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

Substack Notes Launched

on.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 789 posts

Re: Substack Notes Launched

#461

Post by Karrot_Kream »

wpietri wrote: post #348
Pxtl wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm loving Mastodon myself (@pxtl@mastodon.social) but I worry that the UI stumbling blocks caused by the multi-server system and the far-poorer discoverability than what we're used to from Twitter will keep it from growing well -- twitter's algorithmic feed and relevant-to-the-user trending topics and features like that help make twitter feel lively even for a new user even with just a handful of follows. I don't kn…

I think "is X the next Twitter" is the wrong question to ask. When I started working at Twitter (now years ago) my relatives asked me if they should join. And after thinking about it, my honest answer was "no". The only person who needs to be on Twitter is somebody who wants to feel like they're part of a global conversation. Most people just don't and won't. Twitter is only successful because it started in an era wh…

Everyone I talked to who worked at or joined Twitter early on talks about how they felt like they were part of a global conversation but it was always really puzzling to me. I read Twitter occasionally in the early days but most of my friends were on IRC or GChat, with a lot being offline, and my networks migrated but never got onto Twitter. Twitter never really felt that relevant to me and over time it felt like it only got more not less insular. I lurked on it the way I lurked on tons of IRC channels. Once IRC began to fade, early Reddit (from the founding) was where I found the community I was looking for.

My feeling as an outsider is that Twitter was useful and valuable ("high engagement") for the folks who enjoyed the culture that built up on the platform, but for everyone else it was always a bit insular and self-important. Since Twitter's founding, more and more online communities and spaces have sprung up, so if Twitter does indeed decline in usage its regulars will diffuse into the many other alternatives that have sprung up.

That's my $0.02 at least as someone who's watched from the sidelines for a couple decades.

Re: Substack Notes Launched

#462

Post by bee_rider »

AlbertCory wrote: post #145
galdor wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m curious, what works better than Twitter for this kind of use case? Mastodon is better than Twitter for me, but it still is very slow.

I'm not on Mastodon. So that works? Actually, this site is usually the best, and Facebook (the latter might reflect my audience). Reddit subs tend to censor any attempt at self-promotion, which you can't blame them for, I guess. And StackExchange is the absolute worst. The level of asshole-ness there has to be seen to be believed.

Is it really asshole-ness?

YC/Reddit/SE being good/bad/worse for self-promotion seems to be 100% in line with the intended use of these sites.

Re: Substack Notes Launched

#463

Post by gonzo41 »

mrkramer wrote: post #424
spaceman_2020 wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. ChatGPT is very, very new, and habits change slowly 2. For non plus users, chatGPT UX is poor with slow responses, captchas and random logouts 3. All of this will eventually change There is no more major growth for Google, which is all that matters to Wall Street. It will go down slowly, but it will go down.

Google wanted to be an Answer Machine before ChatGPT hence "I'm Feeling Lucky" button but road to there is long and hard. I think the biggest Google's problems are SEO spam often coupled with scams and fraud and last but not least, lack of transparency on how exactly they rank their search results.

I don't think we should pretend that google doesn't have the power to crush spam today if it wanted to. They have chosen to let scrappers have top spots in their search results and their reputation is dying as a result.

Re: Substack Notes Launched

#464

Post by nemo44x »

Shekelphile wrote: post #152
canadiantim wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon paid 44 billion for twitter's existing users and wanting to overthrow the censorship regime that was defacto the standard before Elon bought twitter. Thank god Elon bought twitter and made it possible for other social media sites to be more open to free-speech.

'Censorship regime'? In the time since Musk took over twitter I've gotten right-wing tweets forced into my feed despite not following a single right winger and a ton of high profile people have been banned for speaking out about him. Not to mention that old Twitter never hamfistedly censored people by straight up shadowbanning users for using the words 'mastodon' or 'substack' in their tweets.

You literally said Twitter is less of an echo chamber and that makes me upset. I enjoy seeing a wide spectrum of ideas.

Re: Substack Notes Launched

#465

Post by nicenewtemp84 »

nr2x wrote: post #414
nicenewtemp84 wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely doesn't make it a good idea. But it's still interesting that he's playing with one of the most talked about sites on the internet without really affecting his finances at all. Of all the random things to do with your money, it's not even that bad of an experiment.

He’s just a rich kid pulling the legs off an ant. I actually find it perverse.

He's not a kid using his parents money. He's using his own and his personal name/reputation to secure money. He's not hurting an ant. He fired people and let them go find other jobs which seems pretty fair instead of for example reducing their pay drastically and forcing them to quit, or paying them minimum wage and profit sharing. Which still would have been pretty fair IMO. Not every ceo or company owners needs to be operating a charity like the previous Twitter CEO was.

Re: Substack Notes Launched

#466

Post by russellbeattie »

phtrivier wrote: post #380
russellbeattie wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly right. Because they will have to. If you follow 100 people who post 3 times a day, that's 300 posts. You're awake 16 hours a day, so an average of ~18 posts per hour, or 1 every 3 minutes. Many users follow way more people and/or follow accounts which post much more often. Having a non-algorithmic feed means that posters will see low levels of engagement and users will quickly be overwhelmed with thei…

> If, on the other hand, posts are ranked based on user popularity and engagement and that rank affects its position in subscriber feeds, then it's a virtuous cycle where more people will be directed to interesting posts, and those posters will be incentivised to post more. ... or it's a vicious cycle when someone understand which kind of cheaply generated content games the recommandation system the best. If history…

I don’t disagree in any way. But in the short term, an algorithmic feed will be the only way to make the service “sticky”. But yes, any algorithm can and will be gamed and it’s a cat and mouse game from that point on.

Re: Substack Notes Launched

#467

Post by blackshaw »

PaulHoule wrote: post #307

Substack really competes with creators leaving and setting up their own newsletter + payment gateway software. That’s like a $20,000 or so project from a web dev firm and for a creator who gets $200,000 a year from their newsletter it pays for itself in a year. The trouble is that substack makes almost all of its money from two handfuls of users who make more than that so if substack loses those creators it is left w…

$20,000? I could code up a basic newsletter app in half a day's work, with payments handled by Stripe.

If it's really possible to charge $20,000 for this service then please tell me where to find clients.

Re: Substack Notes Launched

#468

Post by Thorentis »

They should add a paid add-on where writers can have an LLM generate snippets from their articles and then post them as notes automatically in order to generate a bite sized feed from existing content. Gives Substack a foot in the AI door and paves the way for timelines and algorithmic feeds, etc.

Re: Substack Notes Launched

#469

Post by freejazz »

btilly wrote: post #327
a4isms wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There still isn't much of a reason to move away from it, except for those who want to signal their disdain for Musk's political views This says so much more about you than about anyone leaving Twitter. I'm a person of colour. Do I have not have a reason to leave a web site that platforms people who espouse the belief that my children are a disease that needs to be eradicated with fire?[1] Of course I do, and you know…

You are arguing that people should share your disdain for Musk's political views. You are not arguing against the claim that this is the only really strong reason why people would want to leave. Second, libertarian ideals around free speech say that fairly engaging people whose views you disagree with is a better way to change minds than deplatforming them. That is because deplatforming them just encourages them to m…

Ah yes, legitimizing people rioting in the US capitol because Twitter censors, when they aren't busy drinking bleach!

Re: Substack Notes Launched

#470

Post by q7xvh97o2pDhNrh »

mikpanko wrote: post #460
q7xvh97o2pDhNrh wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having been in/around the game for a good few years, I can assure you it's not nearly as complicated as they try to make it sound. The game works like this: the VCs want 100% of your company, and you want to give away 0% of your company. (Of course, 90%+ of companies will fail, so it doesn't really matter. But let's pretend we're all in that special 10%.) If you do end up choosing to play that particular game, then y…

In my experience the reality is much more nuanced: - VCs don’t want founders to own 0% of their company because founders need to be motivated to work hard to make it a success - % of dilution usually goes down very significantly over funding rounds - there is significant competition between VCs to fund good startups these days, which can translate to founder leverage - there are early-stage VCs these days, which don’…

> there are early-stage VCs these days, which don’t pressure founders for quick growth

That's really interesting. Do you know how they make that work, exactly?

I feel like that's naturally opposed to the standard incentive structures that VCs have with their LPs. They need to show results in O(years) so they can raise their next fund and keep the overall VC firm going over O(decades). That maps down straightforwardly to the day-to-day pressure VCs put on all their portfolio companies to grow as fast as possible.

Unless early-stage VCs are doing something new with the terms they give their LPs, how could they prioritize anything other than growth?

Post reply on HN