I was planning a necessary-to-pay-the-bills post about why you should subscribe to Sub Pub.
(See what I did there?)
But if my pitch to you is partly about Sub Pub's interesting content related to Substack, then maybe I should start an interesting conversation about Substack? 🤔
Substack combines elements of several internet services: newsletters; blogs; news media; even social networks. The services may involve accounts and free or paid subscriptions, and sometimes funding or other support by Substack.
The internet – and thus potentially Substack – has benefits, but also problems such as spam, trolling, and threats. Some issues may be framed in terms of freedom of speech, tolerance or intolerance, or hate speech. The presence of a controversial person or group on a service might (or might not) reflect on the service and cause other people to join or leave.
A service's features may facilitate or lessen problems. Regarding Substack, you might read these posts (which I’m presenting for informational purposes and neither endorsing nor rejecting):
Being new to Substack I was unaware of the anti-trans, anti-gay, religious treks, and people who use the plat form to instill hate propaganda. To be honest, I believe in freedom of speech of all kinds, but it does feel like nails screeching across the blackboard when I see, or hear, nazi propaganda, anti-trans, hate filled articles. Idk, these people may not be aware of just how hateful they are. Maybe they are aware and think they are fulfilling some thing that spurs their religious identity. I am weary because I don't believe that hate agenda is on or in God's scheme of things. Yes, I believe in God, but I question where God begins and hate starts and ends. My God would not like any of such nonsense. God is a God of love. If he isn't then I'm so inclined with agnostics. Seems more intelligent than thinking God is so vengeful as picking on all these people who just love the same sex or are in their wrong bodies due to some fluke of nature which they are trying to make right. However, we can all choose to spam them out, or to ignore them, or to speak about it all as Scott has done. For this I am grateful to be made aware because my heart wants to join the groups of love not hate. A God that is loving and just. A free flow of thought in music, in writing, in Art. We own no one and no one should own us or our outlet for free speech, protesting, and free thought and creativity. Mostly I would like to see less lying where ever it comes from. This is why I am a proponent of bringing things out into the open that people have either dismissed, not have the time to think about, or just want to ignore being informed. I am also a strong proponent of humor, lively free thought, and intellectual discourse. It's just more than sad that out of such good things, there are those among us who turn it all on it's ear and bring about the worst out of the loins of humanity. Bringing out the most guttural, hateful speech and thought only to hurt others. This has to stop even if they are saying it as to preserve their religiosity. This type of thought spoils and does not preserve anything for humanity. And though, yes, they have a right to speak; we have a right to say nay to their views. And, thus is the beauty of democracy, of free spirit, and true love may she ever spread her wings and fly in peace.
so I hear what you are saying. question: do you subscribe to and read all of those things that upset you? I do. all the time. but I don't thing the things I choose to subscribe to and read should be banned if i don't agree with them. I actively search out points of view that disturb my to see what that other person is going thru.
I will listen to other points of view, to a point, until I begin getting sick to my stomach. I will not subscribe to Nazi, anti-vaxing, bashing kind of stuff. Emotionally, it does me in and makes me moody if not right out angry afterward. I do like reading other points of view though. I like to be enlightened. What I don't like is watching PBS during dinner and seeing snippets of children dying from not being able to breathe due to the Israeli-Israel conflict. And, you see these children being sprayed with some kind of heavy toxin. Killing them slowly and painfully. I don't want to see that at all, but it is necessary so that eyes will be open to the truth and to what is actually going on. Thank you.
so i commented before reading your platform, something I am working on not doing! lol.
i am probably not your target reader, but who knows, i like literature, and i like lesbians (my daughter) so maybe i like this, who knows until i read it. i just subscribed anyways. Ric
so timely, when i mention Substack, esp w my liberal 26 yr old daughter, she rolls her eyes! Oh, the white privilege haven? she asks! It is like pulling teeth to get some to click. I subscribe to Steven Beschloss, but I don't agree with him. It's called intellectual curiosity, and I fear a entire segment of the population is not into that.
Yes – but perhaps not all. I feel that Google misses some posts and newsletters. But I haven't done a careful study (such as by comparing Google search results to a set of newsletter articles about a topic). I may explore this issue in a future article.
Google is not automatically indexing Substacks unless the writer sets up Google Console (a guide to this is at https://rsilt.substack.com/p/how-i-got-my-substack-to-be-google - not my Substack.) Right now unless someone finds our Substacks through word-of-mouth, they are rather difficult to stumble across randomly. It's a shame because there is a ton of really great content here and the fact that it is invisible to Google should really be addressed.
I looked at it...interesting and a challenge. I wonder if the big substack writers do this? I was trying to find something on a Glenn Greenwald page and ended up scrolling back but that's only because I knew it was there.
While I generally agree with Substack’s approach to content moderation in theory, it is difficult to say whether they have consistently met even their own standards. I think Substack will always face “internet problems” such as enforcing harassment rules in a consistent and transparent manner. However, I think this is true of any platform that allows its users to post content; the problem only becomes more apparent once the platform hits a critical mass of users and content, but the problem is not unique to a single platform.
I also generally agree with the aims of creating a different type of revenue model based on the quality of engagements rather than the quantity of clicks. It is ambitious, and – in my opinion – has yet to be truly proven as a successful business model, but I appreciate the entrepreneurial endeavor of trying to find an alternative to other social media business models.
I think many of Substack’s philosophical ambitions may be proven if they can navigate programs like Substack Grow effectively, and help new writers achieve their creative and economic goals, but “internet problems” will pose risks along the way. Content moderation is a bit outside my area of expertise, but I would say that transparency and consistency are essential, though executing on these fronts will always be easier said than done. We, as a community, should also do our best to hold Substack to the standards it espouses.
This is such a difficult question. I'm not happy that there are anti-trans writers on Substack, but then again I'm not happy that people can be so violently, viciously opposed to someone they don't know just because of how they identify. But honestly, hatred and trolling and white supremacy and all of the other evils of the world exist on all digital platforms, be they Substack or Facebook or Twitter or TikTok. As long as people can create and publish their own content without a gatekeeper, it's going to happen. As long as a platform has a TOS that spells out what is not acceptable on their platform and takes fair but decisive action when they're made aware of it, I'm not sure what else can be done short of completely censoring everyone. And what is considered okay today might be viewed differently if power changes hands.
So far my experience reading and writing on Substack has been incredibly positive. I have met some fantastic individuals and learned a lot from them both on their substacks and in the Substack writers discord. I have both a free and paid newsletter, both of which I launched earlier this summer, and they are growing like happy little seedlings. So far I haven't encountered any trolls or hatred on the platform itself or in the side community, and the worst thing I saw was when someone decided to spam his single Substack post on one of the official Substack discussion threads last night.
I know there's an ugly underbelly to Substack, just as there is everywhere else. I don't see it because I don't go looking for it, and I guess because my newsletters aren't popular enough for the trolls to find it. Perhaps with success will come harassment? We shall see, assuming I am ever so lucky to get out of the bargain basement of Substack and get listed in the elevator lobby.
One feature I would like is the ability to report trolls or spammers to someone. When I saw the spam last night, there was literally nothing I could do because the post wasn't my own. I feel a platform as large as Substack needs to have a community reporting feature and real human beings to monitor it, or one day we're going to wake up and the trolls or spammers will have taken over. (As someone who in a previous job removed hundreds of spam posts every single day on a large platform's discussion forum, I know how bad it can get... and what it takes to stay on top of it.)
I feel very strongly that people should be allowed to live their lives to the fullest and if they aren't attacking or harming anyone by being who they are, they don't deserve anyone's hatred just because of who they are, what they look like, who they choose to love, or what they believe. Who gives X person the right to decide that Y person is somehow undeserving of human rights and dignity, anyway?
The moment any platform caves to requests of content removal of material that is not explicitly illegal, that's where the slippery slope gets a foothold. Do I enjoy the notion that there are legitimately awful or prejudiced people with a platform to cogitate upon in the written form? No, I don't enjoy it, but I acknowledge that they must be free to express themselves if I am to ask for the same leisure as a storyteller. It is not my place to tell someone else what they may or may not say; it is my place to explain why I think they're wrong, and prove that they are wrong.
Similarly, I can encourage others to not bother giving such persons the attention they so desperately crave. Don't shove them off the platform into darkness; let them instead see that they have no support when they espouse such ideas. At least this way, you know who to avoid and where they can be found.
It may seem easy for someone like myself to say such a thing; I'm just a genre storyteller, I'm not delving onto hot button socio-political dialogues of the day. But expression of ideas is universal, and the shackles one might place on the hands of someone spouting hate are easily thrown on the wrists of someone whose stories are arbitrarily deemed 'troublesome' by just the right sort of mindset.
If you wish to argue the ever-common trope of "We must not be tolerant of the intolerant," be careful- you are logically joining their ranks rather than actually demonstrating the weakness of their worldview.
Being new to Substack I was unaware of the anti-trans, anti-gay, religious treks, and people who use the plat form to instill hate propaganda. To be honest, I believe in freedom of speech of all kinds, but it does feel like nails screeching across the blackboard when I see, or hear, nazi propaganda, anti-trans, hate filled articles. Idk, these people may not be aware of just how hateful they are. Maybe they are aware and think they are fulfilling some thing that spurs their religious identity. I am weary because I don't believe that hate agenda is on or in God's scheme of things. Yes, I believe in God, but I question where God begins and hate starts and ends. My God would not like any of such nonsense. God is a God of love. If he isn't then I'm so inclined with agnostics. Seems more intelligent than thinking God is so vengeful as picking on all these people who just love the same sex or are in their wrong bodies due to some fluke of nature which they are trying to make right. However, we can all choose to spam them out, or to ignore them, or to speak about it all as Scott has done. For this I am grateful to be made aware because my heart wants to join the groups of love not hate. A God that is loving and just. A free flow of thought in music, in writing, in Art. We own no one and no one should own us or our outlet for free speech, protesting, and free thought and creativity. Mostly I would like to see less lying where ever it comes from. This is why I am a proponent of bringing things out into the open that people have either dismissed, not have the time to think about, or just want to ignore being informed. I am also a strong proponent of humor, lively free thought, and intellectual discourse. It's just more than sad that out of such good things, there are those among us who turn it all on it's ear and bring about the worst out of the loins of humanity. Bringing out the most guttural, hateful speech and thought only to hurt others. This has to stop even if they are saying it as to preserve their religiosity. This type of thought spoils and does not preserve anything for humanity. And though, yes, they have a right to speak; we have a right to say nay to their views. And, thus is the beauty of democracy, of free spirit, and true love may she ever spread her wings and fly in peace.
so I hear what you are saying. question: do you subscribe to and read all of those things that upset you? I do. all the time. but I don't thing the things I choose to subscribe to and read should be banned if i don't agree with them. I actively search out points of view that disturb my to see what that other person is going thru.
I will listen to other points of view, to a point, until I begin getting sick to my stomach. I will not subscribe to Nazi, anti-vaxing, bashing kind of stuff. Emotionally, it does me in and makes me moody if not right out angry afterward. I do like reading other points of view though. I like to be enlightened. What I don't like is watching PBS during dinner and seeing snippets of children dying from not being able to breathe due to the Israeli-Israel conflict. And, you see these children being sprayed with some kind of heavy toxin. Killing them slowly and painfully. I don't want to see that at all, but it is necessary so that eyes will be open to the truth and to what is actually going on. Thank you.
so i commented before reading your platform, something I am working on not doing! lol.
i am probably not your target reader, but who knows, i like literature, and i like lesbians (my daughter) so maybe i like this, who knows until i read it. i just subscribed anyways. Ric
so timely, when i mention Substack, esp w my liberal 26 yr old daughter, she rolls her eyes! Oh, the white privilege haven? she asks! It is like pulling teeth to get some to click. I subscribe to Steven Beschloss, but I don't agree with him. It's called intellectual curiosity, and I fear a entire segment of the population is not into that.
Are substack posts included in google searches?
Yes – but perhaps not all. I feel that Google misses some posts and newsletters. But I haven't done a careful study (such as by comparing Google search results to a set of newsletter articles about a topic). I may explore this issue in a future article.
Google is not automatically indexing Substacks unless the writer sets up Google Console (a guide to this is at https://rsilt.substack.com/p/how-i-got-my-substack-to-be-google - not my Substack.) Right now unless someone finds our Substacks through word-of-mouth, they are rather difficult to stumble across randomly. It's a shame because there is a ton of really great content here and the fact that it is invisible to Google should really be addressed.
I looked at it...interesting and a challenge. I wonder if the big substack writers do this? I was trying to find something on a Glenn Greenwald page and ended up scrolling back but that's only because I knew it was there.
While I generally agree with Substack’s approach to content moderation in theory, it is difficult to say whether they have consistently met even their own standards. I think Substack will always face “internet problems” such as enforcing harassment rules in a consistent and transparent manner. However, I think this is true of any platform that allows its users to post content; the problem only becomes more apparent once the platform hits a critical mass of users and content, but the problem is not unique to a single platform.
I also generally agree with the aims of creating a different type of revenue model based on the quality of engagements rather than the quantity of clicks. It is ambitious, and – in my opinion – has yet to be truly proven as a successful business model, but I appreciate the entrepreneurial endeavor of trying to find an alternative to other social media business models.
I think many of Substack’s philosophical ambitions may be proven if they can navigate programs like Substack Grow effectively, and help new writers achieve their creative and economic goals, but “internet problems” will pose risks along the way. Content moderation is a bit outside my area of expertise, but I would say that transparency and consistency are essential, though executing on these fronts will always be easier said than done. We, as a community, should also do our best to hold Substack to the standards it espouses.
This is such a difficult question. I'm not happy that there are anti-trans writers on Substack, but then again I'm not happy that people can be so violently, viciously opposed to someone they don't know just because of how they identify. But honestly, hatred and trolling and white supremacy and all of the other evils of the world exist on all digital platforms, be they Substack or Facebook or Twitter or TikTok. As long as people can create and publish their own content without a gatekeeper, it's going to happen. As long as a platform has a TOS that spells out what is not acceptable on their platform and takes fair but decisive action when they're made aware of it, I'm not sure what else can be done short of completely censoring everyone. And what is considered okay today might be viewed differently if power changes hands.
So far my experience reading and writing on Substack has been incredibly positive. I have met some fantastic individuals and learned a lot from them both on their substacks and in the Substack writers discord. I have both a free and paid newsletter, both of which I launched earlier this summer, and they are growing like happy little seedlings. So far I haven't encountered any trolls or hatred on the platform itself or in the side community, and the worst thing I saw was when someone decided to spam his single Substack post on one of the official Substack discussion threads last night.
I know there's an ugly underbelly to Substack, just as there is everywhere else. I don't see it because I don't go looking for it, and I guess because my newsletters aren't popular enough for the trolls to find it. Perhaps with success will come harassment? We shall see, assuming I am ever so lucky to get out of the bargain basement of Substack and get listed in the elevator lobby.
One feature I would like is the ability to report trolls or spammers to someone. When I saw the spam last night, there was literally nothing I could do because the post wasn't my own. I feel a platform as large as Substack needs to have a community reporting feature and real human beings to monitor it, or one day we're going to wake up and the trolls or spammers will have taken over. (As someone who in a previous job removed hundreds of spam posts every single day on a large platform's discussion forum, I know how bad it can get... and what it takes to stay on top of it.)
I feel very strongly that people should be allowed to live their lives to the fullest and if they aren't attacking or harming anyone by being who they are, they don't deserve anyone's hatred just because of who they are, what they look like, who they choose to love, or what they believe. Who gives X person the right to decide that Y person is somehow undeserving of human rights and dignity, anyway?
The moment any platform caves to requests of content removal of material that is not explicitly illegal, that's where the slippery slope gets a foothold. Do I enjoy the notion that there are legitimately awful or prejudiced people with a platform to cogitate upon in the written form? No, I don't enjoy it, but I acknowledge that they must be free to express themselves if I am to ask for the same leisure as a storyteller. It is not my place to tell someone else what they may or may not say; it is my place to explain why I think they're wrong, and prove that they are wrong.
Similarly, I can encourage others to not bother giving such persons the attention they so desperately crave. Don't shove them off the platform into darkness; let them instead see that they have no support when they espouse such ideas. At least this way, you know who to avoid and where they can be found.
It may seem easy for someone like myself to say such a thing; I'm just a genre storyteller, I'm not delving onto hot button socio-political dialogues of the day. But expression of ideas is universal, and the shackles one might place on the hands of someone spouting hate are easily thrown on the wrists of someone whose stories are arbitrarily deemed 'troublesome' by just the right sort of mindset.
If you wish to argue the ever-common trope of "We must not be tolerant of the intolerant," be careful- you are logically joining their ranks rather than actually demonstrating the weakness of their worldview.