Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
ted (not lasso)
@ted
i usually take everything Taylor Lorenz says with a grain of salt but this take about substack's dark patterns re: creators stuck with me: "substack's whole appeal to creators is that their creative labor is worth something, and creators should own the fruits of that labor, namely the connections with their audience. substack successfully differentiated itself from other platforms with this value proposition and attracted a vibrant array of talented creators as a result. with the follow button, however, substack contradicts their core principle of creator ownership, instead recreating the very kind of walled garden their founders originally opposed.” anchoring substack's app experience in generalized attention is paradoxically hostile towards a creator's individualized mission and limits a creator's growth outside of substack's own walls. in the near future, direct-to-fan relationships > direct-to-consumer platforms.
5 replies
2 recasts
39 reactions
rileybeans
@rileybeans
why don't you like Taylor Lorenz?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Chris Carlson
@chrislarsc.eth
I worked for a D2F software company in 2010 and then D2C came along and ruined everything
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
BrightFutureGuy 🎩↑Ⓜ️
@bfg
he's right about that ... but substack is on the slippery slope for the past couple of years
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
depressivehacks
@depressivehacks
Blockchain makes this much better, imo. Being able to place something onchain and reach the folks who will care unlocks so much opportunity in many verticals.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Zach
@zd
wow never thought i'd ever agree w taylor lorenz, but she's spot on w this one some would say "but creators can still exit and take their email list with them" but that doesn't solve the issue of the new walled garden they've created with notes - you can't export your notes - you don't own you connections this is why FC is so great
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
