[runnedrun]

Is there an evidence that limited viewpoint diversity (as a substack "community" tends to have) in any way financial harmful? It seems like only the opposite is true. The less viewpoint diversity a channel has the more the participants seem to enjoy and be willing to pay for it. But I might be missing a good example of the opposite.

[ssivark]

It’s about the second order effects of what it takes to keep an ecosystem healthy over a longer period. We might pay attention to individual “winners”, but it takes a healthy “scene” incorporating variety and scope for evolution & innovation, to keep the fun going. Otherwise it quickly gets stale/boring. If about as interesting as being isolated in your own sandbox (or soapbox, as it may be).

[runnedrun]

From a personal perspective, I agree. You and I seek new information when we read online. Subtack siloes don't serve our needs very well.

However another pretty important "job to be done" when people read articles is moral affirmation. I need moral affirmation as much as the next person, but I solve this problem with different products (personal conversations, etc). If you use digital media as a reminder that you you're right, substack seems like a good deal.

It seems like that's the majority of digital media consumers, but I might be wrong about that.