Hi Simon, Just catching up with this. Thought it was a really strong chapter. Dark, like you said, but challenging as we were confronted with the issues and decisions that Shaw has to face. You handled that perfectly
As for Substack, I think I’m just about done. There are lots of good people on here but the amount of bile and hatred on Notes is, as someone who has never been on social media before, truly horrifying and, frankly, I’m too old to have to see or deal with all that crap. So, I reckon I’ll finish off what I’m doing and be on my way for the New Year. I’ll miss a lot of great writing but sometimes you’ve got to know when to quit
Thanks, Daniel! Glad it seems to have worked for people.
Absolutely understand re: Substack. I do hope you can keep reading individual newsletters (like this one) which just happen to be using Substack. As long as you're reading in your email inbox there's no need to bump into the wider Substack ecosystem.
I've not really seen any of that bile and hatred - I've just heard other people talk about it. I think my feed is VERY focused on fiction writing, with few deviations, which mostly results in a really pleasant experience. But it does seem to vary massively for each person.
TRIVERSE: You handled Bakker's and Shaw's encounter masterfully: I think that "hopping back & forth" with the timeline works well for your story. Keep up the good work; you have a fan in Mexico.
I'll have a look at those links. The general topic has been around for a long time, it keeps bubbling to the surface. It's louder and stronger this time.
I can control what I see and who I interact with (it's largely true), both online and in real life. So I'm quite supportive of the Substack approach to free speech. However, other platforms - pick any - have ongoing pressures to better cull and police the nature of the content available on their platforms. It's not a new topic, we're all familiar with the arguments. Which leads me to wonder why Substack should escape the same level of scrutiny and accountability for the content available on Substack.
Thanks! It was quite a dialogue-heavy chapter, so good job it worked.
And yes, this discussion about content on Substack has been around from the beginning and won't (and shouldn't) go away. Scrutiny is definitely healthy.
I think their hands-off approach to free speech and moderation would seem more agreeable if they didn't signal boost so many extremists in the official company announcements and newsletters. It's one thing to present the tools and then deliberately stay out of the way, and quite another to present the tools and then showcase the most incendiary uses of them.
There's clearly a (quite confused) political point of view at Substack, and it's that aspect that repeatedly causes them to shoot themselves in the foot, I think. Personally, I'd rather they focus on improving and evolving their superb toolset, and stay out of the opinion game.
Yes, lots of dialogue. The smarmy cajoling was just right. I thought there was a hint of ambiguity, who was really being set up, him, her, both? Both are on film, after all. Fodder there for the future.
The Hamish podcast interviews, of which I've not seen any for quite a while, (maybe I unsubscribed? 😁), were notable for softballing and flattering some irksome people. Not being American, I didn't know any of them, so i had to look them up, including their real backgrounds. Anodyne interviews and ego stroking, euphemistically skating over controversies. I still puzzle as to the choice of subjects, and the worrisome interview approach. Kinda grubby.
Exactly. I'd also throw Miller into the mix. Is he really the big shot he thinks he is?
A big giveaway, I think, as to the quality and sophistication of the 'free speech' debate on Substack (driven by the founders) is that absolute dumpster fire that is the comments section underneath any official post on the topic. Free speech as a concept is vital, but there's something about the rhetoric Substack uses that attracts a very low quality of debate around it.
Which is why I still well away from all that 99% of the time. :)
Indeed, the official position is surprisingly anemic. There's no particular framework or compelling argument driving the free speech mantra. It may as well be Musk, drained of all color and movement. I think of it as miming for free speech.
Hi Simon, Just catching up with this. Thought it was a really strong chapter. Dark, like you said, but challenging as we were confronted with the issues and decisions that Shaw has to face. You handled that perfectly
As for Substack, I think I’m just about done. There are lots of good people on here but the amount of bile and hatred on Notes is, as someone who has never been on social media before, truly horrifying and, frankly, I’m too old to have to see or deal with all that crap. So, I reckon I’ll finish off what I’m doing and be on my way for the New Year. I’ll miss a lot of great writing but sometimes you’ve got to know when to quit
Keep up the great work 👍🏼
Thanks, Daniel! Glad it seems to have worked for people.
Absolutely understand re: Substack. I do hope you can keep reading individual newsletters (like this one) which just happen to be using Substack. As long as you're reading in your email inbox there's no need to bump into the wider Substack ecosystem.
I've not really seen any of that bile and hatred - I've just heard other people talk about it. I think my feed is VERY focused on fiction writing, with few deviations, which mostly results in a really pleasant experience. But it does seem to vary massively for each person.
Thanks for reading, as always!
TRIVERSE: You handled Bakker's and Shaw's encounter masterfully: I think that "hopping back & forth" with the timeline works well for your story. Keep up the good work; you have a fan in Mexico.
Rob in Yautepec
Thanks, Rob! Hi from the UK. :)
Good dialogue, well pitched.
I guess you'd never have written Mad Men. 😁
I'll have a look at those links. The general topic has been around for a long time, it keeps bubbling to the surface. It's louder and stronger this time.
I can control what I see and who I interact with (it's largely true), both online and in real life. So I'm quite supportive of the Substack approach to free speech. However, other platforms - pick any - have ongoing pressures to better cull and police the nature of the content available on their platforms. It's not a new topic, we're all familiar with the arguments. Which leads me to wonder why Substack should escape the same level of scrutiny and accountability for the content available on Substack.
Thanks! It was quite a dialogue-heavy chapter, so good job it worked.
And yes, this discussion about content on Substack has been around from the beginning and won't (and shouldn't) go away. Scrutiny is definitely healthy.
I think their hands-off approach to free speech and moderation would seem more agreeable if they didn't signal boost so many extremists in the official company announcements and newsletters. It's one thing to present the tools and then deliberately stay out of the way, and quite another to present the tools and then showcase the most incendiary uses of them.
There's clearly a (quite confused) political point of view at Substack, and it's that aspect that repeatedly causes them to shoot themselves in the foot, I think. Personally, I'd rather they focus on improving and evolving their superb toolset, and stay out of the opinion game.
Yes, lots of dialogue. The smarmy cajoling was just right. I thought there was a hint of ambiguity, who was really being set up, him, her, both? Both are on film, after all. Fodder there for the future.
The Hamish podcast interviews, of which I've not seen any for quite a while, (maybe I unsubscribed? 😁), were notable for softballing and flattering some irksome people. Not being American, I didn't know any of them, so i had to look them up, including their real backgrounds. Anodyne interviews and ego stroking, euphemistically skating over controversies. I still puzzle as to the choice of subjects, and the worrisome interview approach. Kinda grubby.
Exactly. I'd also throw Miller into the mix. Is he really the big shot he thinks he is?
A big giveaway, I think, as to the quality and sophistication of the 'free speech' debate on Substack (driven by the founders) is that absolute dumpster fire that is the comments section underneath any official post on the topic. Free speech as a concept is vital, but there's something about the rhetoric Substack uses that attracts a very low quality of debate around it.
Which is why I still well away from all that 99% of the time. :)
Indeed, the official position is surprisingly anemic. There's no particular framework or compelling argument driving the free speech mantra. It may as well be Musk, drained of all color and movement. I think of it as miming for free speech.