The problem with Substack is there's only so many you can subscribe to, I don't want to pay $80 a year to 10 or 20 people. So I pay for only 2 - you and David Farrier. Then you only subscribe to people you agree with or know about; the bubble becomes even tighter.
I’m interested, though, that right now it *is* working, in such a subscription-saturated world.
We’ve got aggregation around every corner - Audible, Spotify, Netflix, et al. We’re not conditioned, as individuals, to pay for discrete pieces of work anymore, outside of books. Yet Substack works (for now.) So that’s an interesting dissonance!
Also, I think I’m changing my mind about bubbles. Echo chambers driven by algorithms are obviously ghastly, harmful and toxic. But seeing as the mass democratisation of information has *not* delivered the utopian diversity and tolerance we dreamed for… maybe we just need to pick a good bubble.
(Thanks for being in my bubble with me. Sorry it’s so cramped in here.)
The problem with Substack is there's only so many you can subscribe to, I don't want to pay $80 a year to 10 or 20 people. So I pay for only 2 - you and David Farrier. Then you only subscribe to people you agree with or know about; the bubble becomes even tighter.
Yeah, it’s a model with a ceiling.
I’m interested, though, that right now it *is* working, in such a subscription-saturated world.
We’ve got aggregation around every corner - Audible, Spotify, Netflix, et al. We’re not conditioned, as individuals, to pay for discrete pieces of work anymore, outside of books. Yet Substack works (for now.) So that’s an interesting dissonance!
Also, I think I’m changing my mind about bubbles. Echo chambers driven by algorithms are obviously ghastly, harmful and toxic. But seeing as the mass democratisation of information has *not* delivered the utopian diversity and tolerance we dreamed for… maybe we just need to pick a good bubble.
(Thanks for being in my bubble with me. Sorry it’s so cramped in here.)