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

Substack writers, you need a website

elizabethtai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 373 posts

Re: Substack writers, you need a website

#351

Post by marysminefnuf »

jonahx wrote: post #144
simonsarris wrote: post #107

I just have website.com and my Substack is subdomain.website.com. If I ever wanted to move off (I definitely don't!) I could keep all the urls exactly the same with self-hosting. But substack solved distribution (and community, and bookkeeping, un-distribution etc) and it solved getting paid for my writing, which is not enough to live on but its definitely significant and well appreciated. It is worth much more than…

> 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…

In my class students have to use their school issued google accounts for everythinggggg. Take from that what you will.

Re: Substack writers, you need a website

#352

Post by noosphr »

inigyou wrote: post #317
noosphr wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scratch liberal and a fascist bleeds.

I feel like you're probably interpreting that saying in the opposite of its intended meaning but there's not enough context to know for sure.

You could have just said the intended meaning.

Re: Substack writers, you need a website

#353

Post by akoboldfrying »

inigyou wrote: post #303
akoboldfrying wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, absolutely. Facebook became successful because at the time it was much more convenient than existing ways of accomplishing the same thing it did (interacting socially with other people, meeting new people), including even existing websites like myspace which were themselves more convenient than trying to create one's own website and grow a community, or traveling to meet people face-to-face. Why do you think it…

So... what about Facebook is convenient?

> interacting socially with other people, meeting new people

Re: Substack writers, you need a website

#354

Post by rpdillon »

samspot wrote: post #338
rpdillon wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I have found out the hard way that an entire generation or two of internet users has lost the ability to visit a website to see what's there. They rely on having notifications or emails come in so that they can react to things rather than proactively go seek them out. I tend to eschew push the forms of communication, for the same reason my mobile isn't covered in a colorful grid of apps: I want to actively be ch…

Ok, so if you want to read https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/ , which is now publishing less than once a month, you prefer to refresh the website once a week hoping there's an article to read? That's unimaginable to me. Most of the writers I read publish infrequently. Email is great. I don't have to be on any social media. Articles come in and I can read them at my leisure.

I deployed my own RSS reader to handle sites that update infrequently. That's still ultimately a pull, I just have an agent doing the pulling, and then I visit the site for my reader.

Re: Substack writers, you need a website

#355

Post by wizzwizz4 »

zahlman wrote: post #350
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I see no mention of the far right in the article I see no mention of the far right in Taylor Lorenz's article. I do see mentions of Donald Trump, DOGE, and the Republican party in the NYT article cited in the "Politics" section. As I understand, these entities are considered "right-wing" in US terms, and many of their actions would certainly be considered "extreme". ("Extreme" is somewhat subjective, so for the sak…

> For example, the Nazis By "contemporary" I meant contemporary to today , since those are the people who would potentially be doing these Substacks. I guess that was the wrong word.

I don't think "it is not currently World War III" is a very insightful statement.

Re: Substack writers, you need a website

#356

Post by inigyou »

noosphr wrote: post #352
inigyou wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you're probably interpreting that saying in the opposite of its intended meaning but there's not enough context to know for sure.

You could have just said the intended meaning.

You can't get that deep into politics on HN - you'll get flagged.

Re: Substack writers, you need a website

#357

Post by inigyou »

akoboldfrying wrote: post #353
inigyou wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So... what about Facebook is convenient?

> interacting socially with other people, meeting new people

I don't find Facebook a convenient way to meet new people or "interact socially with" people.

Re: Substack writers, you need a website

#358

Post by noosphr »

inigyou wrote: post #356
noosphr wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could have just said the intended meaning.

You can't get that deep into politics on HN - you'll get flagged.

>for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument

Re: Substack writers, you need a website

#359

Post by akoboldfrying »

inigyou wrote: post #357
akoboldfrying wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> interacting socially with other people, meeting new people

I don't find Facebook a convenient way to meet new people or "interact socially with" people.

Millions, possibly billions, did.

Re: Substack writers, you need a website

#360

Post by peteforde »

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #256
peteforde wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm an outlier, but I find that my main reason for discontinuing Ground News/Nebula/whatever is that I subscribe aspirationally and never actually make time to consume the content. One year I got my partner and I subscriptions to Masterclass and at the end of the year neither one of us had watched a single video. Basically, I don't know anyone who is ever bored. Who the hell has time to click on and read random…

I think curation is worth paying for, but only if the quality is extremely high (e.g. for a good newspaper).

That's why we're here. Even the lame posts on here have survived vastly more scrutiny by smart people than >99% of what is published online.
Post reply on HN