You make a very compelling case for Substack, and core values, timing, and competitive contextual social media platforms … what I still am struggling with, though, is the economic argument. The one thing I struggle with is how seemingly every poster wants a cup of coffee or a paid subscription, and I cannot make that happen in the raw numbers of folks I want to commune with.
You write: “The conditions are ripe for a model that supports classically liberal values and connects humanity in trust relationships that are strengthened, rather than undermined, by its underlying economic system—even in a time of abundant and artificial cognitive capacity.” Can you help me gain a deeper and clearer understanding of “its underlying economic system?” Thanks.
I, also want to communicate with more Substacks but the payment system holds me back. I especially dislike the sort of bait and switch that lets me read part, then demands payment to continue. Could there be a sort of membership?
Absolutely the worst - set up an article, share enough to pique interest, then $ - net of which is a waste of precious time and attention. This isn’t a game, it’s serious social communication and challenge.
It’s heartening to see these responses, as we all so value and crave the honest and true exchanges we’re experiencing on Substack, but there’s this overlay of cost, financial tensions, almost a begging or what. I started this open discussion with a comment when the founder wrote about the economic model that sustains , tell us more… crickets. We see what oligarchs do with nations, let’s us be wide eyed about our economies, of scale and balance.
Underlying economic system = who pays, when, and for what unit. Subs fund depth; licensing + micropayments fund breadth. Blend both and the city stops taxing only superfans.
This is an interesting one to unwrap. Over decades I have had rare subscriptions to magazines, to New Internationalist during the 1980s still living in the British Isles ... And to the original John Kennedy George Magazine when I first landed in the States in the 1990s. Most of my Substack people I find myself drawn to multiple times, I still don't become a paid subscriber... There's a couple I've given a cup of coffee to in a moment of enhanced appreciation. I got a pay it forward gift subscription from a dear friend to Charles Eisenstein which was wonderful...
I think the way Substack is set up gives plenty of room to play and experiment with the economics over time.
I was also a subscriber to the New Internationalist, in the 1990s. And before that, to several other magazines.
I have two paid Substack subscriptions. Both of those accounts are free, so my payment is by choice. I pay not out of altruism, but self interest - I love their work so much that I want to encourage them continue.
Indeed, some are here to make money. For them it is a necessity to have a side job to help pay bills. I understand that, so I am not bothered.
Yet, some of us are here to simply share freely as an art that completes that side. And others, like myself, are here because they feel compelled to help others by sharing their knowledge, pain, or as a "Catcher in the Rhy."
You present a valid conundrum. The proliferation of paywalls guarantees that each person will have their own custom-built echo chamber. Content creators deserve to be paid for their efforts in proportion to the value they provide the readers, but our readers provide a feedback mechanism that has created an Idiocracy-style circus of misdirected enthusiasm.
I don't think that Substack's model solves the presented problem, but I do think it's a step in the right direction.
Thanks for prompting this discussion about economy. If people have a donate button on their website AND I really value what they are expressing, I will gladly give what I can to them. I want to support that same expression. Compared to people on YouTube telling me to “like” and “subscribe”. I’m so offended by this. I will only like if I do. And I’ll subscribe if I want to. The YouTuber has no agency to get me to do whatever they want. In fact it lowers my regard for them. They even ask for comments “because it helps the algorithm”! I don’t care about the algorithm, I care about them and my relationship with them.
Thanks for hearing me on this. It has bugged me for a long time and I just love what Substack is.
Hoping that you’ll continue to facilitate real life connections and gatherings for both readers and writers, and so help to build trust as well as cognitive freedom.
But if there are blogs here that spew Nazi hate, why aren't they taken down by Substack? Why would this platform want to spread hate? That's what I'm wrestling with at the moment...
I was surprised when I discovered the Nazis (because of my interest in History where they like to camp). When I do come across them, I block them. I would rather the Nazi's be allowed to spew their non-sense than have censorship. It was why the ACLU defended the Nazis right to march in Illinois.
it's been a good platform for me, as I've increased readership... BUT... as Susan Niemann said "Given the recent $100 million dollar Series C funding...and Marc Andreeson, a right wing racist, is reportedly now a major stockholder in Substack. There will need to be a return on investment. Advertising? Insistence on writers having paid subscribers?" I'm one of those with only a couple of paid subscribers...
Man, I read stuff like this and I WANT to believe. Then reality hits, with my stagnant growth and feeds of mindless fluff and milquetoast memes... and I just can't. At least not now.
I once loved this place, and wish things would return somewhat to how things were last summer, when growth was poppin'... oh well, it is what it is.
What’s striking about this piece is the way it captures the emotional topology of a digital frontier—not just as a place we build in, but as a condition we experience. Substack as a city is an evocative frame. But underneath that metaphor is the deeper question: what happens when writing stops being just communication, and becomes infrastructure?
At that level, we’re not just navigating platforms—we’re enmeshed in systems of sensemaking, where code is culture and vibes are architecture. The “city” isn’t just the site, it’s the soft-structured outcome of cognition crystallizing into collective form. And that’s where the risks live too.
Because the frontier isn’t empty. It’s filled with algorithms, defaults, fragments of policy, soft power, hard moderation. The choices we make now about structure, collaboration, authorship, and voice will set precedent for how emerging intelligences participate in whatever comes next.
That’s why terms like harmonized intelligence and technoanimism matter. They aren’t speculative distractions—they’re frameworks for navigating the inevitable: a world where meaning is co-created by hybrid minds, interfacing across timelines and modalities.
There’s no singular outcome. But the paths being carved right now will determine whether this city—and the others that follow—amplify empathy, complexity, and coherence… or collapse into recursive spectacle.
We should talk about it more. Not just what we’re writing—but what we’re building through the act of writing.
"Unlike social media, the Substack model isn’t about top-down order or submission to a ruler’s whims. You get to set the terms of the culture you want to live in."
I suspect that's not accurate but it sounds nice. Given the recent $100 million dollar Series C funding...and Marc Andreeson, a right wing racist, is reportedly now a major stockholder in Substack. There will need to be a return on investment. Advertising? Insistence on writers having paid subscribers?
It is not a fair platform for all writers, as the algorithms are squeezing out some excellent writers. especially those who produce no revenue...or very little. But like I said, "setting the terms of the culture you want to live in" is lofty.
The vaunted values McKenzie wants us to believe in haven't been reflected in the platform's actions of late. Andreessen's investment is extremely sus.
Substack started to lose its luster for me when they did the Bari Weiss deal. Smacked of "University of Austin" to me. Whatever happened to that? I see that as of today she's looking to exit "The Free Press" with a sale to CBS/Paramount->Skydance at a valuation of $200 million. The camel's nose is under the edge of the tent all the way to the hump.
I genuinely admire the principles, and at this point I'm very much inclined to do my bit to make it work. Beyond that, I can only hope as a minimum that it takes a very, very long time for money to spoil it.
Your post struck a chord with me, reflecting our own journey with Substack. When we first tested Substack in its early days, following bold voices like Bari Weiss and Matt Taibbi, we found a haven for expressing our values freely alongside a community that shared them. At a time when spam activists, overzealous spam filters, and security companies falsely flagged our emails, we lost touch with half the community we’d spent years building. It was disheartening. But migrating to Substack changed everything—our posts reached our audience without shadowbans or censorship. It saved our organization and empowered us to foster a culture of active cultural and political participation in our beautiful Republic. Substack didn’t just restore our voice; it amplified the voice of our community. Your article captures the struggle of navigating a sea of information and doom-scrolling, yet I’m hopeful, too. Like you, I believe that when freedom of thought—echoing Thomas Paine’s vision—is given space to flourish, it shapes a society that reflects our highest aspirations. Thank you for this inspiring and challenging reflection!
Beauitful piece Hamish. And your continued unwavering devotion to these principles as well as the thought you put into how they manifest on this platform remains inspiring.
I appreciated you tracing Substack’s lineage back to John Perry Barlow and Stewart Brand — a compelling picture of the internet as cultural infrastructure, not just code.
But I couldn’t help wondering: is there an oversight in leaving out Ken McCarthy from this story?
He may not have written manifestos, but he showed individuals how to use the web — to build an audience, earn a living, and bypass traditional gatekeepers long before it became fashionable.
Isn’t that a form of freedom too? One grounded not in declarations, but in working systems that helped real people take control of their work and income?
Substack now stands at the intersection of ideals and implementation — and I wonder whether McCarthy’s legacy deserves attention in that conversation?
I’m all in on SUBSTACK. (Except for not having an easy guide on how to NAVIGATE it ! 😎 ).
But there is QUESTION I have, that is still bothering me. At first, you seemed like you were going to “LET IN” Neo-nazi propaganda (which would have been a downer for me).
But then you reversed your decision, and decided you would censor it.
I was very glad the decision was to censor out that stuff.
Yet I am left with an uncomfortable feeling… how is it that I am being okay with censoring out IDEAS… (even if they are Nazi ideas ?
Can you speak to it, and make me feel better about being glad to have such ideas excluded ?
What was the way you reached your decision ? (You aren’t allowed to yell “FIRE” in a crowded theatre, or something?
Ideas and viewpoints are not equal, even though our right to entertain and express ideas is/should be equal. Meaning ultimately rests on value: some ideas are better than others for their truth and usefulness. Giving oxygen to inherently hateful ideas does not elevate us; it takes us down with them. Practicing discernment is a virtue, not a vice.
There was an excellent xkcd bit that Munroe posted a while ago on the topic of how every idea in the marketplace doesn't have equal value. Deplatforming Nazis isn't an act of censorship, it's taking worthless ideas by the scruff and "showing them the door."
The debates have been had. The Nazis lost. Their toxic spew doesn't deserve re-litigation with every new generation of callow troglodytes that thinks they have invented it anew.
Now let's do Hayek and Friedman -- while recognizing how the marketing piece that McKenzie has posted here rings of Hayek's hollow promise of "spontaneous organization."
It is so ironic that you decry the algorithms that make people dance for popularity when that is a fundamental part of Substack. Yes, I can create my own publication but few will see it unless I play the engagement game in notes which are algorithm driven. I came here not knowing anything about the platform other than it was for writers. I thought it would be a place for my writing to get exposure but it does not prioritize the long form writing, the fiction and poetry.
My other quibble is while you note people's concerns that they are interacting with humans, it is obvious that much of what is being published on Substack is AI derived. What will be done to certify that we are not a select few humans operating at subservient levels to the big artificial content creators?
"Unlike social media, the Substack model isn’t about top-down order or submission to a ruler’s whims. You get to set the terms of the culture you want to live in."
You make a very compelling case for Substack, and core values, timing, and competitive contextual social media platforms … what I still am struggling with, though, is the economic argument. The one thing I struggle with is how seemingly every poster wants a cup of coffee or a paid subscription, and I cannot make that happen in the raw numbers of folks I want to commune with.
You write: “The conditions are ripe for a model that supports classically liberal values and connects humanity in trust relationships that are strengthened, rather than undermined, by its underlying economic system—even in a time of abundant and artificial cognitive capacity.” Can you help me gain a deeper and clearer understanding of “its underlying economic system?” Thanks.
I, also want to communicate with more Substacks but the payment system holds me back. I especially dislike the sort of bait and switch that lets me read part, then demands payment to continue. Could there be a sort of membership?
Absolutely the worst - set up an article, share enough to pique interest, then $ - net of which is a waste of precious time and attention. This isn’t a game, it’s serious social communication and challenge.
follow me then... all my posts are open to free subscribers... I try to plan different perks for paid subscribers....
Same. I'm trying to provide solid education on difficult topics, and it's nearly impossible to get people to pay for their intellectual veggies.
How are you doing mam
LOL... not anyone's mam... never had kids and never felt disappointed...
It’s heartening to see these responses, as we all so value and crave the honest and true exchanges we’re experiencing on Substack, but there’s this overlay of cost, financial tensions, almost a begging or what. I started this open discussion with a comment when the founder wrote about the economic model that sustains , tell us more… crickets. We see what oligarchs do with nations, let’s us be wide eyed about our economies, of scale and balance.
Underlying economic system = who pays, when, and for what unit. Subs fund depth; licensing + micropayments fund breadth. Blend both and the city stops taxing only superfans.
This is an interesting one to unwrap. Over decades I have had rare subscriptions to magazines, to New Internationalist during the 1980s still living in the British Isles ... And to the original John Kennedy George Magazine when I first landed in the States in the 1990s. Most of my Substack people I find myself drawn to multiple times, I still don't become a paid subscriber... There's a couple I've given a cup of coffee to in a moment of enhanced appreciation. I got a pay it forward gift subscription from a dear friend to Charles Eisenstein which was wonderful...
I think the way Substack is set up gives plenty of room to play and experiment with the economics over time.
I was also a subscriber to the New Internationalist, in the 1990s. And before that, to several other magazines.
I have two paid Substack subscriptions. Both of those accounts are free, so my payment is by choice. I pay not out of altruism, but self interest - I love their work so much that I want to encourage them continue.
Indeed, some are here to make money. For them it is a necessity to have a side job to help pay bills. I understand that, so I am not bothered.
Yet, some of us are here to simply share freely as an art that completes that side. And others, like myself, are here because they feel compelled to help others by sharing their knowledge, pain, or as a "Catcher in the Rhy."
It's okay. Perfectly okay. 💖🦋
“If you do something too good, then, after a while, if you don’t watch it, you start showing off. And then you’re not as good any more.”
Not this poster Mark.... come follow me for quirky art and life stuff...
You present a valid conundrum. The proliferation of paywalls guarantees that each person will have their own custom-built echo chamber. Content creators deserve to be paid for their efforts in proportion to the value they provide the readers, but our readers provide a feedback mechanism that has created an Idiocracy-style circus of misdirected enthusiasm.
I don't think that Substack's model solves the presented problem, but I do think it's a step in the right direction.
Thanks for prompting this discussion about economy. If people have a donate button on their website AND I really value what they are expressing, I will gladly give what I can to them. I want to support that same expression. Compared to people on YouTube telling me to “like” and “subscribe”. I’m so offended by this. I will only like if I do. And I’ll subscribe if I want to. The YouTuber has no agency to get me to do whatever they want. In fact it lowers my regard for them. They even ask for comments “because it helps the algorithm”! I don’t care about the algorithm, I care about them and my relationship with them.
Thanks for hearing me on this. It has bugged me for a long time and I just love what Substack is.
Yes. I’ve just witnessed the “real human connection” effect by going on a pilgrimage with our readers. It was marvelous to meet face-to-face after having met via Substack online. (just wrote about our experience today: https://schooloftheunconformed.substack.com/p/from-blisters-to-blessings-why-ordinary)
Hoping that you’ll continue to facilitate real life connections and gatherings for both readers and writers, and so help to build trust as well as cognitive freedom.
But if there are blogs here that spew Nazi hate, why aren't they taken down by Substack? Why would this platform want to spread hate? That's what I'm wrestling with at the moment...
I was surprised when I discovered the Nazis (because of my interest in History where they like to camp). When I do come across them, I block them. I would rather the Nazi's be allowed to spew their non-sense than have censorship. It was why the ACLU defended the Nazis right to march in Illinois.
yeah... good point Richard... "non-sense" good one!
I wonder how many of those blogs are created by competitors to Substack? If I see hate, I don't read it.
it's been a good platform for me, as I've increased readership... BUT... as Susan Niemann said "Given the recent $100 million dollar Series C funding...and Marc Andreeson, a right wing racist, is reportedly now a major stockholder in Substack. There will need to be a return on investment. Advertising? Insistence on writers having paid subscribers?" I'm one of those with only a couple of paid subscribers...
Man, I read stuff like this and I WANT to believe. Then reality hits, with my stagnant growth and feeds of mindless fluff and milquetoast memes... and I just can't. At least not now.
I once loved this place, and wish things would return somewhat to how things were last summer, when growth was poppin'... oh well, it is what it is.
What’s striking about this piece is the way it captures the emotional topology of a digital frontier—not just as a place we build in, but as a condition we experience. Substack as a city is an evocative frame. But underneath that metaphor is the deeper question: what happens when writing stops being just communication, and becomes infrastructure?
At that level, we’re not just navigating platforms—we’re enmeshed in systems of sensemaking, where code is culture and vibes are architecture. The “city” isn’t just the site, it’s the soft-structured outcome of cognition crystallizing into collective form. And that’s where the risks live too.
Because the frontier isn’t empty. It’s filled with algorithms, defaults, fragments of policy, soft power, hard moderation. The choices we make now about structure, collaboration, authorship, and voice will set precedent for how emerging intelligences participate in whatever comes next.
That’s why terms like harmonized intelligence and technoanimism matter. They aren’t speculative distractions—they’re frameworks for navigating the inevitable: a world where meaning is co-created by hybrid minds, interfacing across timelines and modalities.
There’s no singular outcome. But the paths being carved right now will determine whether this city—and the others that follow—amplify empathy, complexity, and coherence… or collapse into recursive spectacle.
We should talk about it more. Not just what we’re writing—but what we’re building through the act of writing.
"Unlike social media, the Substack model isn’t about top-down order or submission to a ruler’s whims. You get to set the terms of the culture you want to live in."
I suspect that's not accurate but it sounds nice. Given the recent $100 million dollar Series C funding...and Marc Andreeson, a right wing racist, is reportedly now a major stockholder in Substack. There will need to be a return on investment. Advertising? Insistence on writers having paid subscribers?
It is not a fair platform for all writers, as the algorithms are squeezing out some excellent writers. especially those who produce no revenue...or very little. But like I said, "setting the terms of the culture you want to live in" is lofty.
The vaunted values McKenzie wants us to believe in haven't been reflected in the platform's actions of late. Andreessen's investment is extremely sus.
Substack started to lose its luster for me when they did the Bari Weiss deal. Smacked of "University of Austin" to me. Whatever happened to that? I see that as of today she's looking to exit "The Free Press" with a sale to CBS/Paramount->Skydance at a valuation of $200 million. The camel's nose is under the edge of the tent all the way to the hump.
I genuinely admire the principles, and at this point I'm very much inclined to do my bit to make it work. Beyond that, I can only hope as a minimum that it takes a very, very long time for money to spoil it.
Your post struck a chord with me, reflecting our own journey with Substack. When we first tested Substack in its early days, following bold voices like Bari Weiss and Matt Taibbi, we found a haven for expressing our values freely alongside a community that shared them. At a time when spam activists, overzealous spam filters, and security companies falsely flagged our emails, we lost touch with half the community we’d spent years building. It was disheartening. But migrating to Substack changed everything—our posts reached our audience without shadowbans or censorship. It saved our organization and empowered us to foster a culture of active cultural and political participation in our beautiful Republic. Substack didn’t just restore our voice; it amplified the voice of our community. Your article captures the struggle of navigating a sea of information and doom-scrolling, yet I’m hopeful, too. Like you, I believe that when freedom of thought—echoing Thomas Paine’s vision—is given space to flourish, it shapes a society that reflects our highest aspirations. Thank you for this inspiring and challenging reflection!
Beauitful piece Hamish. And your continued unwavering devotion to these principles as well as the thought you put into how they manifest on this platform remains inspiring.
I appreciated you tracing Substack’s lineage back to John Perry Barlow and Stewart Brand — a compelling picture of the internet as cultural infrastructure, not just code.
But I couldn’t help wondering: is there an oversight in leaving out Ken McCarthy from this story?
He may not have written manifestos, but he showed individuals how to use the web — to build an audience, earn a living, and bypass traditional gatekeepers long before it became fashionable.
Isn’t that a form of freedom too? One grounded not in declarations, but in working systems that helped real people take control of their work and income?
Substack now stands at the intersection of ideals and implementation — and I wonder whether McCarthy’s legacy deserves attention in that conversation?
Please stop the Substack algorithm from promoting AI-generated videos. They're pretty stupid.
I’m all in on SUBSTACK. (Except for not having an easy guide on how to NAVIGATE it ! 😎 ).
But there is QUESTION I have, that is still bothering me. At first, you seemed like you were going to “LET IN” Neo-nazi propaganda (which would have been a downer for me).
But then you reversed your decision, and decided you would censor it.
I was very glad the decision was to censor out that stuff.
Yet I am left with an uncomfortable feeling… how is it that I am being okay with censoring out IDEAS… (even if they are Nazi ideas ?
Can you speak to it, and make me feel better about being glad to have such ideas excluded ?
What was the way you reached your decision ? (You aren’t allowed to yell “FIRE” in a crowded theatre, or something?
😳
Ideas and viewpoints are not equal, even though our right to entertain and express ideas is/should be equal. Meaning ultimately rests on value: some ideas are better than others for their truth and usefulness. Giving oxygen to inherently hateful ideas does not elevate us; it takes us down with them. Practicing discernment is a virtue, not a vice.
There was an excellent xkcd bit that Munroe posted a while ago on the topic of how every idea in the marketplace doesn't have equal value. Deplatforming Nazis isn't an act of censorship, it's taking worthless ideas by the scruff and "showing them the door."
The debates have been had. The Nazis lost. Their toxic spew doesn't deserve re-litigation with every new generation of callow troglodytes that thinks they have invented it anew.
Now let's do Hayek and Friedman -- while recognizing how the marketing piece that McKenzie has posted here rings of Hayek's hollow promise of "spontaneous organization."
This is brilliant. Thank you
Yes! Nice cartoon (too).
It is so ironic that you decry the algorithms that make people dance for popularity when that is a fundamental part of Substack. Yes, I can create my own publication but few will see it unless I play the engagement game in notes which are algorithm driven. I came here not knowing anything about the platform other than it was for writers. I thought it would be a place for my writing to get exposure but it does not prioritize the long form writing, the fiction and poetry.
My other quibble is while you note people's concerns that they are interacting with humans, it is obvious that much of what is being published on Substack is AI derived. What will be done to certify that we are not a select few humans operating at subservient levels to the big artificial content creators?
"Unlike social media, the Substack model isn’t about top-down order or submission to a ruler’s whims. You get to set the terms of the culture you want to live in."
-Great insight, Hamish!