Chronotope’s avatarChronotope’s Twitter Archive—№ 131,362

    1. I think the increasingly common failure of application of Death of the Author or 'we aren't editorial' in the case of something like Substack, is b/c we live in an increasingly capitalistic hellscape where we feel unable to exert any sort of control outside of paying for things
      Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ♻️ 1 Retweets ❤️ 11 Favorites Mood -4 🙁
  1. …in reply to @Chronotope
    And when a promise of remedy for the hellscape is positioned as making it possible to pay for authors directly and cut out say... large publications with bad op ed pages... suddenly it feels like we've been robbed when those op ed writers roost and benefit from that approach.
    On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 4 Favorites Mood 0
    1. …in reply to @Chronotope
      You could argue that Medium/Forbes/FB all are similar, but Substack hit at a point in time where they were--inadvertently or not--positioned as specifically an alternative to paying for publications who use some of their profits to pay big salaries to gross shitty writers.
      Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 3 Favorites Mood -3 🙁
      1. …in reply to @Chronotope
        It would be incredibly dumb to call any product of SV some sort of back-to-the-people project, but it felt that way. If due to timing, or purpose, or marketing, or inadvertent is irrelevant. You don't get to make a 2nd first impression. And that's the context many participated in
        Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 4 Favorites Mood -3 🙁
        1. …in reply to @Chronotope
          Substack might argue that impression wasn't their *intention*, but that's irrelevant, and they should have some real insight into their presence in the press and among users, if they didn't they failed as a corporate entity at doing proper business.
          Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 4 Favorites Mood -2 🙁
          1. …in reply to @Chronotope
            And when it feels like our only way to have an impact is to Consume and Pay for things (as it increasingly does) then they should have thought a lot harder about how on-boarding some gross, much disliked, often platform-removed writers might have an impact on their larger image.
            Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 5 Favorites Mood -3 🙁
            1. …in reply to @Chronotope
              More than alllllllll that, it's a terrible *business* decision in a very obvious way. The entire history of these writers have been bad for platforms that host them & people who pay them. They can bring their shitty audience easily to other platforms b/c they are incredibly loyal
              Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 5 Favorites Mood -7 🙁
              1. …in reply to @Chronotope
                A good business decision *grows* your profit, it doesn't just generate a return and these high profile shitty writers aren't going to grow whatever revenue you valued them at. These people are already at their max audience.
                Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 2 Favorites Mood +2 🙂
                1. …in reply to @Chronotope
                  But finding diverse minority voices who have a hard time in mainstream media and haven't huffy-quit pubs or been banned from Twitter and cultivating them would likely generate a much better ROI than paying for shitty writers who are only going to lose audience & leave angry.
                  Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ♻️ 1 Retweets ❤️ 5 Favorites Mood -8 🙁
                  1. …in reply to @Chronotope
                    So if it is an obv bad marketing decision to pay these people, and an obv bad business decision to pay for them b/c you're really only hacking temporary bursts of unsustainable growth, then that leaves only one other reason to pay these writers up front... because you *want to*.
                    Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 3 Favorites Mood -6 🙁
                    1. …in reply to @Chronotope
                      & if you *want to pay them and give them a platform* and you *choose* to keep them secret, then that means you *know* that it is a bad marketing decision and a bad biz decision and you *know* why people will be mad and you're just trying to avoid blowback you know you'd get.
                      Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 4 Favorites Mood -10 🙁
                      1. …in reply to @Chronotope
                        Sorry but if you want to make a platform where the point is getting authors paid, & the hook is paying *only* for the content users' personally like, then you can't get mad when users are upset their payments are being used as rep or collateral to pay people they don't like.
                        Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ❤️ 9 Favorites Mood -6 🙁
                        1. …in reply to @Chronotope
                          And to take the galaxy brain offline for a sec: Substack needs to moderate its platform and not allow harassers and hateful content regardless of if Substack advanced them money or not.
                          Permalink On twitter.com Twitter logo Chronotope’s avatar ♻️ 1 Retweets ❤️ 5 Favorites Mood -1 🙁

Search tweets' text