Profile of Substack, whose founders insist it is a platform, not a media company, and say there is less need for moderation as readers opt in to newsletters
Did a newsletter company create a more equitable media system—or replicate the flaws of the old one? Tweets: @benthompson , @cliomiso , @asymmetricinfo , @can , @bdomenech , @maxwellstrachan , @dandrezner , @biblioracle , @nbashaw , @benthompson , @sonnybunch , @alexkotch , @nicalexiac , @z_everson , @annehelen , @xokasia , @alicesperi , @kantrowitz , @benthompson , @lollardfish , @shortformernie , @benyt , @gbbranstetter , @elongreen , @benthompson , @lpbradley , @emmaroller , @erikhinton , @zacharylipez , and @nathantankus See also Mediagazer Tweets: Ben Thompson / @benthompson : Can't say I'm shocked that Columbia Journalism Review is leading the way in insisting that Substack, whose greatest business flaw is that it doesn't own publisher email lists or customer payment data, is a publisher and not a platform. Just blanket assertions 🤷♂️ https://twitter.com/... Clio / @cliomiso : here's my big profile of Substack, the not-a-media-company media company that all your favorite (and/or not favorite) journalists are turning to. for @CJR's new issue: https://www.cjr.org/... Megan McArdle / @asymmetricinfo : Greenwald, Sullivan and Yglesias got so big by starting blogs that they could sell to traditional publications. They are not monetizing an audience they acquired through larger institutions, but reclaiming one they created themselves. https://pullquote.com/... https://twitter.com/... Can Duruk / @can : Substack always gives me “I could build that over a weekend” vibes. The point isn't that it's easy to build (not weekend east, it is), but its true innovation is changing the conversation about newsletters and content. https://twitter.com/... Ben Domenech / @bdomenech : FWIW I don't think this CJR-based take is accurate, though that's more about what we are learning about Patreon than Substack. https://twitter.com/... Maxwell / @maxwellstrachan : the thing i like about this piece is that it could have piled on people like glenn greenwald and yascha mounk, but it went the other way and presented an even-handed and nuanced portrait of the company https://www.cjr.org/... Daniel W. Drezner / @dandrezner : Blogs 2.0. https://twitter.com/... John Warner / @biblioracle : This is a really good consideration of some of the dimensions of Substack, explores a lot of the concerns I have about longterm viability and what this means for writing/journalism in general. https://www.cjr.org/... Nathan Baschez / @nbashaw : Honored and astounded that y'all still call it the “Baschez score” @cjgbest @hamishmckenzie 😆 https://www.cjr.org/... https://twitter.com/... Ben Thompson / @benthompson : The real lesson for Substack is that they should beware of features in publications representing industries they are disrupting. CJR isn't writing about failed Shopify merchants 🤷♂️ https://www.cjr.org/... Sonny Bunch / @sonnybunch : Yeah the best way to understand Substack, at least for the individual writers, is that it's a more efficient way to monetize blogging. Some people will be able to do that professionally; for most it will be a side hustle/passion project that brings in a little extra. https://twitter.com/... Alex Kotch / @alexkotch : @oneunderscore__ For those of us who are capable of introspection, @cliomiso's article on Substack is quite good, and the first reporting I've seen that sheds any light into how the company decides whether to offer benefits to writers https://www.cjr.org/... Nicole Clark / @nicalexiac : when i first left my staff writing job to freelance, i had so much faith in substack—even as i avoided signing up for it because i saw others struggle with the platform, i kept hoping that maybe it could be a contingency plan. this is a sobering read https://www.cjr.org/... Zach Everson / @z_everson : “Investigative journalism seems particularly difficult as a solo enterprise on Substack, which doesn't reward slowly developed, uncertain projects that come out sporadically.” @cliom for @CJR https://www.cjr.org/... Anne Helen Petersen / @annehelen : This is very good https://twitter.com/... Kasia Mychajlowycz / @xokasia : So interesting and also this sounds like the Uber of journalism, which is to say i dislike it and it is the future https://twitter.com/... Alice Speri / @alicesperi : “Nonideological” vision is, of course, ideology just the same. A fascinating read, by Clio Chang. https://www.cjr.org/... Alex Kantrowitz / @kantrowitz : Good article, albeit with a fundamental misunderstanding that Substack writers are traditional workers as opposed to business owners. https://www.cjr.org/... Ben Thompson / @benthompson : Meanwhile this paragraph makes no sense. Independent writers are entrepreneurs, not contractors. And the only person refusing to acknowledge what Substack is is the author. https://twitter.com/... David M. Perry / @lollardfish : This is excellent and answered many of my questions. I do wonder if I had swapped from patreon to substack (I was not offered an advance) in 2018 when I was invited if I'd be able to write full time now. https://twitter.com/... @shortformernie : The Sublash is starting. (This is a good, even-handed piece, all that said.) https://www.cjr.org/... Ben Smith / @benyt : @jbenton @benthompson I think people underestimate how much Substack is giving away by letting writers keep their lists? You're going to see a lot of the biggest ones follow The Browser to cheaper, software-as-service platforms if Substack can't offer something more Gillian Branstetter / @gbbranstetter : Correct me if I'm wrong in thinking this is Uber's stance on its drivers? https://twitter.com/... Elon Green / @elongreen : This is really good. https://twitter.com/... Ben Thompson / @benthompson : Good thread https://twitter.com/... Laura Bradley / @lpbradley : in fairness, “enabling” is certainly how i would describe substack's relationship with a few of its writers! https://twitter.com/... Emma Roller / @emmaroller : “But as you peruse the lists, something becomes clear: the most successful people on Substack are those who have already been well-served by existing media power structures.” @cliomiso https://www.cjr.org/... Erik Hinton / @erikhinton : This is such a thoughtful piece on Substack, complete with a really beautiful quote/pull-quote pairing https://twitter.com/... https://twitter.com/... Zachary Lipez / @zacharylipez : This is a good piece on substack. I don't expect platforms to police their content + (barring monopoly) I don't think it's censorship when they choose to. As with all corps, I don't confuse substack for family or savior, and I'll get out of it what I can. https://www.cjr.org/... Nathan Tankus / @nathantankus : This piece is very resonant to my experience with substack. It was what I needed to be when I needed it- a quick way of starting writing with the basic features I needed and the ability to activate paid subscriptions. I've had success beyond my wildest dreams. https://twitter.com/... See also Mediagazer
Context & Ripple Effects
Columbia Journalism Review's profile lands five months after the New York Times documented how services like Substack opened new ways for prominent media figures to make a living from smaller audiences — and it presses on the contradiction that coverage mostly skipped: the writers thriving under direct subscriptions are largely the ones legacy media already elevated.
The founders' answer — Substack is a tool, not a publisher, so reader opt-in replaces moderation — sets up the argument Ben Thompson would later formalize around writers as sovereign operators paid directly by subscribers, while the company's own later moves, from paid writer deals to details on its Pro program, keep testing where the platform line actually sits.
First-order effects
- Substack's founders explicitly disclaim the publisher role, which shifts responsibility for what gets published onto individual writers and their subscribing readers rather than onto the company.
- Established journalists with existing audiences capture most of the subscription revenue, so the equity claim is immediately qualified by who the model pays.
Second-order effects
- When Substack pays certain writers directly, as its leadership later acknowledged is an editorial choice about what kind of writing to support, the company starts behaving like the media company it says it is not.
- Because writers keep their email lists and payment relationships, rival platforms must compete on terms and tools rather than lock-in, pressuring any competitor that wants exclusivity.
Third-order effects
- If solo-subscription economics hold, formats that need teams and long lead times — investigative reporting chief among them — migrate back toward institutions, splitting journalism into newsletter-sustained commentary and staff-funded accountability work.
- The recurring tension between Substack's authors-first ideology and its growth needs, visible later in its mobile-app push, suggests platform claims get renegotiated whenever scale demands curation or promotion decisions.
The trend: Newsletter platforms are forcing a re-litigation of the platform-versus-publisher boundary, where moderation duties shift to readers and the economics quietly favor writers legacy media already made famous.