I wrote a Substack post on subscriptions as paywalls back in February. Over the years I have benefited greatly from Substack posts, but I am frankly becoming really disappointed in the changes I am have seen in Substack over the past few months. One recent substack PR email extolled how much money Substack podcasters were making and Substacks new podcast features would enable writers to podcast like the pros. Another recent Substack newsletter tells me how Substack writers are making so much money on their subscriptions that Substack has now developed more options to make writer Substack sites look more like a website. That way writers can gussy up their Substack page to look like a web site and let their web sites go, using Substack for everything webby.
I came here and subscribed because of your comments on substack founder's post about paying to read. I couldn't agree more and did not know substack was this buttoned down.....i'd go broke -exaggerating but you get the picture-reading all these blogs, some of which requires a HUGE amoutn of my time to read strangers words. I come from the magazine /newspaper world and at least when a reader purchased a newspaper or magazine, their writers have been vetted by the editors. Who's vetting all these writers' words/opinions/facts presented as facts?
The posts are essentially blogs, so unlike newspapers, there is no vetting. However, many of the people writing for Substack are well-known in their fields. I subscribe because I have read their writings in other places. And as you note, if you follow many physicians, as I do (my husband is a physician, RuralDocAlan on Substack), you would go bankrupt.
One of my big concerns is that the public does not have access to the research studies reported in newspapers or medical journals, although reporters are sent PR about the studies. So the public has no way of assessing the bias in research studies, or even the outright errors in the studies. Many of the physician writers on substack explain the studies reported on in newspapers, which is why I consider their posts so valuable. Any why I consider paywalling analyses of research studies is a travesty.
I came here and subscribed because of your comments on substack founder's post about paying to read. I couldn't agree more and did not know substack was this buttoned down.....i'd go broke -exaggerating but you get the picture-reading all these blogs, some of which requires a HUGE amoutn of my time to read strangers words. I come from the magazine /newspaper world and at least when a reader purchased a newspaper or magazine, their writers have been vetted by the editors. Who's vetting all these writers' words/opinions/facts presented as facts?
The posts are essentially blogs, so unlike newspapers, there is no vetting. However, many of the people writing for Substack are well-known in their fields. I subscribe because I have read their writings in other places. And as you note, if you follow many physicians, as I do (my husband is a physician, RuralDocAlan on Substack), you would go bankrupt.
One of my big concerns is that the public does not have access to the research studies reported in newspapers or medical journals, although reporters are sent PR about the studies. So the public has no way of assessing the bias in research studies, or even the outright errors in the studies. Many of the physician writers on substack explain the studies reported on in newspapers, which is why I consider their posts so valuable. Any why I consider paywalling analyses of research studies is a travesty.