[Seirdy]

How is this any different from using a typical static site generator and posting links to your blog to your preferred social outlet? Local setup for a static site repo is trivial if you use an existing repo as a starting point.

Most static site gen templates include RSS feeds (removing the need for the "built-in newsletter") and are light enough to run circles around AMP pages. Given the easy setup, all that's left is deployment: a problem with a million simple solutions.

I notice this is targeted at developers. What does this offer for a developer capable of posting to HN, Reddit, the Fediverse, etc.; running `make` to generate their blog; and combining `git push` with their preferred deployment solution (rsync in CI/CD, Netlify, GitHub Pages)?

We already have the ability to blog in markdown on our own domain, with a copy of the content in a git repo. Am I missing anything?

[quickthrower2]

Discovery by the sounds of it. To quote the other comment:

> We realized that traditional publishing platforms offer visibility and engagement at the cost of content ownership. On the other hand if you go with a self hosted solution, your articles don't get proper visibility and reach. Hashnode combines the best of both worlds

[Seirdy]

So this auto-posts our articles to its own link aggregator? How is that better than Hacker News, mainstream social media, Lobste.rs, the Fediverse, chatrooms, and webrings? Is the advantage that their aggregator exclusively contains content from their own platform, meaning that publishing in their walled garden is the only way to get that audience?

The aforementioned discovery outlets aren't locked into a single publishing platform. What's the point of making a discovery outlet that, like Medium and Dev.to, only allows blogs published on its own platform?