201–210 of 373 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many writers are even thinking about that though? If they shut it off tomorrow, how many would have a list within the last year?
I'm pretty sure all of them. Because they'll never shut it without advance warning, due to the backlash.
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…
If you ever need a home. I built it mainly for me and all the stuff that I work on. https://upubli.sh/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I started using it to run a conference 4 years ago with the intent that it was supposed to be a temporary solution until we built a "real" site. The experience was so good that we haven't moved off. Even if we did build a more formal conference site, we'd still keep the substack blog. The mailing list has grown from nothing to right at 1000 subs which isn't bad for something I do in my spare time. By far the most eff…
Cheers from Concord, NC. Nice to see a fellow techie in the South ‘round these parts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Did you miss Myspace and Friendster? MySpace was a) awful, b) only used by a tiny tiny fraction of people (1% maybe), and c) rarely had people's real names & photos on it. Not remotely comparable to Facebook. Even fewer people used Friendster and Orkut, at least in the UK. > 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…
> rarely had people's real names & photos on it This is a feature, not a bug. There is nothing worse for a society's collective privacy than a surveillance machine where people willingly post every detail of their lives. Stalin would have dreamed of today's anti-social media as a surveillance tool. > There's so much that's great about it. There is also so much that's truly awful about it, such as Meta vacuuming up yo…
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…
EDIT - OH, I missed you're on the AT protocol, so there's the main difference already.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Also because they closed all the gates of interoperability once they got big enough. If they didn't have the incentive to get a monopoly we would have kept a more decentralized web.
And we would have kept a more inconvenient web, since without that incentive, Facebook etc. would never have had reason to pay for an army of software developers to implement and improve the site and servers to host it.
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…
This is false.
It's more accurate to say that "no one will visit your website if you do not properly setup a distribution ecosystem".
It's hard work. But it works. All of my companies have been built by writing online --> distribution --> people finding my/our stuff.
Your experience of 'doing it for decades' reveals that publishing, in of itself, does nothing. And if all people do is publish (without the distribution engine), then, I agree it's a waste of time.
I write 1 hour per day. I spend about 2 hours working on distribution. Sometimes, I spend 4 hours on distribution.