I think one of the issues is that these people have such a centralized mindset, that they cannot comprehend the concept of decentralization itself. To borrow a metaphor from Mass Effect, explaining a decentralized subscription service like Substack to a New York Times executive is like trying to explain color to a creature with no eyes. …
I think one of the issues is that these people have such a centralized mindset, that they cannot comprehend the concept of decentralization itself. To borrow a metaphor from Mass Effect, explaining a decentralized subscription service like Substack to a New York Times executive is like trying to explain color to a creature with no eyes. It just will not compute. The only way they can make sense of it is to centralize it which of course defeats the point in the first place.
The ruling elite are becoming increasingly irrelevant as more decentralized alternatives emerge. They are shocked to find out that people are demanding they put out something of actual worth and value. When something like Substack comes around and rewards people who do put out something of value, it is a direct threat against them. Right now, they are trying to minimize independent creators. Just wait until they get more desperate after their copy-cat attempts fail. They will get nasty, but they are dinosaurs and the meteor already hit.
Also the extreme moderation of comments in the old media made them no fun. It was like being in church. The Substack commenters are mostly thoughtful and have provided many citations and ideas that expand the creator's observations.
also substack has introduced me to so many smart and talented writers...like salome sibonex, michael tracey, justin smith, Niccolo Soldo, and...kathleen mccook ;))
Really, after a year of Substack..such a relief from being voiceless it's a relief to have back & forth with some humor and the commenters here often fill in a lot of blanks or have memories or recommends that enrich the creator's initial post. And no censorship and hardly anyone seems to be hanging desperately to a party agenda.
I subscribe to Substack writers in the same way one might hire an attorney to sort out conflicting legal theories. I hire an independent professional journalist beholden to no one but his clients. All I ask for is help sorting out the sh^t from shinola I see in the competing media narratives.
I don't think it's super significant. He's making even more and as pointed out below, he's really trying to reach people. One of his best qualities, he's a really good guy who's sincere in thinking his analyses will help people.
It's not like they said "We've got a big bag labeled "Swag" and you just have to preach CRT for us. Remember, only two answers for any negative event:
The comments area of most Substack articles are more coherent and ring truer that most featured stories by the corporate media. The average responder has more honesty and integrity that every NYT hack getting a byline and salary for writing what they are directed to by their masters in the newsrooms. The actors on the cable nets are usually readers of prepared copy who never leave the confines of the building they broadcast from. Their sources are the editors at the top of a very rancid organizational chart. It is all 1984 style disinformation by paid performers.
Remember when it came out that the young staff at NYT insisted that they talk about race more often because EVERY story is about race in some way? Imagine that world view. These people are miserable.
Yes, they have a ton of money but they are also completely useless. We don't need them. We don't need their charity. We don't need their influence. We don't need their gate keeping. They are becoming culturally and socially irrelevant. They are not dictating the trajectory of culture anymore. They have all the money in the world but are losing what truly matters.
I think one of the issues is that these people have such a centralized mindset, that they cannot comprehend the concept of decentralization itself. To borrow a metaphor from Mass Effect, explaining a decentralized subscription service like Substack to a New York Times executive is like trying to explain color to a creature with no eyes. It just will not compute. The only way they can make sense of it is to centralize it which of course defeats the point in the first place.
The ruling elite are becoming increasingly irrelevant as more decentralized alternatives emerge. They are shocked to find out that people are demanding they put out something of actual worth and value. When something like Substack comes around and rewards people who do put out something of value, it is a direct threat against them. Right now, they are trying to minimize independent creators. Just wait until they get more desperate after their copy-cat attempts fail. They will get nasty, but they are dinosaurs and the meteor already hit.
Also the extreme moderation of comments in the old media made them no fun. It was like being in church. The Substack commenters are mostly thoughtful and have provided many citations and ideas that expand the creator's observations.
also substack has introduced me to so many smart and talented writers...like salome sibonex, michael tracey, justin smith, Niccolo Soldo, and...kathleen mccook ;))
I have commenter favs, too, CP
Really, after a year of Substack..such a relief from being voiceless it's a relief to have back & forth with some humor and the commenters here often fill in a lot of blanks or have memories or recommends that enrich the creator's initial post. And no censorship and hardly anyone seems to be hanging desperately to a party agenda.
We got in early on a cool scene. I hope it stays that way...
Unfortunately, the scene always seems to rapidly decay. "Hey, you remember that cool scene?"
I'm the guy who ruins it.
You called it, dude.
I subscribe to Substack writers in the same way one might hire an attorney to sort out conflicting legal theories. I hire an independent professional journalist beholden to no one but his clients. All I ask for is help sorting out the sh^t from shinola I see in the competing media narratives.
My strategy as well. Is anyone else but me discouraged to see that John McWhorter abandoned his substack for a NYT newsletter?
He is likely making more money and has a platform for reaching a wider audience. He may be back when his woke bosses tire of their cute contrarian.
I don't think it's super significant. He's making even more and as pointed out below, he's really trying to reach people. One of his best qualities, he's a really good guy who's sincere in thinking his analyses will help people.
It's not like they said "We've got a big bag labeled "Swag" and you just have to preach CRT for us. Remember, only two answers for any negative event:
1) racism
2) Trump."
Yes and no. He was preaching to the choir at Substack. I no longer read him, but I know his views at this point.
Good post so true
The comments area of most Substack articles are more coherent and ring truer that most featured stories by the corporate media. The average responder has more honesty and integrity that every NYT hack getting a byline and salary for writing what they are directed to by their masters in the newsrooms. The actors on the cable nets are usually readers of prepared copy who never leave the confines of the building they broadcast from. Their sources are the editors at the top of a very rancid organizational chart. It is all 1984 style disinformation by paid performers.
Remember when it came out that the young staff at NYT insisted that they talk about race more often because EVERY story is about race in some way? Imagine that world view. These people are miserable.
Before msm went online, newsletters and ‘The Well’ blog were huge
what I like so much abt. comments...all ages appreciated and knowledge of life before online.
The WELL. Sheesh. Always ALL CAPS. Which is funny, but also true.
Age (too old or too young) and historiography illiteracy
Da Duh DAH! "The ruling elite are becoming increasingly irrelevant..." meets "https://www.businessinsider.com/top-1-have-more-money-than-the-middle-class-2021-10"
Yes, they have a ton of money but they are also completely useless. We don't need them. We don't need their charity. We don't need their influence. We don't need their gate keeping. They are becoming culturally and socially irrelevant. They are not dictating the trajectory of culture anymore. They have all the money in the world but are losing what truly matters.
Let them fight among themselves no one cares
I care only to the extent I think it's funny. It's like watching a Brian De Palma movie.
So true Boris
And apologies for linking to Business Insider...fer shame fer shame...
It's OK, buddy. We all have to make the $$$
Lol. Thanks for the mea culpa. I had to, HAD TO call you out on it, lol.
Business Insider has whored themselves out so shamelessly, I won't even click on them.