For a complete list of categories and archives, click here.

Is There Nowhere a Writer Can Find a Haven in This Social Media World?

I first came to Substack as a reader. Maybe it was Austin Kleon’s newsletter or Ask Polly or Jeff Tweedy who lead me here, I don’t remember. But, I am grateful for the discovery of so many wonderful writers in this space and the support they offer one another. I was excited to join them when I started a newsletter for my tiny audience. Even moving all of my blog posts to Substack and abandoning the blogging idea since it was more economical to host on Substack and there was the promise that maybe someday I could be a paid writer as well.

But, soon I started hearing problematic stories about the platform. Substack lured certain writers with hefty advances and provided those writers with editors, so Substack could make the promise to small writers that they could make money on the platform too. This might be a bit shady, but I could write it off as a business strategy. The fact they fired one of their editors for editing a post that criticized Substack was hella shady. Then Chris Best couldn’t answer a simple question about whether or not he would allow openly racist harassment on Notes. Then I started hearing that early adopters of Substack had left because of unchecked transphobia.

And why didn’t I know (because I didn’t research) that Marc Andreessen was a huge investor in the platform? (I quickly stopped using Post when I learned he was an investor there.) This morning I spent time reading the Techno-Optimist Manifesto and have to say, I’m a bit horrified by the ultra-pro capitalist belief that if we just invest in unchecked AI and technology everyone will benefit. Sounds like a recycled “trickle down theory” and we can all see how well that’s worked so far. It sounds like a recipe for the rich tech bros to get richer and everything else be damned. Reading that lead me to read about BasedBeffJezos, Guillaume Verdon, who Andreessen links to in his manifesto and calls “the patron saint of techno-optimism”, and his horrifying view of the future, for which he partly credits Nick Land. Land is an alt-right racist who believes that democracy is what stands in the way of progress, yet Verdon has explicitly embraced Land’s views. Of course Land loves Elon Musk, who is the reason I left Twitter months and months ago. The tech bros don’t seem to mind embracing alt-right racists when it serves them and their investments. Or maybe they agree with the ideology, it’s hard to tell these days.

Which segues nicely into Substack’s Nazi problem and the demand for answers 200+ Substack writers (my tiny newsletter has joined in) are calling for. As Jonathan Katz wrote extensively in his Atlantic article and in follow-up posts in his Substack newsletter, Substack not only allows Nazis to host newsletters on its platform, but also allows newsletters with blatant Nazi imagery to be monetized. When questioned about this, the founders have only put forth the free speech argument that they are an open platform for ideas. There has been no explanation for why they do deplatform some things (like sex workers) and not others (like literal Nazis). There has been no explanation as to why Hamish McKenzie chose to host a known racist, Richard Hanania on Substack’s podcast. They are not only platforming racist, transphobic, or alt-right views, they are amplifying and making money off of those newsletters.

That is what Substackers Against Nazis wants Chris Best and Hamish McKenzie to speak to. No one is pushing for anyone to be banned. No one has mentioned removing anyone from Substack. The question is why they are content moderating some things and yet allowing Nazis to make money on Substack. While I don’t believe Nazis should EVER have a platform, while I agree that the correct number of Nazis on Substack should be zero, I also know that’s impossible. But it’s not impossible to not amplify or make money off of those accounts. I am unquestionably on the side of Jonathan M. KatzNoah BerlatskyMarisa Kabas, and 
Sharon Hurley Hall. Keep demanding answers.

In the meantime I’m rebuilding the content on a new blog and hoping that the Nazi problem at least can be addressed. I like the other writers on Substack. I enjoy seeing them boost each other up on Notes. I already bought my copies of War and Peace and Wolf Hall to read along with Simon Haisell. I am tired of having to leave one social media platform after another because of the greedy tech bros who own them all. For me it’s about seeking a community of writers because I have no way of building that in my real, offline life. It would be nice if we could find a place and just exist without trolls, bots, and especially Nazis.

Sources and Further Reading:

But Jezos also embraces more extreme ideas, borrowing concepts from “accelerationism,” which argues we should hasten the growth of technology and capitalism at the expense of nearly anything else.” (Forbes)

Probably a big part of what’s with that is that moderating hate speech on social media platforms is very controversial because there’s a massive white identity movement known as the Republican party which want to mainstream racism and bigotry.” (Noah Berlatsky)

As I made clear, starting in the lede, the problem was less that the newsletter company doesn’t enforce its written terms of service against these sites, and more that it both allows some white nationalists to monetize their content—and that Substack’s CEO Chris Best and co-founder Hamish McKenzie actively promote open racists who take advantage of that boost to funnel their audiences toward the harder stuff.” (Jonathan Katz)

Substack isn’t a self-publishing platform, though. It curates its writers. It pays them, sometimes massively, and it makes choices as to who gets paid well and who doesn’t. We’ve seen instances of tech companies allowing hate group leaders to acquire huge followings through negligence (…) but those were cases where the platforms failed to keep bigots out. Substack is actively bringing the bigots in. Then it’s giving them paychecks.” Jude Ellison Sady Doyle

The vast majority of Substack newsletter writers will never make money that’s equivalent to a year’s salary, which is what the staffers get. Instead, they will provide Substack with free content, hoping to get that sweet subscriber cash one day. And Substack will dangle its “successful” writers in front of its rank-and-file membership to keep them going.” (Annalee Newitz)

What do Alex Berenson, Bari Weiss, and Glenn Greenwald have in common? They’ve all railed against being deplatformed—be it a Twitter ban or the loss of a job at a prestigious publication—only to find a new home and great riches on Substack.” (Wired)

Obviously I went in with the full knowledge of the reputation Substack hadcultivated as a pandemic-disinformation vector and preferred platform of hot-take artists who wage culture wars and reify everything already wrong with the mainstream journalism and society they think they’re challenging.” (Spencer Ackerman)

Is There Nowhere a Writer Can Find a Haven in This Social Media World?

I first came to Substack as a reader. Maybe it was Austin Kleon’s newsletter or Ask Polly or Jeff Tweedy who lead me here, I don’t remember. But, I am grateful for the discovery of so many wonderful writers in this space and the support they offer one another. I was excited to join them when I started a newsletter for my tiny audience. Even moving all of my blog posts to Substack and abandoning the blogging idea since it was more economical to host on Substack and there was the promise that maybe someday I could be a paid writer as well.

But, soon I started hearing problematic stories about the platform. Substack lured certain writers with hefty advances and provided those writers with editors, so Substack could make the promise to small writers that they could make money on the platform too. This might be a bit shady, but I could write it off as a business strategy. The fact they fired one of their editors for editing a post that criticized Substack was hella shady. Then Chris Best couldn’t answer a simple question about whether or not he would allow openly racist harassment on Notes. Then I started hearing that early adopters of Substack had left because of unchecked transphobia.

And why didn’t I know (because I didn’t research) that Marc Andreessen was a huge investor in the platform? (I quickly stopped using Post when I learned he was an investor there.) This morning I spent time reading the Techno-Optimist Manifesto and have to say, I’m a bit horrified by the ultra-pro capitalist belief that if we just invest in unchecked AI and technology everyone will benefit. Sounds like a recycled “trickle down theory” and we can all see how well that’s worked so far. It sounds like a recipe for the rich tech bros to get richer and everything else be damned. Reading that lead me to read about BasedBeffJezos, Guillaume Verdon, who Andreessen links to in his manifesto and calls “the patron saint of techno-optimism”, and his horrifying view of the future, for which he partly credits Nick Land. Land is an alt-right racist who believes that democracy is what stands in the way of progress, yet Verdon has explicitly embraced Land’s views. Of course Land loves Elon Musk, who is the reason I left Twitter months and months ago. The tech bros don’t seem to mind embracing alt-right racists when it serves them and their investments. Or maybe they agree with the ideology, it’s hard to tell these days.

Which segues nicely into Substack’s Nazi problem and the demand for answers 200+ Substack writers (my tiny newsletter has joined in) are calling for. As Jonathan Katz wrote extensively in his Atlantic article and in follow-up posts in his Substack newsletter, Substack not only allows Nazis to host newsletters on its platform, but also allows newsletters with blatant Nazi imagery to be monetized. When questioned about this, the founders have only put forth the free speech argument that they are an open platform for ideas. There has been no explanation for why they do deplatform some things (like sex workers) and not others (like literal Nazis). There has been no explanation as to why Hamish McKenzie chose to host a known racist, Richard Hanania on Substack’s podcast. They are not only platforming racist, transphobic, or alt-right views, they are amplifying and making money off of those newsletters.

That is what Substackers Against Nazis wants Chris Best and Hamish McKenzie to speak to. No one is pushing for anyone to be banned. No one has mentioned removing anyone from Substack. The question is why they are content moderating some things and yet allowing Nazis to make money on Substack. While I don’t believe Nazis should EVER have a platform, while I agree that the correct number of Nazis on Substack should be zero, I also know that’s impossible. But it’s not impossible to not amplify or make money off of those accounts. I am unquestionably on the side of Jonathan M. KatzNoah BerlatskyMarisa Kabas, and 
Sharon Hurley Hall. Keep demanding answers.

In the meantime I’m rebuilding the content on a new blog and hoping that the Nazi problem at least can be addressed. I like the other writers on Substack. I enjoy seeing them boost each other up on Notes. I already bought my copies of War and Peace and Wolf Hall to read along with Simon Haisell. I am tired of having to leave one social media platform after another because of the greedy tech bros who own them all. For me it’s about seeking a community of writers because I have no way of building that in my real, offline life. It would be nice if we could find a place and just exist without trolls, bots, and especially Nazis.

Sources and Further Reading:

But Jezos also embraces more extreme ideas, borrowing concepts from “accelerationism,” which argues we should hasten the growth of technology and capitalism at the expense of nearly anything else.” (Forbes)

Probably a big part of what’s with that is that moderating hate speech on social media platforms is very controversial because there’s a massive white identity movement known as the Republican party which want to mainstream racism and bigotry.” (Noah Berlatsky)

As I made clear, starting in the lede, the problem was less that the newsletter company doesn’t enforce its written terms of service against these sites, and more that it both allows some white nationalists to monetize their content—and that Substack’s CEO Chris Best and co-founder Hamish McKenzie actively promote open racists who take advantage of that boost to funnel their audiences toward the harder stuff.” (Jonathan Katz)

Substack isn’t a self-publishing platform, though. It curates its writers. It pays them, sometimes massively, and it makes choices as to who gets paid well and who doesn’t. We’ve seen instances of tech companies allowing hate group leaders to acquire huge followings through negligence (…) but those were cases where the platforms failed to keep bigots out. Substack is actively bringing the bigots in. Then it’s giving them paychecks.” Jude Ellison Sady Doyle

The vast majority of Substack newsletter writers will never make money that’s equivalent to a year’s salary, which is what the staffers get. Instead, they will provide Substack with free content, hoping to get that sweet subscriber cash one day. And Substack will dangle its “successful” writers in front of its rank-and-file membership to keep them going.” (Annalee Newitz)

What do Alex Berenson, Bari Weiss, and Glenn Greenwald have in common? They’ve all railed against being deplatformed—be it a Twitter ban or the loss of a job at a prestigious publication—only to find a new home and great riches on Substack.” (Wired)

Obviously I went in with the full knowledge of the reputation Substack hadcultivated as a pandemic-disinformation vector and preferred platform of hot-take artists who wage culture wars and reify everything already wrong with the mainstream journalism and society they think they’re challenging.” (Spencer Ackerman)

Clearing the Creative River

November 23, 2023

When did this obsession with social media take hold? Was it when my dad got Prodigy in the late 80s and I was suddenly connected to people via message boards? I made connections there I don’t think my still analog brain understood to be different from real life. Through the years I had various blogs, participated in various message boards – sharing every detail of my life with strangers who I thought were friends, but now can’t even remember their names. I was part of a digital scrapbooking community where I posted my kid’s pictures and every detail of their childhoods. Nothing was sacred because the sharing felt intimate, like I was among friends.

Enter Facebook. Now I WAS among friends! My need to share was supercharged. Surely these people were like me, knew me, agreed with me on every aspect of life! Wait… what? My cousin is racist? My uncle is a homophobe? Suddenly everything I thought I knew was tilted. And there was so much to take in and sort through and try to make sense of. Saved posts, watch later youtube lists, read it later apps full of varied, dense information that no brain is equipped to contain. Twitter, Instagram, more blogs, more ways to show the world that I’m here too and look at all the things I can do! Look at all the thoughts I have!

Until there is no thought that doesn’t get formatted into 280 characters. Will it fit in an Instagram caption? No one will read it if it’s too long. Condense, shorten, shrink, twist into something palatable. Every word carefully chosen to impress – who? Thousands of strangers who only hope you’ll follow them if they drop a like or a comment? Now it’s not enough to create for the masses because I don’t even know if the masses are bots. My brain is still living on 80s message boards full of the few people who had heard of Prodigy when the world has moved on to bot farms and buying likes.

Yet, there is still the dopamine release from scrolling a feed and seeing people I “know.” There is still an illusion of connection and community. A brain that sees these faces as friends when they are complete strangers.

Until it starts to feel hollow. Until it starts to feel one sided and completely empty. Until there is the realization that no one really cares, they only want to be noticed too.

For awhile I kept twisting myself to fit whatever would feed the algorithm, or make people like me again. For awhile I thought that sharing everything was the way to connect. Then, a stray comment read here, a thread read there – all causing me to hesitate or abandon completely anything that brings me joy because someone else said it’s lacking. Said it’s not real art, not real poetry, not real enough for a virtual world. They’re right, just not in the way they think they are. It’s not fake because they have put some sort of expectation on content creation, it’s fake because it’s content creation and not just creating.

Here is where I find myself. 34 years into exposing myself to various outlets to try to find some kind of connection in a disconnected world. Feeling guilt when I don’t share my feelings on every world happening, shame when I stay silent because I am empty. Still mining the old for something to feed the machine, since the well of creation has long run dry.

Messages appear when we are ready to see them and I have had three in the last month that have made me reflect:

i. In group therapy, the therapist asked, “If your 80 year old self came and sat down across from you and told you what she wished you had worried less about in your life, what would those things be?” My first thought was social media. She would sit down across from me and say, “Why did you give up so much of yourself to the ether? Why did you not hold something back for yourself? Why did you let strangers tell you how to be and how to make? Why?” I had no answer. Only the deep realization that she was right and that hopefully it wasn’t too late.

ii. I read closely Women Who Run With the Wolves for my women’s literature class. Among the very flowery prose and woo-woo Jungian psychoanalysis, there was a real message that spoke to me. Women have been taught by culture to make ourselves small, silence ourselves, and to let our inner instinctual voice be silenced. We have lost the ways of our matriarchal lineage and all of our stories have been hijacked by men and watered down. Crones made into witches, goddess religions into heresy. In the process women have been made to become dutiful, well behaved creatures who suffer from depression, anxiety, and ennui without quite knowing why. Our creative flow is disrupted by the voices in our heads telling us that we will be shunned or judged if we write that or sculpt this. Our creative rivers have been turned to sludge. Social media plays right into this by telling us what will please the algorithm or the platform (created by men) and we once again give our creativity and minds over to something designed to make us perfect homemakers, curators of the male gaze, and aesthetic influencers. I no longer want to create in this culture of popularity contests. I need to turn from the public eye.

iii. My 3rd point will seem a bit hypocritical after what I’ve just said, but it was a comment I read on Notes, the Twitter-like part of Substack. How would the classic artists have created differently if they had to have a social media presence to be creatives who were noticed? Would they have played it safe and not developed their own style? The comment asked the question of whether art is about validation or valuation. Do I want to be validated by the masses for what I create or do I want to create something that has lasting value for myself? I choose the latter.

I have come to disdain the need to create a brand, an aesthetic, to even fit into a genre. I hope artists start stretching their limbs and trying new things. I hope they never stop growing.

I’ve decided to stop creating in public for awhile. To stop posting anything art related whether that be collage or writing. I don’t plan to leave social media altogether, just change the way I interact with it. I want to begin to create in private, in solitude, in a cave of my own making. I don’t want to think about social media so much. I have no plan for the future where all of this is concerned. I’m not putting a time limit on it. I’m simply sitting with the feeling that for now I’m ok not creating at all or creating for my eyes only. This is very removed from the past reasons when I would step back from socials. This is not because I am running away from myself or cringing at what I’ve made. It’s not because I want to escape. It’s because I want to run to myself. I want to value what I make. I want to hear my own voice again.

I’ve privated my Instagram account and it may become more of a place where I just ramble or share my personal stuff. I don’t have a plan. I do want to stay connected to the people I have come to love. Not just imaginary connections giving me shots of dopamine, but the real ones who I care deeply about. Our journeys have crossed paths for too long to go it alone now.

I Think I Think Too Much

I worry that I think too much about “social media” and what I want to share and where, but I don’t think that’s really the issue.

I’m actually always thinking about the things I want to create and how best to share them as an extension of myself.

My life is my family, cleaning, preparing meals, making appointments, laundry, cats, mowing the lawn, buying the groceries, caregiving, chauffeuring, and in my real life I’m only seen as “mom.” Defined by my relationship to others.

But when I write a poem, a short story, when I have an idea that I make note of, when I write my newsletter, make a collage, take a picture of a flower – it feeds that little place in my chest, that tiny seed, that is a whole person outside of everyone else’s needs.

Yes. I spend too much time thinking about my Instagram grid, my newsletter, and now what to post on Threads, but it isn’t really about “social media” at all.

It’s about trying to water that tiny seed that is still me. It’s about trying to nurture it into something bigger. It’s about being seen for who I am outside of what I do for others. It’s about creating worth separate from productivity and sacrifice.

It’s about wanting to remember that I was once a person and proving to the world I still am.