I really liked the first part, and most of this one, but the Substack infomercial it pivoted into at the end gives me serious ick. Substack is chasing money just like every other platform; that they’re doing it *differently* (which doesn’t automatically mean better) is a cheap gimmick. Substack reward writers who marry themselves to the platform, not necessarily to their art—not to mention, they rely on the work of fascist scrawlers like Richard Hanania for growth and success. All of these different ideologies cancel themselves out on Substack, because we can just silo ourselves off from the creators we don’t like, and they can thrive doing the same thing with us, just like TikTok. That doesn’t make for a better world, or better art, it just makes for compartmentalized and commodified self-expression. Substack is much more like the Zone of Interest than the new Renaissance.
Thank you for the comment Sem, and I totally understand where you’re coming from. I considered addressing these points in the essay, but it was already a bit too long so I decided to exclude it, but here’s my thought process on that:
The business model:
I would love for a creator platform to exist beyond & above money—but that’s just not the world we live in (hopefully some day). Substack only gets paid when a creator has made such impactful art that a fan voluntarily pays the artist directly. It’s still a transaction, yes, but it’s an honest one.
A step in the right direction. As I mentioned in the essay, this is about pragmatism not perfection.
Algorithmic social media monetizes indirectly—every second you’re on the site comes out to a dollar amount. We don’t know how our data is being used or who buys it. We’re essentially unpaid interns over there.
And since time on platform is the most important metric, the algorithm feeds you increasingly stimulating and often politically radicalizing slop. As a troubled teen, I went down what’s called, the “alt-right pipeline” on YouTube. I watched a few news videos, then went to conservative videos, and it wasn’t long before I was seeing racist pseudoscience in my recommendations.
It’s actually quite sinister.
No one necessarily made me watch these videos—it was not a conspiracy. The algorithm fed me videos that were profitable to watch. And being a goofy kid, I just didn’t know any better.
Despite the presence of far right thinkers on the platform, I actually don’t think something similar could happen on Substack. Heres why:
Far right Substack writers:
Fascism is a facsimile of mythology. It is sad, nostalgic, the story of broken people who, similarly to me in my teen years, just don’t know any better.
Fascism has seen a resurgence these last few years primarily because algorithms promote it. Call me an optimist, but I don’t think most people want to scapegoat minorities for all the world’s problems.
Who would Andrew Tate or Alex Jones be without the algorithm pushing their horse shit?
Without the algorithm, truth will win. And Sem, never forget that truth is on our side my dear comrade.
Whoo-boy, this was heady and inspiring! I need to reread Benjamin’s essay, which I referenced in almost every grad school paper I wrote! One was about aura and mechanical reproduction in Virginia Woolf’s Orlando. Anyway, yes to everything you said here, including the potential of Substack. I was just reading Jess Row’s take on universities giving in to political pressures and this post felt like a good companion piece. Thanks for including me in a fab list of creators, and thanks for the insights and inspiration!
I can't say I'd let anyone READ that old paper, but I'll let you know if I ever see it again! :) It's probably on an external hard drive with all my other decades-old backups...
I really liked the first part, and most of this one, but the Substack infomercial it pivoted into at the end gives me serious ick. Substack is chasing money just like every other platform; that they’re doing it *differently* (which doesn’t automatically mean better) is a cheap gimmick. Substack reward writers who marry themselves to the platform, not necessarily to their art—not to mention, they rely on the work of fascist scrawlers like Richard Hanania for growth and success. All of these different ideologies cancel themselves out on Substack, because we can just silo ourselves off from the creators we don’t like, and they can thrive doing the same thing with us, just like TikTok. That doesn’t make for a better world, or better art, it just makes for compartmentalized and commodified self-expression. Substack is much more like the Zone of Interest than the new Renaissance.
Thank you for the comment Sem, and I totally understand where you’re coming from. I considered addressing these points in the essay, but it was already a bit too long so I decided to exclude it, but here’s my thought process on that:
The business model:
I would love for a creator platform to exist beyond & above money—but that’s just not the world we live in (hopefully some day). Substack only gets paid when a creator has made such impactful art that a fan voluntarily pays the artist directly. It’s still a transaction, yes, but it’s an honest one.
A step in the right direction. As I mentioned in the essay, this is about pragmatism not perfection.
Algorithmic social media monetizes indirectly—every second you’re on the site comes out to a dollar amount. We don’t know how our data is being used or who buys it. We’re essentially unpaid interns over there.
And since time on platform is the most important metric, the algorithm feeds you increasingly stimulating and often politically radicalizing slop. As a troubled teen, I went down what’s called, the “alt-right pipeline” on YouTube. I watched a few news videos, then went to conservative videos, and it wasn’t long before I was seeing racist pseudoscience in my recommendations.
It’s actually quite sinister.
No one necessarily made me watch these videos—it was not a conspiracy. The algorithm fed me videos that were profitable to watch. And being a goofy kid, I just didn’t know any better.
Despite the presence of far right thinkers on the platform, I actually don’t think something similar could happen on Substack. Heres why:
Far right Substack writers:
Fascism is a facsimile of mythology. It is sad, nostalgic, the story of broken people who, similarly to me in my teen years, just don’t know any better.
Fascism has seen a resurgence these last few years primarily because algorithms promote it. Call me an optimist, but I don’t think most people want to scapegoat minorities for all the world’s problems.
Who would Andrew Tate or Alex Jones be without the algorithm pushing their horse shit?
Without the algorithm, truth will win. And Sem, never forget that truth is on our side my dear comrade.
Whoo-boy, this was heady and inspiring! I need to reread Benjamin’s essay, which I referenced in almost every grad school paper I wrote! One was about aura and mechanical reproduction in Virginia Woolf’s Orlando. Anyway, yes to everything you said here, including the potential of Substack. I was just reading Jess Row’s take on universities giving in to political pressures and this post felt like a good companion piece. Thanks for including me in a fab list of creators, and thanks for the insights and inspiration!
Ok, that sounds like a SUPER interesting essay—do you still have it? I’d love to check it out!
Thank you for your kind words! 🥹
And no, thank you for being an amazing creator!
I can't say I'd let anyone READ that old paper, but I'll let you know if I ever see it again! :) It's probably on an external hard drive with all my other decades-old backups...