It's refreshing to to see something intentionally uncurated.

I think "low quality" content has it's place. A lot of my favourite blogs back in the day could be considered "low quality", but for whatever reason I liked them and read their stuff... Same was true of my own blog. It wasn't particularly high quality but back then even a lowish quality blog would still occasionally be surfaced on Google if the right key words were searched for.

I miss this about modern YouTube too... I used to love watching content from small creators even if their content was "lower quality", but it's so hard to discover that type of content today.

Everywhere you go there is an algorithm pushing you towards larger and more professional creators. And that can be fine, but it's nice to have some balance.

If you think about it, Shakespeare's first poem was probably crap. If his entire career were judged from that, then we wouldn't have Hamlet.

"quality" is something you care about if you want to virtue signal your professional or intellectual capability, usually as part of a monetization scheme. Hacker News cares so much about quality because this forum is attached to a billion dollar startup incubator, and for many people here their persona is business. Posting on substack is business for most people. Posting on medium is business for most people. "Quality" is just another kind of influencer culture.

Writing blogs shouldn't be about marketing and reading blogs shouldn't be about maximizing information density. The vast vast majority of blogs on the old web that everyone yearns to return to weren't "high quality." You were just writing about whatever, likely in a style that would get you downvoted on HN for being insufficiently substantive, and if you were lucky someone else might read it.

I wouldn't even call it "low quality" so much as "non-commercial."