[ksdale]

Just because their interests are opposed to mine doesn't mean I can't trust them. Teacher's unions can use their poor performance as a justification for increasing their own pay which comes straight out of my pocket and yet I'm able to trust them. I'm evaluating their deeds, not their motivations. Calling something a non-profit doesn't magically make it pure. The Red Cross and Goodwill have plenty of problems, as do governments around the world.

[throwawaygh]

You asked what substack is trying to do, and I think I gave the only accurate answer.

That said, your point is well-taken. I think one of my other comments already captures my thoughts on the point your making; let's move there to discuss: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30093683

[suslik]

While accurate, it isn't a full answer. Substack does provide profits for venture capitalists, but it does so by fulfilling a particular market demand - demand for a censorhsip-free (or censorship-lite) platform. It is a somewhat niche demand, obviously - but it is the only aspect that differentiates them from facebooks of the world.

[throwawaygh]

No, it is the full answer. The other stuff is their market position. That can change on a dime. (It also does nothing about to dual problem of stoking social division to generate more profit.)