Danica Swanson pfp
Danica Swanson
@danicaswanson
Today I finally announced to my Substack subscribers that I've moved to @paragraph, and will be deleting all three of my Substacks on Aug. 1. I'd been dragging my feet a bit, so it's a relief to have that task checked off the list. Excited to shift my full focus to web3/onchain media!
0 reply
0 recast
10 reactions
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Danica Swanson pfp
Danica Swanson
@danicaswanson
😀 Is that "OMG, you have *three* Substacks?!" or something else?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Danica Swanson pfp
Danica Swanson
@danicaswanson
HMU if you need any encouragement! I've made no secret of the fact that I love Paragraph.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Danica Swanson pfp
Danica Swanson
@danicaswanson
You're switching from Substack to Paragraph also? Glad to hear it. One day I might write a whole essay about some of the hidden ways that Substack is extractive. For now I'll just keep encouraging people who want to move to Paragraph.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Danica Swanson pfp
Danica Swanson
@danicaswanson
My critique of their business model is based on the underlying system dynamics rather than ill intent. The TLDR version is: labor extraction. Substack's model keeps many writers on the content treadmill of underpaid "hope labor." Similar extractive-patterns-in-the-guise-of-creator-liberation happen elsewhere.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Danica Swanson pfp
Danica Swanson
@danicaswanson
Exactly. For most who aren’t in the top 1%, it’s a variation on the old "exposure!" bait-and-switch. Adding more hope labor (e.g. Notes, chat) with no clear route to pay — on top of the default norm of continuous output — is extractive. It's like a second job with a fraction of the pay. Or an expensive hobby.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction