Hate makes people blind. Starship is failing by design - that's just how they're choosing to develop it. The chopsticks video that we saw earlier was very nearly science fiction. And as far as regular launches go, SpaceX has done more successful launches than any company or nation ever.
But more generally, this idea of abandoning an app (or product) the moment you encounter people who disagree with you is disheartening.
It is a behavior Substack itself encourages by turing itself into a social media platform instead of simply a newsletter provider.
Yes, it is useful for building a moat of network effects, but it also forces views and opionions down people's throats that reflect badly on the platform.
I’d rather go read a book and discuss it with some actually intelligent friends.
In short they are selling web hosting and card payments, which are most likely worth far less than 10%. However, they’re clearly going for being a Brand that people want to publish under. Substack is worth 10% because it’s Substack, not for the tangibles they provide.
Now that leads to the question: what do they need to do to be a brand people want to be a part of? Is censorship part of that? Maybe, maybe not.
The other interest related piece that is topical at the moment is whether Substack might be worth 10% for card payments alone if certain publications would be unable to use payment providers otherwise. Porn and gambling sites often pay that sort of rate because it’s hard to get a payment provider. Maybe laundering nazi sympathy in with a bunch of tech blogs is worth 10% to them.
Presumably they knew the deal.
Ana's contention that Substack is "rickety" seems motivated by her conviction that they should adopt a more assertive, aggressive censorship regime, and that "we need a world where a social safety net protects risky writing".
There are certainly many interesting questions about the future of media and Substack's business – but the parade of people saying it can't succeed without more moderation keep being proven wrong.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/17/business/substack-fundrai...
And so yes, that's significantly less than it ended up being, $1.1 billion, but I'm not sure it impacts the argument being made. Except that the multiple would be even greater!
At that point they ceased to just tolerate these ideas but to amplify them. At that point they carry more responsibility, and people rightly blame them for it.
Free speech is fine. A private company handing nazis a megaphone and not accepting criticism for it is not.
Assholes can self-publish, as always, IMO.
If she's wrong about anything, it's that you can assume enough people will leave a declining platform to keep it from staying alive.
From the article: Newcomer says Substack is “pitching investors on a round between $50M and $100M that would value it above its roughly $700M last round price.”
Also: And if Substack does manage to raise that $100M they’re looking for now? Things will get worse.
But, I can just click on the "Following" link to avoid it. In fact, I can even set that as my homepage. So, so far, it's not that bad. And I continue to enjoy the diversity of writers; and am much more worried by virtuous scolds than by neonazis.
Ana Marie Cox can move to Medium, they have that "diverse and inclusive" editorial policy she is seeking, we all know how "great" Medium has been doing...
techpineapple•2h ago
senko•2h ago
They have taken VC money.
chowells•2h ago
rwmj•2h ago
scyzoryk_xyz•2h ago
Aren't there a hundred examples out there of medium-sized websites providing a similar infrastructure mix?
gregates•1h ago
kubectl_h•1h ago
* Patreon kind of sucks for writing / newsletters or else they could have captured part of this market. Medium was supposed to fix this but they had an epic collapse.
* Single point where subscribers can manage their subscriptions and preserve a common identity across subscriptions in the comments etc. Again, Medium/collapse.
* A rapid adoption of substack by well known online writers with loyal followings. These writers either had their own blogs or were exiting traditional media or getting dumped out by the collapse of online media (gawker network, buzzfeed news, etc). Again, could have been Medium if not for their collapse.
* I suspect Substack spent a lot of that VC money guaranteeing 2 years of X revenue for a non-trivial number of high profile writers so they would onboard.
Reading this story I didn't realize just how much they had taken over the years (I use to operate in this media space, but haven't in a long time). I'm not sure what the headcount is but that amount of money is staggering and I can only imagine it was all used to acquire DAUs and very little novel technology has been created with it.
I think Substacks first 10m/100m (their keep of rev/total rev from subscriptions) was extremely impressive and fast. But also it was a kind of low hanging fruit. There was a market already there for this and Medium/Patreon couldn't capture it. Now if they are really at 45m/450m that is much less impressive. It will be extremely hard to get to 100m/1000m and IMO impossible to get much higher than that with their current approach.
socalgal2•49m ago
Did Medium have a way to pay authors? Maybe it would have been easy to add but saying "A could have been B if only" I think misses the picture. Yahoo could have been Google if only they'd chosen a different algo. Flickr could have been Instagram if only they'd made a mobile app with filters. Etc...
I think it's precisely because substack launched with a way to let readers sponser the authors directly they liked that it took off. Medium had a partner program but that's not the same.
kubectl_h•2m ago
That said Medium did pay higher profile writers and publications to move to their platform (in some cases quite a bit of money) in a similar way that Substack has, which was to dip into the VC funded bank account.
cnst•1h ago
I really don't get the whole email thing, though. Newsletters are kinda super annoying to signup for, and then to receive. I've tried the Substack version, and I still don't get it. Even though I do love the mailing lists, but that's not the same as the newsletters.
derektank•2h ago
skwashd•2h ago
akudha•1h ago
They seem to be doing well, 8.5 million in revenue
rectang•2h ago
“You know, you could just not take VC money.”
“… We don’t do that here.”
RamblingCTO•2h ago
elicash•1h ago
mcepl•35m ago