11–20 of 178 posts
2. They basically solve the business model issue for writers, so you really can focus on the writing. At least, more so than the alternatives.
3. Their design is actually pretty nice, and focused on just two things: list building and content.
4. The defaults make sense, and solve real problems for people who want to make money with their writing.
1. They've astroturfed a lot. (By paying famous people to use their service.) This has given them a lot of credibility. 2. They basically solve the business model issue for writers, so you really can focus on the writing. At least, more so than the alternatives. 3. Their design is actually pretty nice, and focused on just two things: list building and content. 4. The defaults make sense, and solve real problems for p…
Paying for what is essentially celebrity endorsements seems like the exact opposite of "astorturfed".
I’m not going to spend $100/month to follow my ten favorite bloggers.
I don't think that's a question to be asked of Hacker News readers in general, as presumably most of us aren't Substack writers, just readers.
To be honest, I don't like Substack as an application. Their commenting defaults are terrible. I'm not a fan of the push model of newsletters in general and prefer the pull model of going to the site whenever you feel like being updated on your own schedule. But I like the writers, so I go there anyway.
It's pro free speech, which is the opposite of almost every other platform in 2022.
Substack feels like Medium except instead of blogspam from overexcited junior React developers, you get blogspam from wannabe pseudo-philosophers. As other have mentioned the lack of Paywall is nice tho. Medium had one of the most frustrating iirc.