of harm – such as harm created by misinformation or misinformed opinion – shouldn't be swept aside. The allegations undermine Substack's belief in its benefits to the world.

Substack shouldn't just assume that it can't design a scalable process that protects free speech and also protects people from harm.

In any event, Substack can do more than enforce its content guidelines. It can actively promote facts and reasonable opinions.

Substack could promote information literacy – education for writers and readers on how to evaluate a text for support by facts and reasonable opinions.

Substack could also provide a forum for civil discussion of subjects and posts. Or it could support an initiative to create such a forum or some other way to have dialogue across newsletters, and not just within each newsletter’s bubble.

What do you think?

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Maybe you like Substack’s opinions on free speech and against censorship.

Or maybe you feel that Substack should restrain harmful content.

Either way – and whether you write on Substack or have concerns about what you read1 – you might want to know what Substack’s rules are.2

Perhaps the most significant statement of Substack’s view on content moderation is:

All things in moderation – including moderation

In other words, Substack may moderate content, but will do so moderately.

Or, to put it another way (as Substack has done), Substack has a

hands-off approach to content moderation

“Moderation in moderation” or “hands-off approach” is a general principle, like “freedom of speech” or “anti-censorship.” For some content, Substack has more specific information on what’s allowed or not allowed.

Whether you’re publishing something or objecting to a publication, you’ll probably want some familiarity with Substack’s guidelines.

Everyone who signs up to publish on Substack agrees to a Publishing Agreement. The agreement includes, among other things, Content Guidelines.

The Content Guidelines cover several categories:

• Legal 

• In General 

• Hate 

• Private information 

• Plagiarism

• Impersonation 

• People restricted from making money on Substack3

• Harmful and illegal activities

• Spam and phishing

• Nudity, porn, erotica

• Comments

The Content Guidelines aren’t long. You can quickly read them in full. Like any part of the Publisher Agreement, they may be revised – so you might want to check them from time to time.

Substack published interpretations of the Content Guidelines in a March 2021 blog post on content moderation. These interpretations elaborated on types of content Substack doesn’t allow:

• Spam or phishing

• Harassment or threats

• Doxxing

• Hate

• Impersonation

• Plagiarism

• Porn or sexually exploitative content

Like the Content Guidelines, these interpretations are short and worth reading.

Substack has published four blog posts with statements about content moderation. These posts and (in my view) relevant quotes are, from most to least recent:

On Substack

Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse.

Last year, in an interview with the New York Times, anthropologist Heidi Larson, founder of the Vaccine Confidence Project, said that efforts to silence people who doubt the efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccines won’t get us very far. “If you shut down Facebook t…

Read more

4 years ago · 979 likes · 584 comments · Hamish McKenzie, Chris Best, and Jairaj Sethi

… as we face growing pressure to censor content published on Substack that to some seems dubious or objectionable, our answer remains the same: we make decisions based on principles not PR, we will defend free expression, and we will stick to our hands-off approach to content moderation. While we have content guidelines that allow us to protect the platform at the extremes, we will always view censorship as a last resort, because we believe open discourse is better for writers and better for society. 

… It means we allow writers to publish what they want and readers to decide for themselves what to read, even when that content is wrong or offensive …

On Substack

The internet needs better rules, not stricter referees

The recent Facebook leaks have prompted a torrent of proposals for fixing social media’s harmful effects on society, including demands for more oversight by company executives, boards, or regulators. None of these addresses the core problem of the attention economy, which no amount of top-down control can fix…

Read more

4 years ago · 309 likes · 103 comments · Chris Best and Hamish McKenzie

Other than in extreme cases involving violence or illicit activity, people should be allowed to decide for themselves who’s worth listening to, what’s trustworthy, and which direction is punching “down.”

On Substack

How we approach moderation decisions

In December, we published a statement about our philosophy on content moderation. In the time since, content moderation policies across all platforms have become only more consequential and debated. This post is an attempt to offer further clarity on how and why we make our moderation decisions…

Read more

5 years ago · 137 likes · 225 comments

… we have a hands-off philosophy when it comes to censorship.

…

Yet our hands-off approach does not mean anything goes. We do have content guidelines, which, narrowly construed, reflect our intent to protect writers’ ability to openly express themselves while prohibiting harmful or illegal behavior.

On Substack

Substack’s view of content moderation

As Substack grows, there is increasing interest in the stance we take on content moderation. It’s a complicated issue, so we wanted to take a moment to lay out our position clearly and explain how we got there. In this post, we cover: How the Substack model puts readers and…

Read more

5 years ago · 215 likes · 111 comments · Chris Best, Hamish McKenzie, and Jairaj Sethi

… We do not seek to impose our views in the form of censorship or through appointing ourselves as the judges of truth or morality.

…

Ultimately, we think the best content moderators are the people who control the communities on Substack: the writers themselves. … As the meta platform, we cannot presume to understand the particularities of any given community or to know what’s best for it. We think it’s better that the publisher, or a trusted member of that community, sets the tone and maintains the desired standard, and we will continue to build tools to help them to do that. Such an approach allows for more understanding and nuance than moderation via blunt enforcement from a global administrator. 

Of course, there are limits. We do not allow porn on Substack, for example, or spam. We do not allow doxxing or harassment. We have content guidelines (which will evolve as Substack grows) with narrowly construed prohibitions with which writers must comply. But these guidelines are designed to protect the viability of the platform at the extremes, not act as a filter through which we see the world. There will always be many writers on Substack with whom we strongly disagree, and we will err on the side of respecting their right to express themselves, and readers’ right to decide for themselves what to read.

… we take a hands-off approach with who may use the platform …

Substack may provide more guidance: in other posts and comments, as well as future revisions. In any case, I hope my brief guide will help you in locating and piecing together Substack’s content guidelines.

Share

Subscribe now

What do you think about Substack’s content rules? Is Substack taking the right approach? Would you change any of the rules?

Leave a comment

I don’t fully agree with

On Substack

Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse.

Last year, in an interview with the New York Times, anthropologist Heidi Larson, founder of the Vaccine Confidence Project, said that efforts to silence people who doubt the efficacy of the Covid-19 vaccines won’t get us very far. “If you shut down Facebook t…

Read more

4 years ago · 419 likes · 193 comments · Hamish McKenzie, Chris Best, and Jairaj

much as I didn’t fully agree with

On Substack

The internet needs better rules, not stricter referees

The recent Facebook leaks have prompted a torrent of proposals for fixing social media’s harmful effects on society, including demands for more oversight by company executives, boards, or regulators. None of these addresses the core problem of the attention economy, which no amount of top-down control can fix…

Read more

4 years ago · 307 likes · 103 comments · Chris Best and Hamish McKenzie

In general, I agree with more openness and less censorship. In other words, I believe that, in general, people should be free to publish what they want on Substack.

However, I disagree that openness is necessarily better in cases of hate and misinformation.

In the post from a few months ago, two of Substack’s founders wrote:

People will hate-read and doom-scroll, but they won’t hate-pay or doom-subscribe. While people pay attention to content that makes them agitated, they’ll only pay money for content they trust and value.

What? Of course people will hate-pay or doom-subscribe! When readers concur with hate or doom, do they think “I’ll read it – but I won't pay for it”?

Do I really need to cite examples of profit from hate or doom? People do pay for content they trust and value – including hate or doom.

In their current post, the Substack founders say:

“We don’t have a misinformation problem … We have a trust problem.”

Actually, we have both. They sort-of admit this later, asserting that by using censorship, “you don’t make the misinformation problem disappear but you do make the mistrust problem worse.”

While censorship doesn’t make misinformation or hate disappear, it can take away a platform. By contrast, Substack can do the opposite of making misinformation or hate disappear; it can facilitate and amplify it.

Censorship will drive some people to bad ideas and away from good ideas. But so will openness. Again, I agree that openness is better in general. But there are downsides to Substack’s openness.

Misinformation and hate aren’t abstract problems. They can cause damage, even death, to people and institutions. For instance, misinformation can lead people to tragic errors regarding their health. Hate can motivate people to violence. If misinformation is undermining public health and hate is undermining society or democracy, Substack’s open marketplace of ideas could be harmful.

To take a hypothetical but plausible example, would you feel comfortable about a 21st century equivalent of the Nazi party publishing a popular Substack? Maybe you’d say, “No – but I still wouldn’t censor them.” That might be a reasonable view. But other views about a Nazi newsletter might also be reasonable and arguably preferable.

Twitter or Facebook would probably remove a Nazi publication. Substack would apparently allow it (unless perhaps if the publication promoted violence or other criminality). Neither is necessarily right or wrong. And something less extreme than a Nazi publication might be a close call. But my point is that Substack shouldn’t be so convinced that openness is better.

I don’t want to win a dispute with the Substack founders. I mainly want to show a need for something other than openness to deal with problems of misinformation and hate.

In both posts, the Substack founders use the word “discourse” to signal openness. But how much discourse is there, really, between newsletters with opposing views and “facts,” or between their audiences? I’m not certain. But I suspect that on Substack, as elsewhere, conservatives interact mainly with conservatives, and liberals with liberals.

I feel we’d benefit from open, respectful, and substantive discourse. Widespread engagement with more opinions and evidence could promote and generate good ideas.

Maybe it’s mostly a dream. But I feel it’s better than the current situation.

I doubt we’ll get much open discourse on Substack as it is.

I propose a “meta-Substack”: a place to discuss posts from any Substack newsletter. The posts and discussions about them could be on any topic, from least to most controversial.

I’m not suggesting this idea with confidence that it will become real, but in the hope that something like it will happen.

For a meta-Substack to work, discussion must be polite – perhaps passionate, but not hostile. I presume various forums have facilitated constructive discussions, and could serve as examples for how to do that.

I’m not sure what form a meta-Substack would take. I envision a discussion board, like Reddit or Discord. Or maybe it would look like some other social network.

I’m not sure whether Substack would feel comfortable with or want to devote the resources necessary for a meta-Substack forum. Could it be organized and moderated by volunteers in a foundation like Wikipedia? Could it be run by a DAO?

Would Substack publishers and readers participate in sufficient numbers? I feel it’s possible. For publishers, the risk of criticism could be outweighed by the reward of reaching a larger audience. Readers could discover newsletters and posts they would have missed otherwise. A meta-Substack could be at least as much about promoting good work as coping with controversy.

Would a meta-Substack make dangerous publications less dangerous or readers less likely to act on dangers? Possibly; possibly not. Some publishers and readers might modify their views in light of criticisms. Others might ignore criticisms or even double-down in spite or them. I’d like to think that exposure to various perspectives would typically be a good thing.

Again, maybe I’m just dreaming. But I’d rather propose this idea than be resigned to Substack’s downsides.

What do you think about openness, censorship, and their upsides or downsides on Substack? Do you think a “meta-Substack” could encourage the good things and lessen the bad? Do you have other ideas on these issues?

Leave a comment

I hope you’ll share this post. The ideas would benefit from more perspectives. My contributions may be a starting point, but far from any last word.

Share

Thanks.

On Substack

Now in beta: Video on Substack

Today, we’re introducing a new feature that will make it simple to publish and view videos on Substack. With this feature—currently in private beta—you can upload or record videos directly into a Substack post. You can then make videos available to everyone or only paid subscribers. The videos will be playable directly on the web in your Substack post, a…

Read more

4 years ago · 76 likes · 28 comments

Substack’s announcement highlights a few use cases:

• Patti Smith singing for her subscribers

• Andrew Zimmern demonstrating a recipe

• Bari Weiss hosting a conversation

A video of Patti Smith singing would clearly be of interest to her audience.

A food newsletter like Andrew Zimmern’s could post a video of a recipe, travel to a place with delicious food, etc.

Bari Weiss’s video is for paid subscribers only. Some free subscribers would surely be tempted to click “Subscribe and watch.”1

I’ve seen several publishers ask for a video feature. Potential uses are many. Substack allows publishers to post text, images, GIFs, and audio – video is the logical next step.

As Axios noted this morning, video could lure new creators. And video could benefit many current creators and attract audiences.

Posts can do well without video, images, or audio. For example, Letters from an American has many posts with just text, maybe an embedded tweet, and people still read the posts. But online newsletters are really news media. I think many publishers and audiences will appreciate the inclusion of video along with other media such as text.

Those might be sufficient reasons for Substack to provide a video recorder and uploader. But are they the only reasons?

To put it another way, why aren’t embeds of videos from Twitter, YouTube, and Vimeo enough?2

Yesterday, Mashable asserted that publishers of COVID misinformation, as well as “conspiracy theorists, white nationalists, QAnon influencers,” and “anti-trans writers,” flourish on Substack. As the post notes, many such writers have been deplatformed elsewhere. Substack might be their best option for audience and income.

These publishers might not have a Twitter, YouTube, or Vimeo account. Or they might not trust those services with their videos. They might post a video on those services, only to see it taken down.3

They might be more confident that a controversial video would stay available on Substack.4

In other words, video might lure controversial creators to Substack.

If you are unhappy about this, consider that publishers could upload controversial videos to Substack for other reasons, such as to expose human rights abuses or environmental exploitation. They could even upload videos to challenge videos they dispute.

And they can alert Substack to videos they think violate content guidelines.5

In the end, I suppose the fundamental question about content on Substack isn’t whether publishers should be allowed to upload videos or other types of media, but how the Substack terms are written and enforced.

What do you think about the new video feature? Will you use it? Are you concerned – or pleased – that controversial publishers might use it?

Leave a comment

Last week I mentioned Substack Go.

This week I’ll emphasize Substack Go – the application is due tomorrow (Fri 1/21).

Here is Substack’s summary of Go:

During the month of February, Substack will connect participants to a small squad of eight to ten fellow Substack writers for four weeks of support and structured guidance.

Writers will leave the program with an understanding of Substack fundamentals, a squad of peers to turn to, and an established writing and publishing cadence.

According to Substack,

Go is for writers getting started or restarted, eager to set the foundation for publishing regularly in community with fellow writers.

I won’t delay you by quoting more from the Go materials. I’ll just add one thought.

I feel Substack Go is for more than starting or restarting writers. You might already publish good posts on a regular schedule. But you might want to connect more with readers. You might want more suggestions from writers. It seems that the activities planned for Substack Go would be useful for you too.

Share

Leave a comment

Substack has resources to help your newsletter be more successful.

The guidance you’ll find is not a guarantee that you’ll get, say, a thousand subscribers. But it should help. (Each new subscriber can make your day brighter. 🌞)

But let’s say you’re looking for ideas beyond Substack’s resources. 🤔

* You might apply for Substack Go (application due January 21, 2022).

* You might ask questions in Substack’s office hours (currently each Thursday).

* You might contact fellow newsletter/blog publishers whose work you admire and who might have relevant advice.

* You might post a discussion and ask your audience for advice.

* And you might take a look at these three Substacks. Their posts don’t typically focus on Substack – but they are often relevant to issues faced by Substack publishers.

WTF is SEO?

a notable post: Google Search Console: Five tips for publishers 1

Blogging Guide

a notable post: 📖 Substack FAQs and Tips

see also: the Blogging Guide website

Unfiltered by Tim Denning

a notable post: Do These Things to Be a Stupidly Productive, Insanely Impactful Writer

see also: the Tim Denning website

As with last week’s discussion, feel free to leave your advice in the comments!

Leave a comment

I intended to start on a helpful post or two for the new year. An analysis of what several writers have said about Substack success. Or an examination of Google search results for Substack newsletters and posts.

But it's Covid Week. I don't have Delta, Omicron, or any other letter (yet). But a few people I know do.

I've been helping them out: assisting them not to panic; going to stores, including several that were out of in-home covid test kits; reviewing CDC recommendations and criticisms thereof; etc.

I'm amazed I haven't gotten covid yet. Or if I did, it's asymptomatic.

Many vaccinated, boosted, and masked people are getting covid for no apparent reason. If you told me that reading CDC guidance might give you covid, at this point I wouldn't be surprised.

Why are you reading this post? You could get covid from it. Avert your eyes! 🙄

A useful post will have to wait until 2022. Instead you get this post.

But if I can't be so useful this week, at least I can be wishful for a relatively happy new year.

I wish you good luck avoiding covid or a cold or anything ill; the best of care and recovery if you experience illness; and, most of all, a 2022 in which you can focus on better things, such as reading and writing.

Share

Leave a comment

Really, I want many things this holiday season: no more covid; world peace; etc.

Even regarding Substack, I want more than subscriptions for you and me… even though I'll interrupt this post with the standard pitch (slightly modified):

I also want:

1. The secret to Substack success. “Substack success” may include more subscribers. But more generally it's reaching your Substack goals. If anyone at Substack has told you what the secret is during office hours, please let us know. (In all seriousness, I plan to read a bunch of “the secret to Substack success” posts and let you know soon what I find.)

2. For Substack to be even more “on the same page” with creators in 2022. Substack tries and often succeeds in facilitating communication with (and among) creators. But I feel there's still disconnect with what creators want and need.

3. For Substack to send a holiday present (or some crypto tokens) to creators. (No obligation, Substack. But it would be nice.) 😉

4. For you to enjoy the holidays and feel re-energized to create in 2022. 🎆

What do you want? 🤔

Leave a comment

Share