Live data from Hacker News

Substack writers, you need a website

elizabethtai.com

161–170 of 373 posts

Re: Substack writers, you need a website

#161
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hackers always use this argument against everything because you can in fact know some things about what one person, yourself, will do in the future. Thus they argue that you should not trust your things to other people but do it yourself, because, barring major illness, you can reasonably assume that you will try to do what is best for yourself in the future.

> because you can in fact know some things about what one person, yourself, will do in the future. Nope. At best you merely know what your current self intends to do in the future. Whether you'll do them then, or whether you'll even still want to do them then, or be able to do them then, or have regretted ever wanting to do them, and many other such things, we don't know.

Nope. As per my second paragraph which you may not have gotten to:

>because, barring major illness, you can reasonably assume that you will try to do what is best for yourself in the future.

Furthermore the phrase "some things" does not actually mean all things.

So again, trying to put it another way to clarify anything that may have been unclear:

You can be reasonably certain at the time that you need to make a decision that you will try to do what you believe is the best for you. I will now not go on to make an exhaustive list showing every way that you in the future may not do what is right for you because it is normally understood that there are numerous ways in which the reasonable expectations of people can be countered but nonetheless, the reasonable expectations will still tend to hold more than any of the countering scenarios. This is why they are the reasonable expectations, while the countering scenarios are the notable exceptions that often show up in sensational news reports and fiction.

And finally I should note this comes down to the principle, which I would have thought was clear from my previous post but evidently not, that if you can reasonably expect that future you will try to do what future you thinks is best for them, you can just as reasonably expect that the future corporation you are buying a service from will try to what the future corporation thinks is best for them, without giving much consideration for what is best for you.

I do not know what you think is best, but I would normally trust future me over future corporation not owned by me but providing me a service, I guess I'm just funny that way.

on edit: Note in my first post I referred to major illness, because major illness, including mental illness, is one of the most common ways in which people end up not attempting to do what is best for themselves.

Re: Substack writers, you need a website

#162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is writing purely for themselves. It's something we like to say, and there's some value in writing down your thoughts - but deep down inside, every blogger is dreaming of having a positive impact on other people's lives. That requires reaching these people in the first place. I promise you that Bartosz would be bummed out if he had an audience of one. And while relying on HN to accidentally discover you can wo…

>No one is writing purely for themselves Every time I see posts like this one and go into comments, everyone in the comments treat writing as a hobby which they would like to turn into work and earn money from, more or less. And I suppose the words "writing" and "blogging" associate with the community around themselves in their minds, not with the text information per se. I'm writing technical articles (blog posts) m…

According to hacker news users you have to monetize every single thing you do in your spare time, otherwise it's a waste of time, be it blogging, pet projects that you need to convert to SAAS etc. And if you claim that you have "fun" and "hobbies" you are a liar (or at least you are lying to yourself that you don't want to make money out of those things).

Re: Substack writers, you need a website

#163

I'm one of the creators of Leaflet - https://leaflet.pub - also mentioned in another comment. We're making a publishing app kind of like Substack or Ghost, but connected to the open social ecosystem building on AT Protocol. There a lot of potential here, and a lot of tools that already exist. We collaborated with other publishing apps (pckt & Offprint) to make Standard.site - https://standard.site - a simple set of s…

I get a cloudflare 502 error for standard.site

Re: Substack writers, you need a website

#164
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not much with Wordpress’s architecture, I would guess. But if you’re writing a blog + CMS from scratch focusing on minimizing costs, you can definitely do it. Serving static text from a CDN cache is essentially free until you’re suffering from success. If you need a CMS, it can scale to zero when you’re not editing, so your only cost scales with the number of edits, not page views, and starts at $0. If you don’t need…

> Not much with Wordpress’s architecture, I would guess. There are literally thousands of PHP hosting providers. There are also dozens, possibly hundreds of deviated wordpress hosting services, aside from WordPress.com.

Your point being? These thousands of hosting providers all charge around $5 or more to host your Wordpress instance, because that’s what it actually costs to run Wordpress.

A more modern CMS can bring costs down by serving pages from a CDN cache and, most importantly, selectively re-rendering only pages that changed. This is hard to do with Wordpress because plugins can essentially render anything and depend on any data.

Re: Substack writers, you need a website

#165
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The social networks are big because they have genuine utility. I think this is mostly wrong, and that the social networks are big primarily because they spent money at the right time to create entrenched network effects that allow them to rent-seek ever after. The quality and innovation of the services themselves (especially simple sites like twitter/X) is not the moat. At a technical level, most are easily clone-a…

> but because "everyone is there." That ubiquity is the only "genuine utilty" they are offering you. Sure. So what? You nonetheless cannot deny the utility. The friends that I have made from social networks are no less real. I am very grateful they (the means to discover these people now in my life) exist.

Yes the thing is valuable because of the network and the network is there because of the network.

We don’t really rely too much on the navigability of the Hudson River anymore. But being next to it is still the most expensive land in the nation.

Re: Substack writers, you need a website

#166
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The social networks are big because they have genuine utility. I think this is mostly wrong, and that the social networks are big primarily because they spent money at the right time to create entrenched network effects that allow them to rent-seek ever after. The quality and innovation of the services themselves (especially simple sites like twitter/X) is not the moat. At a technical level, most are easily clone-a…

It is wrong, but so are you. The truth is that social networks are big because they HAD genuine utility. The Facebook was amazing... at least until about 2010. I was at uni when it started and I vividly remember thinking "I wish there was a website or something that would help me know who everyone is" (we didn't have physical face books in the UK) and then a year later thefacebook turned up. Amazing for everyone's so…

> I wish there was a website or something that would help me know who everyone is

Did you miss Myspace and Friendster? Orkut had a market, I think. The reason that Facebook succeeded later is because it had a good API and invited people to write apps for it (mostly surveys and games, remember Zynga?), tracked its users across the internet, and sold them in targeted slices to advertisers. It was Friendster as a commercial platform (like Salesforce was CRM as a commercial platform.) It was never any better than Myspace, and gradually got much worse.

I have no idea what you think is or was so great about WhatsApp. It was successful largely because it had no overhead and infinite throughput, being created by very talented people using Erlang. The reason people use it is because they always have and their friends do, and for a lot of countries with expensive SMS it provided messaging (and became so integrated into business that people weren't allowed to live without it.)

This is my argument about why these things were successful; I think that "they were great" isn't a credible one. They simply grabbed a large chunk of already proven markets quickly, but oriented themselves toward corporate needs to leverage that into total control.

Re: Substack writers, you need a website

#167
Earlier I got an email from Substack telling me to check out my stats for my bewest blog post.

It has 2 views, lol.

I just post it all to blog.ciefas.cafe now, I have no audience so I feel like Substack is useless to me.

Re: Substack writers, you need a website

#168
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The social networks are big because they have genuine utility. I think this is mostly wrong, and that the social networks are big primarily because they spent money at the right time to create entrenched network effects that allow them to rent-seek ever after. The quality and innovation of the services themselves (especially simple sites like twitter/X) is not the moat. At a technical level, most are easily clone-a…

> but because "everyone is there." That ubiquity is the only "genuine utilty" they are offering you. Sure. So what? You nonetheless cannot deny the utility. The friends that I have made from social networks are no less real. I am very grateful they (the means to discover these people now in my life) exist.

the point is that they are not mutually exclusive. you can have both. just don't put all your eggs in the corporate basket

Re: Substack writers, you need a website

#169
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The social networks are big because they have genuine utility. I think this is mostly wrong, and that the social networks are big primarily because they spent money at the right time to create entrenched network effects that allow them to rent-seek ever after. The quality and innovation of the services themselves (especially simple sites like twitter/X) is not the moat. At a technical level, most are easily clone-a…

> but because "everyone is there." That ubiquity is the only "genuine utilty" they are offering you. Sure. So what? You nonetheless cannot deny the utility. The friends that I have made from social networks are no less real. I am very grateful they (the means to discover these people now in my life) exist.

We are probably coming at this from different angles. I don't deny those things but they're also not a counter-argument to the point I'm intending to make.

As an overly dramatic example, a slave might fall in love with the wife he met on a plantation, and the family he has, and even be grateful for them. Nevertheless, you probably don't want to use those facts to be a booster for slave plantations.

My argument is that all the good things you like about social networks, from a technical pov, could be had quite easily without the ads, political propoganda, and other ill-effects of the current popular social networks. Indeed, there are many open source projects that already provide the features you'd want. It's just that none has achieved the network you want.

This situation is unlike that of a large, complex physical infrastructure project, where you really do need to "put up" with a governement (or something like it) in order to get the thing built and maintained.

Re: Substack writers, you need a website

#170

Counterpoint from someone who's been publishing on the internet for decades: no one will visit your website. It's as simple as that. You need a push mechanism to reach readers. RSS could be it, but it's too niche. Social media is kinda it, but algorithmic feeds reward political clickbait and just because someone clicks "follow" or "subscribe" is not a guarantee that they will ever see your posts. Substack gives you a…

the point is that they are not mutually exclusive. you can have both. just don't put all your eggs in the corporate basket
Post reply on HN