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

We’re the founders of Substack, we just launched an iOS app. AUA

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 451 posts

Re: We’re the founders of Substack, we just launched an iOS app. AUA

#401

Post by gonehome »

awb wrote: post #282
logic_beats_pro wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes: Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi. Dr. Robert Malone is not a journalist but a scientist. The analysis of recent medical studies shunned by the mainstream media is worth the time investment.

Greenwald and Taibbi are great examples of writers I see producing ideological opinion pieces that I don’t find useful, but are promoted and prevalent on Substack. I’m trying to get away from folks that make broad, sweeping judgements without much data / firsthand knowledge or dangle open ended conspiracy theory questions about subjects they have little to no expertise in.

+1 yeah greenwald would be someone I’d pick as an example of a bad substack in the class you were describing.

Re: We’re the founders of Substack, we just launched an iOS app. AUA

#402

Post by bambax »

native_samples wrote: post #19

Firstly - love love love Substack. It's so simple but it's so rapidly become a place where I do so much reading. I have a few questions (mostly not about the app though, I'll have to wait for Android support to try that). 1. How did you guys manage to attract writers? I know you have been signing fronting agreements. Superficially, Substack is a (fairly basic?) blogging platform + email + payment processing system. T…

> Firstly - love love love Substack

It's fascinating that the top-level comment telling us how they "love" Substack is from someone who apparently thinks the fight against Covid is equivalent to modern-day Stalinism (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30637571 further in this thread).

Whoops.

Re: We’re the founders of Substack, we just launched an iOS app. AUA

#403

Post by rchaud »

svnt wrote: post #223
stereoradonc wrote: post #176

Substack is a pyramid scheme in terms of "payments" - I am sure they will start up a "search" for the newsletters and then paid advertisements. To all the HN regulars here - own your medium instead. Own your content. There's no need to stick to yet another VC funded "writing experience". Many potential readers will eventually hit a subscription fatigue. There are several proven strategies to monetise your content (an…

My question is who is starting the Signal equivalent of Substack? You know, for when these guys stop loss-leading, fuck everyone over and start monetizing.

How about ConvertKit? It focuses on handling the nuts and bolts of email subscriptions, instead of the faux-social platform / walled-garden audience that Substack is trying to build.

Re: We’re the founders of Substack, we just launched an iOS app. AUA

#404

Post by wpietri »

krapp wrote: post #397
Zababa wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or Christopher "moot" Poole, who created 4-chan. 4chan has never been about free speech, it had rules since the beginning which are constantly enforced.

If your definition of free speech requires that a platform have no rules whatsoever, then there has never been a free speech platform anywhere on the internet, because such a platform would have to accept illegal content and spam, and could never moderate anything.

Exactly. My point with Poole is that he started a platform that was much more accepting than competitor sites. Eventually he wasn't happy with how it turned out and walked away from it. Easy enough to do when it's a small operation. But with a larger operation like Twitter staff are invested enough that they won't just say "fuck it". So you see stronger TOSes build up over time.

Re: We’re the founders of Substack, we just launched an iOS app. AUA

#406

Post by bishplsok »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #387
deadpannini wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, a brief passage by Scott Alexander (from the hit piece targeting him linked above) describes a very good reason to read content you disagree with, almost making the parent comment germane to the overall discussion. > Compare RationalWiki and the neoreactionaries. RationalWiki provides a steady stream of mediocrity. Almost nothing they say is outrageously wrong, but almost nothing they say is especially ed…

For more context, look up the leaked e-mails where Scott is caught admitting that he writes about neoreactionaries because it drives more clicks. Writing about it once or twice could have been interesting, but constantly returning to neoreactionary content over and over again to mine what he calls “nuggets of absolute gold” starts to become an endorsement. Scott’s entire writing style is based on tricks like faux-hum…

Said emails are in the link I posted above! It is, hilariously enough, literally someone trying to defend Scott by just reposting his emails in their entirety -- "Sunlight is the best disinfectant" indeed. If it's a hit piece, it's Scott writing a hit piece on himself.

Re: We’re the founders of Substack, we just launched an iOS app. AUA

#407

Post by jfiowejf »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #388
throwaway_4ever wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

astralcodexten.substack.com isn’t a journalist (he’s a psychiatrist) but covers current events quite well, probably has as little bias as you can as a person, and is popular on HN.

> probably has as little bias as you can as a person Yesterday he wrote an article about being “anti-woke” on a college campus. It included recommendations such as what he called the “berserker strategy” which was to pick as many fights as possible on every social justice topic. Scott is anything but unbiased. He writes with flowery language that elicits a sense of faux humbleness and “both sides” journalism while su…

> subtlety pushing the reader to his desired conclusions on things like race and IQ.

Pushing people towards believing the truth? The horror!

Re: We’re the founders of Substack, we just launched an iOS app. AUA

#408

Post by laretluval »

bambax wrote: post #330
Lascaille wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Substack already tends to specialize on hyper-conservative and anti-woke ramblings; I'm curious to see how this will play out in the long term. Probably very well, for the same reason that Joe Rogan's podcast is the most listened to podcast in the US: those views are widely accepted by about 50% of the population. Despite your pejorative labelling you aren't actually finding extreme minority viewpoints on substack,…

Well, to mention just one example, "The Abbey of Misrule" ( https://paulkingsnorth.substack.com ) pushes antivaxx rhetoric. I don't know if that represents "50% of the population" (let's hope not) but it's abhorrent in any case.

Thanks for the rec! This looks like something I'll be adding to the list of Substacks I check regularly.

Re: We’re the founders of Substack, we just launched an iOS app. AUA

#409

Post by holbrad »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #388
throwaway_4ever wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

astralcodexten.substack.com isn’t a journalist (he’s a psychiatrist) but covers current events quite well, probably has as little bias as you can as a person, and is popular on HN.

> probably has as little bias as you can as a person Yesterday he wrote an article about being “anti-woke” on a college campus. It included recommendations such as what he called the “berserker strategy” which was to pick as many fights as possible on every social justice topic. Scott is anything but unbiased. He writes with flowery language that elicits a sense of faux humbleness and “both sides” journalism while su…

"He also admitted that he believes in “HBD” which is an alt-right euphemism for racist views on IQ."

Good to see an unbiased take such as this.

Let's look up what that means. First hit on google: "HBD IQ" (For me)(https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/jttfuxoQpYsnNEAqG/suppose-hb...)

"Human bio-diversity, the claim that distinct populations of humans exist and have substantial genetical variance which accounts for some difference in average intelligence from population to population"

I mean I'm sure racists love the idea, but it doesn't exactly strike me as obviously 100% untrue.

Post reply on HN