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

Sovereign writers and Substack

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 169 posts

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#101

Post by purple_ferret »

glennismyfren wrote: post #98
coldtea wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've yet to read what I would consider high quality journalism on Substack. It's a lot of quick take opinion pieces. Most of what passes for "high quality journalism" in "high quality outlets" are fluff pieces and government/corporate PR masquerading as facts. And as Alan Kay said: "a point of view is worth 80 IQ points". I'd rather read the opinion of people with well honed points of view than what passes as news…

Glenn Greenwald has written a number of very good pieces on his Substack that I would in no way describe as quick take opinion pieces and Matt Taibbi has the best reporting on the journalism industry itself going around. These guys are "well honed" because they're well read on the activities of the media and they think and communicate clearly Maybe you're not reading the right posts or you just agree with the prevail…

>Glenn Greenwald has written a number of very good pieces on his Substack that I would in no way describe as quick take opinion piece.

He wrote a piece about Parler and the storming of the Capital[0], within a week of the event that was certainly a quick take. There is absolutely no way to definitively make any sort of claim about how involved it was, especially from his position, thousands of miles away on a patio in Rio.

I find most of his pieces, to be very much 'hot take' in nature, responding to something that is currently going on.

[0]https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-sho...

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#102

Post by Meekro »

pavlov wrote: post #47

There seems to be a backlash in progress against Substack's publishing policies. Last week I finally subscribed on Substack to an art-related list where I had been enjoying the free edition for a while. ($55 / year felt like a pretty good deal for access to more of this interesting content.) A few days later, the writer announced that they're moving off Substack. I'll just quote their message verbatim: "I’m planning…

I definitely agree that authors and readers should seek out platforms that reflect their values. But to me, what you described is more fairly called a "reshuffling" rather than a "backlash." Some writers that have been canceled elsewhere are finding a home and an audience on Substack, and others are leaving because they can't, in good conscience, share a home with the first group. Both groups end up better off than they were before.

I think Substack's lack of stickiness is part of its appeal. Writers are starting to see the downside of writing for someone else's platform, and Substack is a reaction to that. The writers on Substack own their content database, subscriber list, and even use their own Stripe account to process payments. This makes it easy for a writer to migrate, and makes it hard to deplatform people-- what's the point of getting someone banned from Substack if they'll just be back online in a day on Substack2 without having missed a beat?

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#103

Post by cwkoss »

I perceive a greatly increased volume of criticism of Glen Greenwald on my Twitter feed since he moved to Substack. Makes we wonder if all of the criticism is organic (i.e. readers didn't like how he covered Hunter Biden laptop controversy) or to what extent this criticism is being led by trad media journalists who feel threatened by him leaving the trad media business model.

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#104

Post by gnicholas »

jger15 wrote: post #2

"...it’s not that Substack will compete with existing publications for their best writers, but rather that Substack makes it easy for the best writers to discover their actual market value." Thompson on point per usual

Reminds me of a quote from an economics professor, whose high salary was questioned by someone from another discipline.

"The university doesn't determine my salary; the market does that. The university only decides the city in which I earn it."

/paraphrase

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#105

Post by BurningFrog »

jameshart wrote: post #72
WJW wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably different audiences will prefer different writers, as they always have.

One of the dangers is that it turns out audiences actually prefer writers constrained and filtered and checked by editors. But by the time they realize that, editors won’t exist any more.

If substack stars need an editor, I assume they hire one.

Some probably already do.

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#106

Post by circumvent123 »

cwkoss wrote: post #103

I perceive a greatly increased volume of criticism of Glen Greenwald on my Twitter feed since he moved to Substack. Makes we wonder if all of the criticism is organic (i.e. readers didn't like how he covered Hunter Biden laptop controversy) or to what extent this criticism is being led by trad media journalists who feel threatened by him leaving the trad media business model.

False dichotomy? It could be that his opinions were appropriately constrained by an editor previously and now is showing worse opinions.

(Note: I don't follow him... not super familiar, but this seems like a weird either/or)

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#107

Post by wmf »

gnicholas wrote: post #104
jger15 wrote: post #2

"...it’s not that Substack will compete with existing publications for their best writers, but rather that Substack makes it easy for the best writers to discover their actual market value." Thompson on point per usual

Reminds me of a quote from an economics professor, whose high salary was questioned by someone from another discipline. "The university doesn't determine my salary; the market does that. The university only decides the city in which I earn it." /paraphrase

But the market was invented by economics professors...

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#108

Post by Meekro »

jimkleiber wrote: post #99
Meekro wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like my journalists to be constrained by the truth, and paid editors in the context of a "traditional" newspaper are one possible way to achieve that. However, if you believe the stats on this, trust for traditional news sources is at record lows. I personally don't trust traditional news sources very much. Therefore, I'm open to trying something different. I've been a happy subscriber to a handful of Substack jo…

I'm curious, as I tend to trust many of the large media outlets, especially the NYT and WaPo. 1) Which outlets do you consider to be the "mainstream media" or "traditional media"? And 2) why don't you trust them?

Rather than annoy the HN mods by derailing this conversation into politics, I can answer in detail to you directly. If you want that, could you update your bio on HN to include your email address?

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#109

Post by cwkoss »

circumvent123 wrote: post #106
cwkoss wrote: post #103

I perceive a greatly increased volume of criticism of Glen Greenwald on my Twitter feed since he moved to Substack. Makes we wonder if all of the criticism is organic (i.e. readers didn't like how he covered Hunter Biden laptop controversy) or to what extent this criticism is being led by trad media journalists who feel threatened by him leaving the trad media business model.

False dichotomy? It could be that his opinions were appropriately constrained by an editor previously and now is showing worse opinions. (Note: I don't follow him... not super familiar, but this seems like a weird either/or)

I would classify that as "organic" criticism.

To put another way: are people on twitter criticizing him because they don't like his articles, or because other people on twitter have said that you shouldn't like his articles?

Re: Sovereign writers and Substack

#110

Post by monocasa »

purple_ferret wrote: post #101
glennismyfren wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glenn Greenwald has written a number of very good pieces on his Substack that I would in no way describe as quick take opinion pieces and Matt Taibbi has the best reporting on the journalism industry itself going around. These guys are "well honed" because they're well read on the activities of the media and they think and communicate clearly Maybe you're not reading the right posts or you just agree with the prevail…

>Glenn Greenwald has written a number of very good pieces on his Substack that I would in no way describe as quick take opinion piece. He wrote a piece about Parler and the storming of the Capital[0], within a week of the event that was certainly a quick take. There is absolutely no way to definitively make any sort of claim about how involved it was, especially from his position, thousands of miles away on a patio i…

"within a week" is an eternity in journalism.
Post reply on HN