[vehemenz]

There are a lot of wannabes on Substack. There are wannabe "journalists" who don't leave the house and wannabe philosophers who don't study philosophy. There are lots of tech and VC types like PG who are nowhere near as interesting as they think they are.

Despite all these wannabes, there are probably 30 or so high-quality substacks that are actually worth reading. I wouldn't dismiss the entire platform.

[chewmieser]

Do you have examples of high-quality ones? My main exposure to Substack is on HN and every one that I've seen shown on HN has been low quality and usually flagged to death eventually.

This was a point made as well on the AMA for Substack, but it wasn't really addressed. The low-quality "journalists" reduce trust in the platform as a whole.

I don't feel like Substack is doing enough here to combat rampant misinformation and low quality "journalism." It on the platform to show me that it's not just filled with conspiracy theorists and low quality trash. And so far I don't see that and will avoid Substack just like I avoid Reddit alternatives (for instance) that champion free speech and end up as cesspools. Plenty of other places to get the same type of information out there that you don't have to tiptoe around the garbage.

[vehemenz]

I don't think it's possible to have it both ways. A commitment to free speech means you get more garbage and conspiracy theories, but in exchange you get more intellectual conversations for adults, something you increasingly can't find on Reddit due to its overbearing moderation. Reddit itself has a good track record of banning subs, with only a few exceptions, but it's mostly the moderators and Reddit-enforced mod policies that have caused its decline.

As far as recommendations, it depends what you're interested in. I'd generally agree with the first two and disagree with the last two, but they are all high-quality reads (for me).

https://www.slowboring.com

https://jessesingal.substack.com

https://freddiedeboer.substack.com

https://fakenous.substack.com

[chewmieser]

Thanks for those examples, I will take a look at them.

I do disagree with your premise though. From the examples I've seen in the past, "free speech bastions" usually drive away a significant portion of their users and discourages deep discussion with insults, name-calling, derailment, thread crapping, etc. Are there examples I may have missed that take this approach and are better for it?

I personally think some limits on free speech are required to nurture healthy discussion in a community.

[vehemenz]

> Are there examples I may have missed that take this approach and are better for it?

Substack isn't a social network. Discussion is just a function of a post's comments, which can always be disabled. If you don't like a blog, you can leave and go to another. There's no real cross-pollination. I suppose the "bad" blogs could hurt Substack's reputation, but they're willing to bear the reputational damage rather than shut it down, which I respect.

Since you initially brought up Reddit, it's worth examining whether healthy discussions are happening there. If you've ever used reveddit, you can see the types of censorship that happens on popular threads. Activist moderators are everywhere. The only reason discussion looks healthy is because anything remotely "controversial" is nipped in the bud before 100 others had a chance to upvote or agree with it. A thread's apparent civility is not always an indication of healthy discussion.

My point is there are negative externalities no matter how far you move the dial on moderation/censorship. Not enough moderation, and you discourage real discussion but encourage toxicity, harassment, and trolling, i.e., 4chan and Parler. Too much moderation, and you also discourage real discussion but encourage censorship, intolerance, and groupthink, i.e., Reddit in 2023.