Remix.run Logo
skippyfish 2 hours ago

Counterpoint from someone who's been publishing on the internet for decades: no one will visit your website. It's as simple as that. You need a push mechanism to reach readers.

RSS could be it, but it's too niche. Social media is kinda it, but algorithmic feeds reward political clickbait and just because someone clicks "follow" or "subscribe" is not a guarantee that they will ever see your posts. Substack gives you a way to push content to your subscribers without an intermediary deciding what they get to read.

So no, there's no special value to having a website or syndicating across the web. There's a lot of value in backing up your Substack subscribers' emails so that you can move somewhere else down the line, and the nice thing about Substack is that they let you do that. If they stop, that's a trap.

billyp-rva 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Substack gives you a way to push content to your subscribers without an intermediary deciding what they get to read.

How do we know they won't start limiting your reach in the future? That's the path basically every other platform has gone down.

Bratmon 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The entire pitch of Substack is "You can export the email addresses of your current subscribers at any time"

So if they stop doing the "email my subscribers whenever I post" step, another service will fill the gap pretty quick.

rsingel 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Substack notes is non exportable; the newsletter now no longer have a link to read it on your site on substack and instead link to the substack app, and subscriptions started in the app pay Substack through Apple and Google and you can't export them.

Substack has become a roach motel but they pretend otherwise

sixtyj an hour ago | parent [-]

Thanks for this.

I can hear Substack marketing saying that “We don’t have any intention to put you into a vendor-lock.”

I had a lot of discussions with companies about their marketing.

Why do you upload your events’ photos to FB instead of your site?

Why do you have news on LI feed and don’t make it a post on your site as well?

Do you think they can hear it? :)

Substack is going to become a similar service as FB, LI are… no possibility to export your data easily or not at all.

ImJamal 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If Substack stops supporting that feature you would end up losing all of your subscribers when you move to the alternative unless you happen to have an up to date export.

coldtea 34 minutes ago | parent [-]

Which is trivial. Even once a month is enough.

ImJamal 14 minutes ago | parent [-]

How many writers are even thinking about that though? If they shut it off tomorrow, how many would have a list within the last year?

Forgeties79 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Until they make it more difficult to export lol that’s the real canary in the coal mine if you ask me.

throw1234567891 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When they will, you’ll be free to take action.

shimman an hour ago | parent [-]

Yeah and having a site is a way to mitigate that risk...

c16 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Gmail has categories. So they already are.

carlosjobim 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> How do we know they won't start limiting your reach in the future?

You can never know anything about what anybody will do in the future? You can't. Why do hackers always use this argument against everything?

bryanrasmussen an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Hackers always use this argument against everything because you can in fact know some things about what one person, yourself, will do in the future.

Thus they argue that you should not trust your things to other people but do it yourself, because, barring major illness, you can reasonably assume that you will try to do what is best for yourself in the future.

coldtea 32 minutes ago | parent [-]

>because you can in fact know some things about what one person, yourself, will do in the future.

Nope. At best you merely know what your current self intends to do in the future. Whether you'll do them then, or whether you'll even still want to do them then, or be able to do them then, or have regretted ever wanting to do them, and many other such things, we don't know.

autoexec an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> You can never know anything about what anybody will do in the future?

You absolutely can know something about what someone will do in the future. You gain those insights by looking at their past and present behavior and the behavior of others in similar circumstances. Hackers tend to be pretty good at pattern recognition and can often see where things are heading. Enshittification is a pretty smart bet.

throw0101d an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Counterpoint from someone who's been publishing on the internet for decades: no one will visit your website. It's as simple as that. You need a push mechanism to reach readers.

I think that one should at least have one's own domain instead of example.substack.com. Substack allows for exporting posts (which would be good to do regularly just for backups in case of (account) compromise):

* https://support.substack.com/hc/en-us/articles/360037466012-...

so if you ever feel like the company is acting questionably, you can take that file and bring it in elsewhere, e.g.

* https://wordpress.com/support/import-from-substack/

zahlman 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What if I want people to read me without needing a subscription or email disclosure?

What's the email for anyway? So that you can get sent notifications of new posts? ... People read those kinds of emails? I always curse myself for finding a way to get them sent to myself, and file them away somewhere until I can figure out how to turn them off.

wofo an hour ago | parent | next [-]

My blog used to be RSS only, because I thought email subscriptions were a plot of "content creators" and not something readers actually wanted... until one of my readers told me he really recommended adding email as an option. I did, and a surprising number of people subscribed since then.

6510 38 minutes ago | parent [-]

For a decade or~so I subscribe to newsletters and had skip inbox rules that archived them in a folder about the subject. Eventually I never really looked at the folders but it never bothered me as I don't really see them. Not sure if that means it works or not.

wofo 34 minutes ago | parent [-]

Hahaha it could well be that people are merely hoarding newsletter emails. I hope readers derive _some_ value from the emails, but since I'm not doing it to drive up "engagement metrics" I don't really mind.

nickthegreek an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> What if I want people to read me without needing a subscription or email disclosure?

Medium is where you can post and get a bit of what substack offers while giving you the ability to make your post freely available via the web.

> What's the email for anyway? So that you can get sent notifications of new posts?

On substack, you get the whole newsletter in the email. you dont need to go to a website. I use https://kill-the-newsletter.com/ to put them in my rss though.

skippyfish an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> I use https://kill-the-newsletter.com/ to put them in my rss though.

Every Substack has an RSS at /feed.rss.

hungryhobbit 14 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Pick Medium, it's great ... if you want a paywall to turn away half your visitors!

benoliver999 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My RSS reader accepts email newsletters so I subscribe using that and funnel them all into feedbin

goostavos 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

...I use email notifications. I follow very few people (fewer than 10), so I'm always happy when an email pops up letting me know they've written something.

I don't pay attention to my RSS reader, and barely use social media. For whatever reason, email works for me.

game_the0ry 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> You need a push mechanism to reach readers.

Ghost blog includes newsletter for push.

coldtea 30 minutes ago | parent [-]

Push as in a newsletter alone isn't doing anything. It's the "show ocassional posts of you on an already captive audience of millions and especially readers with similar interests" (the whole Substack base) that does it.

clickety_clack an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The lift to make your own website is so low now, and the benefits of future-proofing are so great that it's just the right decision to make. You don’t even have to drive all your readers there, you’ll just have it available for everyone if the audience ever decides to gradually move on from substack (which seems to happen pretty much every social media platform).

Topology1 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I feel like the transition from substack to website + newsletter wouldn't be terrible, although I'm sure your traffic would decrease after making the switch.

cosmicgadget 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I miss the days when I'd regularly get forwards from friends about stuff they found on the internet.

brunoarueira an hour ago | parent [-]

One of my first jobs after graduate, I used to share a lot of posts with my coworkers until a certain point where one of them said "I don't know how you read so much content", worthless to say him was a Master's student, so I'm expecting him to be able to consume more content than myself, although different more towards academic stuff.

coldtea 29 minutes ago | parent [-]

>"I don't know how you read so much content"

And then they spend hours every day doomscrolling and binge watching shit

ValdikSS an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you write news, posts that needs discussion, information that relatively quickly becomes obsolete, then probably yes, you won't want a website because few people will search for it deliberately.

But if you're writing for yourself, articles with multimedia, or want to use advanced features, no platform provides anything close to what you can do on your website.

Take a look at https://ciechanow.ski/bicycle/ for example.

skippyfish an hour ago | parent [-]

No one is writing purely for themselves. It's something we like to say, and there's some value in writing down your thoughts - but deep down inside, every blogger is dreaming of having a positive impact on other people's lives. That requires reaching these people in the first place.

I promise you that Bartosz would be bummed out if he had an audience of one. And while relying on HN to accidentally discover you can work, it's not a sustainable model for anything.

ValdikSS an hour ago | parent [-]

>No one is writing purely for themselves

Every time I see posts like this one and go into comments, everyone in the comments treat writing as a hobby which they would like to turn into work and earn money from, more or less. And I suppose the words "writing" and "blogging" associate with the community around themselves in their minds, not with the text information per se.

I'm writing technical articles (blog posts) my whole life most of the time as a result of me learning something new, to structure the information on some topic for myself and others.

If it's a research, I make a post with all the information and final result of it in public, primarily for myself and sometimes for others, because 95% of the time it's not secret and there's no point to store it privately.

If it's a helpful information (software: unofficial bugfix, hacky workaround, poorly documented feature somewhere, etc), I want it to be searchable/indexed, only that.

I don't care about attribution, about who reads my writing (be it me, my friends, people I don't know, or AI), I have no incentive to push (as in post here or on social networks) or promote these articles in any way. I don't want people to get back to my site, to subscribe to it, or to build a community around it.

If the user types "How do I solve issue X" and by a mere coincidence I solved and documented it, I don't care if the user gets the solution from my website, from the scrape & repost websites, or from AI agent which scraped the site. If this helps the user to fix the issue or to learn something new, every way is fine for me!

tombert an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Agreed.

I have a blog, I don't really promote it, and no one reads it.

Now, there is an argument that there's nothing on my blog worth reading, and yeah there might be truth to that, but regardless my traffic is on the order like 100 unique views per month, and I don't know what percentage of that is just scraping bots.

I'm fine with this, I had no delusions of becoming a famous writer or making any money from it or anything, my blog is basically just a dumping ground for thoughts that I think are interesting, but if I actually did care about people visiting my blog I would probably use Substack or something similar.

dmitrygr 38 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> no one will visit your website. It's as simple as that.

I am not convinced. My traffic counter spins quite rapidly, and I only publish on http://dmitry.gr

coldtea 26 minutes ago | parent [-]

That's because it's a tech vlog with posts that also serve as technical reference and tutorials and such like: https://dmitry.gr/?r=05.Projects&proj=27.%20rePalm

There's a big audience for that that's actively search for such keywords.

Not the same with essays or fiction writing

cosmicgadget 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I mean, can't you accomplish the same thing with "enter your email/social handle to be notified when I post something"?

bonestamp2 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

For sure. I had a huge following on my wordpress blog 15 years ago and email was how everyone got notified of new content. I'm sure there's a way to at least do sms now if people want that level of notification.

ImJamal 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Most writers just want to write and don't want to start maintaining servers and databases to handle the collection and storing of emails. This is why they outsource that functionality to a service like Substack.

true_religion an hour ago | parent [-]

It would be nice if services like Substack supported exportability, so when a writer eventually becomes successful enough to migrate away, or the platform itself is no longer a good fit, then there aren't any losses.

Convenience is good, but I don't want writers & readers to have to make a faustian pact every day.

efilife 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's addressed in the article

f311a 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> no one will visit your website.

Yep, let's suppose an average HN user reads 30-100 articles a month on independent websites (personal domains) posted on HN. Out of 100, he probably subscribes to 0-2 at best (via RSS/e-mail). Now, imagine how many times you need to appear on HN to get your own audience. There is too much friction for a user to subscribe.

Substack is similar to a social platform. People open it to read new articles in a similar way to HN, and they can subscribe to anyone by pressing a single button. There is a recommendation feed as well.

Since Google search for tech content is dead, getting views on independent blogs is extremely hard.

yrds96 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Fediverse. We need to push Fediverse

rusk 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I actively skip stuff that’s on substack just like I do medium and blogger. Maybe there’s good stuff on there but it’s usually a by-word for slop. I figure if anyone has anything that interesting to say they’d make the effort and put it up on something more serious looking.

dpkirchner 2 hours ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

zahlman 2 hours ago | parent [-]

They have done nothing of the sort.

wizzwizz4 2 hours ago | parent [-]

https://web.archive.org/web/20251221230655/https://www.userm...

> Substack sent a push alert encouraging users to subscribe to a Nazi newsletter that claimed Jewish people are a sickness and that we must eradicate minorities to build a “White homeland.” […] The newsletter's logo is a swastika and it has pushed Holocaust denialism along with news and opinion content for the 'White Nationalist Community.' […] Substack is primarily funded by Andreessen Horowitz, a firm whose founders have pushed extreme far right rhetoric.

zahlman an hour ago | parent [-]

Your source is Taylor Lorenz, on her own Substack (with a custom domain). She apparently wasn't bothered enough to disassociate with the service. This is someone who makes claims like "Substack is primarily funded by Andreessen Horowitz, a firm whose founders have pushed extreme far right rhetoric." (Something which Wikipedia editors would be tripping over each other to evidence if it were true, but their article says nothing about it.)

There is nothing to demonstrate the claim that Substack "continues, proudly" to host such content, nor that they were ever "proud" of it. A cursory inspection shows that while the "facing" page for the group in question still loads, the underlying profile and content are all gone.

It is a known tactic of agitators to post objectionable (or even highly illegal) content on distribution networks (or in communities) they dislike and then try to get media attention attributing it to the network/community rather than themselves.

wizzwizz4 44 minutes ago | parent [-]

> Your source is Taylor Lorenz,

One of the first newsy types to report this particular issue, but certainly not the only one. See https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/07/substacks-nazi-p..., which quotes a press release from Substack. Arguably, my source is therefore Substack themselves, via Ars Technica.

> Something which Wikipedia editors would be tripping over each other to evidence if it were true, but their article says nothing about it.

Actually, this information is on Wikipedia. There's one NYT link on the Andreessen Horowitz article, and several paragraphs on Marc Andreessen's. I don't know enough about US politics to know whether all this adds up to "extreme far right rhetoric" (and I'd rather not debate that here), but there's definitely extreme, and right-wing, political advocacy described in Marc Andreessen's article. I have not confirmed whether the claims in the Wikipedia article are correct; if you dispute them, then please let me know as a courtesy (I like having accurate knowledge), then take it up with the Wikipedia editors.

> There is nothing to demonstrate the claim that Substack "continues, proudly" to host such content,

But they do continue to host it. This has been a problem for years (see e.g. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/11/substack-e..., https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/feb/07/revealed-how-s...). Do you need an article from last month? Or do I need to link you to a Nazi blog directly? They are not very hard to find: just type "site:substack.com" followed by some keywords. It took me 20 seconds to find one called "White Free Press", with such wonderful articles as "David Lane and the Foundations of His Racial Ideology", "The Contemporary Conceptual Framework of the White Ethnostate", and "The Immutable Animosity: blacts [sic] hate White People, and Nothing Can Change It".

> It is a known tactic of agitators […]

Quoting the Ars Technica article:

> Of those accounts created in February, only the Substack account is still online, which Fisher-Birch suggested likely sends a message to Nazi groups that their Substack content is “less likely to be removed than other platforms.” At least one Terrorgram-adjacent white supremacist account that Fisher-Birch found in March 2024 confirmed that Substack was viewed as a back-up to Telegram because it was that much more reliable to post content there.

> “Groups that want to recruit members or build a neo-fascist counter-culture see Substack as a way to get their message out,” Fisher-Birch told Ars.

I don't think "this is all some kind of contrived false flag operation" is a particularly likely explanation.

BorisMelnik 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

this tide will turn, and the day of reckoning is coming for AI slop and large domains owning the search results. small publishers are going to have their time very soon.