Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Which substacks do you read as soon as it hits your inbox?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: Ask HN: Which substacks do you read as soon as it hits your inbox?

#51

Post by chewmieser »

vehemenz wrote: post #45
chewmieser wrote: post #5

For me, Substack has a reputation problem. All Substack's I've seen shared (on HN) have spouted outlandish claims and had zero (or little) "evidence" to back their claims up. Of course it's just a platform and it is probably made up of some great content too, but the bad content has turned me off to the platform. So I guess none here as well.

There are a lot of wannabes on Substack. There are wannabe "journalists" who don't leave the house and wannabe philosophers who don't study philosophy. There are lots of tech and VC types like PG who are nowhere near as interesting as they think they are. Despite all these wannabes, there are probably 30 or so high-quality substacks that are actually worth reading. I wouldn't dismiss the entire platform.

Do you have examples of high-quality ones? My main exposure to Substack is on HN and every one that I've seen shown on HN has been low quality and usually flagged to death eventually.

This was a point made as well on the AMA for Substack, but it wasn't really addressed. The low-quality "journalists" reduce trust in the platform as a whole.

I don't feel like Substack is doing enough here to combat rampant misinformation and low quality "journalism." It on the platform to show me that it's not just filled with conspiracy theorists and low quality trash. And so far I don't see that and will avoid Substack just like I avoid Reddit alternatives (for instance) that champion free speech and end up as cesspools. Plenty of other places to get the same type of information out there that you don't have to tiptoe around the garbage.

Re: Ask HN: Which substacks do you read as soon as it hits your inbox?

#52

Post by nocoiner »

buzzy_hacker wrote: post #47
nocoiner wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, web view is paywalled unfortunately. I wish I could read it via RSS, but it’s pretty much the one newsletter/blog type thing that I don’t mind getting in my inbox.

> I wish I could read it via RSS I do this using https://kill-the-newsletter.com/ -- it's a great service

Brilliant. Thank you for this.

Re: Ask HN: Which substacks do you read as soon as it hits your inbox?

#53

Post by rottencupcakes »

nocoiner wrote: post #40
rottencupcakes wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t read it reliably on the phone and it requires a paywall passer online, and recently (in may) it stopped being delivered to my inbox.

I think the May thing was a glitch - I’ve continued to receive mine, but I’ve heard from at least a couple friends who stopped receiving it around then. If you want to re-subscribe, it’s still free and don’t have to deal with the Bloomberg paywall.

I resubscribed in early june and didn't start receiving it again. I can try again.

Edit: It says "Sorry, We are currently unable to process your request. Please try again later." with multiple email addresses.

Maybe it's a glitch but it's sure a persistent one.

Re: Ask HN: Which substacks do you read as soon as it hits your inbox?

#54

Post by vehemenz »

chewmieser wrote: post #51
vehemenz wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of wannabes on Substack. There are wannabe "journalists" who don't leave the house and wannabe philosophers who don't study philosophy. There are lots of tech and VC types like PG who are nowhere near as interesting as they think they are. Despite all these wannabes, there are probably 30 or so high-quality substacks that are actually worth reading. I wouldn't dismiss the entire platform.

Do you have examples of high-quality ones? My main exposure to Substack is on HN and every one that I've seen shown on HN has been low quality and usually flagged to death eventually. This was a point made as well on the AMA for Substack, but it wasn't really addressed. The low-quality "journalists" reduce trust in the platform as a whole. I don't feel like Substack is doing enough here to combat rampant misinformati…

I don't think it's possible to have it both ways. A commitment to free speech means you get more garbage and conspiracy theories, but in exchange you get more intellectual conversations for adults, something you increasingly can't find on Reddit due to its overbearing moderation. Reddit itself has a good track record of banning subs, with only a few exceptions, but it's mostly the moderators and Reddit-enforced mod policies that have caused its decline.

As far as recommendations, it depends what you're interested in. I'd generally agree with the first two and disagree with the last two, but they are all high-quality reads (for me).

https://www.slowboring.com

https://jessesingal.substack.com

https://freddiedeboer.substack.com

https://fakenous.substack.com

Re: Ask HN: Which substacks do you read as soon as it hits your inbox?

#56

Post by chewmieser »

vehemenz wrote: post #54
chewmieser wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have examples of high-quality ones? My main exposure to Substack is on HN and every one that I've seen shown on HN has been low quality and usually flagged to death eventually. This was a point made as well on the AMA for Substack, but it wasn't really addressed. The low-quality "journalists" reduce trust in the platform as a whole. I don't feel like Substack is doing enough here to combat rampant misinformati…

I don't think it's possible to have it both ways. A commitment to free speech means you get more garbage and conspiracy theories, but in exchange you get more intellectual conversations for adults, something you increasingly can't find on Reddit due to its overbearing moderation. Reddit itself has a good track record of banning subs, with only a few exceptions, but it's mostly the moderators and Reddit-enforced mod p…

Thanks for those examples, I will take a look at them.

I do disagree with your premise though. From the examples I've seen in the past, "free speech bastions" usually drive away a significant portion of their users and discourages deep discussion with insults, name-calling, derailment, thread crapping, etc. Are there examples I may have missed that take this approach and are better for it?

I personally think some limits on free speech are required to nurture healthy discussion in a community.

Re: Ask HN: Which substacks do you read as soon as it hits your inbox?

#57

Post by epiccoleman »

bgun wrote: post #38
epiccoleman wrote: post #15

After many years I'm still a big fan of Astral Codex Ten (previously Slate Star Codex). I don't read every single thing that comes across, but Scott does a particular weird brand of fiction now and then that I really love. I also enjoy the book reviews a lot. It's just a good hodgepodge of stuff I find interesting and I think Scott is a pretty good curator and commentator.

I read his book "UNSONG" awhile back and found it equally enjoyable to his blog writing, with the added advantage that it lasted for days.

Unsong is one of my all time favorite reads, it's such a unique and fun thing. I could talk about it for hours honestly, there's so much great material in it. I actually just reread it a month or so ago and still enjoyed every chapter.

It honestly changed the way I looked at religion and I think made me a bit of a softer, more spiritual agnostic-atheist than I had been before. I particularly love the chapter where God explains the problem of evil.

Re: Ask HN: Which substacks do you read as soon as it hits your inbox?

#58

Post by vehemenz »

chewmieser wrote: post #56
vehemenz wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's possible to have it both ways. A commitment to free speech means you get more garbage and conspiracy theories, but in exchange you get more intellectual conversations for adults, something you increasingly can't find on Reddit due to its overbearing moderation. Reddit itself has a good track record of banning subs, with only a few exceptions, but it's mostly the moderators and Reddit-enforced mod p…

Thanks for those examples, I will take a look at them. I do disagree with your premise though. From the examples I've seen in the past, "free speech bastions" usually drive away a significant portion of their users and discourages deep discussion with insults, name-calling, derailment, thread crapping, etc. Are there examples I may have missed that take this approach and are better for it? I personally think some lim…

> Are there examples I may have missed that take this approach and are better for it?

Substack isn't a social network. Discussion is just a function of a post's comments, which can always be disabled. If you don't like a blog, you can leave and go to another. There's no real cross-pollination. I suppose the "bad" blogs could hurt Substack's reputation, but they're willing to bear the reputational damage rather than shut it down, which I respect.

Since you initially brought up Reddit, it's worth examining whether healthy discussions are happening there. If you've ever used reveddit, you can see the types of censorship that happens on popular threads. Activist moderators are everywhere. The only reason discussion looks healthy is because anything remotely "controversial" is nipped in the bud before 100 others had a chance to upvote or agree with it. A thread's apparent civility is not always an indication of healthy discussion.

My point is there are negative externalities no matter how far you move the dial on moderation/censorship. Not enough moderation, and you discourage real discussion but encourage toxicity, harassment, and trolling, i.e., 4chan and Parler. Too much moderation, and you also discourage real discussion but encourage censorship, intolerance, and groupthink, i.e., Reddit in 2023.

Post reply on HN