Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could do the same thing through Ghost, which has an API, and not be using a service that proudly platforms the Tates and nazis.
I don’t know anything about the specific situation you’re referencing. That being said, getting mad at an organization, one that is built to be a “platform” for people to share their words, for not going out of its way to police which people share which words, seems to me to be unproductive at best, if not actively close minded and tribalistic.
Substack writers, you need a website
211–220 of 373 posts
Re: Substack writers, you need a website
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 tha…
I think you are missing the point of talking about utility in the first place. I have no interest in lamentations. If you told someone to stay away from social networks because of their flaws, you would be doing them a cultural and professional disservice. As a more moderate metaphor it's like someone saying they like living in one city, for all its flaws, and someone else comes along and extolls the virtues of sever…
Re: Substack writers, you need a website
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same, every time I end up on a substack post, it's from an external source. Maybe there is a network effect on substack that makes it easier to get these external links, but I doubt most actual readers are coming from inside the substack ecosystem.
> Same, every time I end up on a substack post, it's from an external source. I think the parent was talking about having a substack, not reading things on Substack. But I also think the direct network effects don't come from casuals (other than that they repost to social networks.) People who are paying for a substack will look at others because it doesn't involve another signup or separate bill, they can just add t…
Basically, I don't know anyone who is ever bored. Who the hell has time to click on and read random posts? The entire value of HN is that other smart people surface the top 1% of 1% of stuff I'd probably find interesting.
The notion of reading Substack posts just because I'm a subscriber seems like fantasy.
Re: Substack writers, you need a website
#214Writing itself takes a lot of effort.
First:
1.You have to define your target audience.
2.You have to choose topics they'll find interesting.
3.You need to collect materials.
4.You read through the materials, build the structure, and go through multiple drafts and revisions.
Even a short post usually takes about a week. And even after all that, will people actually read it? Not really. So I have to promote it on external sites like HN and Reddit, and keep updating the sitemap until my site starts showing up in Google search results.
The problem is that most people want to make money through writing. That's completely understandable. With the economy getting tougher, even hobbies cost money.
The issue is that once you step away from platforms like Substack and Medium, it becomes much harder for people to find your content, and you lose the community itself. In fact, that's the real strength of Substack and Medium—people are already there to spend money because they're earning from the same ecosystem. But if you move to an independent site, even putting up ads can cause strong backlash (especially since Google often shows low-quality ads—like porn ads—to people who don't share their personal data).
In my case, I created my site because I needed a portfolio that made me look professional. Since I don't have experience at prestigious companies or universities, and I've mostly moved between small contractors, I needed something to show that I know certain things, have relevant experience, and have built actual products. (In the Korean market, the only work available to programmers without capital is small NDA-bound jobs.)
On the other hand, people with good careers don't need to take this risk—their reputation comes from successful products they've worked on in the market.
So I needed a metric like 'I run my own site, it uses MSA, and I have experience running it stably over the long term.' Of course, I could list the projects I've worked on, but most of them don't have a strong track record of market success. So I think that unless you're in a special situation, it's better to stay within existing writing communities.
Re: Substack writers, you need a website
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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.
Re: Substack writers, you need a website
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Are you implying something about Facebook is convenient?
Why do you think it became successful?
Re: Substack writers, you need a website
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
Substack notes is non exportable; the newsletter now no longer have a link to read it on your site on substack and instead link to the substack app, and subscriptions started in the app pay Substack through Apple and Google and you can't export them. Substack has become a roach motel but they pretend otherwise
Thanks for this. I can hear Substack marketing saying that “We don’t have any intention to put you into a vendor-lock.” I had a lot of discussions with companies about their marketing. Why do you upload your events’ photos to FB instead of your site? Why do you have news on LI feed and don’t make it a post on your site as well? Do you think they can hear it? :) Substack is going to become a similar service as FB, LI…
Re: Substack writers, you need a website
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know anything about the specific situation you’re referencing. That being said, getting mad at an organization, one that is built to be a “platform” for people to share their words, for not going out of its way to police which people share which words, seems to me to be unproductive at best, if not actively close minded and tribalistic.
Sure, tolerate Nazis, give them a place to share their words, let them be part of the mainstream, let them take part in elections, play their dirty tricks and form paramilitaries and win control of government. It's a shame that that leads to certain groups, like Jews, LGBTQ, non-whites, or immigrants getting exterminated, but that's just the price you have to pay for free speech.
Re: Substack writers, you need a website
#219I use hugo to build my website and I wrote my own theme. It's clunky, but control over the design/build lets me:
- Put PyIodide into posts to make ML code explainers interactive (https://iahmed.me/post/poor_mans_autograd/)
- Inject custom widgets to illustrate theoretical ideas (https://iahmed.me/post/surprise-derivation-entropy/)
- Have multiple layouts to suit my needs (https://iahmed.me/resume/ rendered from json at build time for SEO)
On the flip side, I'm not good at SEO :) It works because SEO is not my primary goal, but I'd love to have a bigger audience. The flexibility I'm afforded is an ok compromise.Re: Substack writers, you need a website
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook didn't have the feed initially either (and it was really disliked when it was introduced - people thought it was like stalking). But yes to your second point. Real people who you actually wanted to know and had actually met were on Facebook. That wasn't really true of any of the other sites.
Little did we know back then how many people were yearning to have stalkers. "This person wants to be notified every time I put something online" sounded incredibly creepy in the mid-aughts!
People love attention when it's people they know and like hanging out with.
The thing that degraded Facebook and Instagram is that they're not like that anymore, they're about maximizing content so that you spend as much time on their apps as possible.
If you just want to view content they are great for that, but I'd almost argue that they're not even social networks anymore. They are much closer to a smartphone version of cable television with mildly interactive elements.