Notice he's on a "libertarian" tear labeling NPR and PBS "government funded" but has yet to label Fox "Australian right wing billionaire entertainment" - let's ask him why?
Admittedly, I am not a tech savvy person but do read a lot, many stubstacks these days. I am frustrated that I need to pay to read what was normally free to readers. If I pay for what I read I could read practically nothing due to the cumulative fees that would be required.
When the internet first caught on it was advertising that paid for most sites and allowed for a 'free' internet. I participated in the political efforts for a free internet and after several years the FCC finally agreed to this standard; ie, the internet was a utility like the phone. You paid a monthy fee and had free access just as you can make phone calls without the phone company interring with all these add on fees. Why isn't there that movement again? What happened to people's consciousness that we are being totally commodizied as resources for profit. I wonder how soon it will be before I can no longer read the numerous sites that I do. What will then allow me to inform myself of what is happening outside the MSM propaganda!
Well, the internet never was really free--they were collecting our data from the get-go. But as for Substack: writing is work!
That said, I think the problem with the Substack model became apparent when I added up my deductions for my accountant this year: I was paying for $600 worth of Substacks, and there was no way I was getting that kind of value. $600 pays for four or five decent legacy newspapers/magazines. So it didn't surprise me that February-March I got a bunch of cancellations, and now the paid subscriptions are ticking back up again.
But I have changed my model: I am not paywalling any more, and people can pay if my writing is worth it to them. And it is simply true that what drives subscriptions is good writing--not the other incentives.
The problem is, internet advertising never really paid for news sites the way paper ads did. So a lot of them went under and a lot of writers went jobless. I know one former journalist who sells hot dogs in Detroit, I think. One reason many don't have a local paper anymore, and no one is watching corrupt county Republicans take over school boards, and so on.
Totally get that--and one of the problems with blogging culture, which laid a platform for Substack, was the "everything should be free!" ethic. This affects receptiveness to new models that do, in fact, ask people to pay. But I remember when you could access the NYT for free online--and that did get us use to an electronic model, but then pissed people off when they put up a paywall.
Notice he's on a "libertarian" tear labeling NPR and PBS "government funded" but has yet to label Fox "Australian right wing billionaire entertainment" - let's ask him why?
Admittedly, I am not a tech savvy person but do read a lot, many stubstacks these days. I am frustrated that I need to pay to read what was normally free to readers. If I pay for what I read I could read practically nothing due to the cumulative fees that would be required.
When the internet first caught on it was advertising that paid for most sites and allowed for a 'free' internet. I participated in the political efforts for a free internet and after several years the FCC finally agreed to this standard; ie, the internet was a utility like the phone. You paid a monthy fee and had free access just as you can make phone calls without the phone company interring with all these add on fees. Why isn't there that movement again? What happened to people's consciousness that we are being totally commodizied as resources for profit. I wonder how soon it will be before I can no longer read the numerous sites that I do. What will then allow me to inform myself of what is happening outside the MSM propaganda!
Well, the internet never was really free--they were collecting our data from the get-go. But as for Substack: writing is work!
That said, I think the problem with the Substack model became apparent when I added up my deductions for my accountant this year: I was paying for $600 worth of Substacks, and there was no way I was getting that kind of value. $600 pays for four or five decent legacy newspapers/magazines. So it didn't surprise me that February-March I got a bunch of cancellations, and now the paid subscriptions are ticking back up again.
But I have changed my model: I am not paywalling any more, and people can pay if my writing is worth it to them. And it is simply true that what drives subscriptions is good writing--not the other incentives.
The problem is, internet advertising never really paid for news sites the way paper ads did. So a lot of them went under and a lot of writers went jobless. I know one former journalist who sells hot dogs in Detroit, I think. One reason many don't have a local paper anymore, and no one is watching corrupt county Republicans take over school boards, and so on.
Totally get that--and one of the problems with blogging culture, which laid a platform for Substack, was the "everything should be free!" ethic. This affects receptiveness to new models that do, in fact, ask people to pay. But I remember when you could access the NYT for free online--and that did get us use to an electronic model, but then pissed people off when they put up a paywall.