While I’m innovative in some ways, in many other ways I lag behind. That is certainly true for clothes, music, and furnishings. And it took me ever so long to admit that a smartphone was a good idea. And as I started blogging in 2006 at an independent website, perhaps you can understand why it has taken me so long to switch to Substack. But as of today, here I am.
This was a bad change. The only thing Substack is good at is getting people to pay money; a killer feature if you need it like Scott, but you don't, presumably, intend to paywall OB. Otherwise, Substack is terrible blogging software: it struggles to do something as simple as super/subscript! (I think they might *just* have implemented that, 6 years and 100 employees later.) It also has nasty design: subscribe nagware all over the page, that horrible fullscreen ad that pops up after a little while, remarkably intense web browser load, aggressive collapsing of comment subthreads... You've broken a ton of OB functionality: the tags are all gone, browsing by month/year, the per-author post lists, the comment sidebar, and I've probably forgotten some other things inasmuch as there's no way to check now that the site is gone.
I was not a regular reader of your blog, but your book and your conversations with Agnes Callard are why I immediately subscribed. I don't really care about exclusivity and would be happy if my payment signaled more mindsalmostmeeting.
But Substack doesn't look as good as your old website did. And it is probably slower too. And now I have to change my OB scraping script :(. On that note, I trained GPT-3 on some of your works. It is private right now. Do you want access to the model?
Love your work. I understand most of it (OK - probably half of it). A topic i would encourage you to explore is coherence. I struggle to parse the general discourse. I concede that foundational differences often leave us on two sides of a deep ravine with no obvious bridges to use to cross (a la Sowell's Conflict of Visions) but i often find the arguments on any one side to be incoherent. For example a view that choosing your gender is ok but not your race. I freely accept that i am probably on the other side of the ravine on this particular view and no doubt suffer my own incoherent thoughts. Are there ways to build bridges ? Does it help (or hurt) to expose incoherence ? Is the incoherence a feature or a bug ?
Is it really the case that what people want to pay for is access to additional content? First, my hypothesis is that the value of your posts is, in a large part, derived from being able to discuss them with others (so, the widest possible access is desirable), and, in general, from introducing those ideas to the world. Second, I would guess (at least from personal experience) that paying for a blog like yours stems from the wanting-to-associate-with-elites drive.
Most of the content on my Substack is free, but I have a handful of paying subscribers and at times I post something for paying subscribers only (with a 50% free preview). I set the full subscription fee at the minimum allowed ($5/month or $30/year), and I think there should be a cheaper option (say $10/year). However, your blog is popular so I’m sure you’ll have lots of paying subscribers if you find a good model. Perhaps 1 post in 3 for paying subscribers?
This was a bad change. The only thing Substack is good at is getting people to pay money; a killer feature if you need it like Scott, but you don't, presumably, intend to paywall OB. Otherwise, Substack is terrible blogging software: it struggles to do something as simple as super/subscript! (I think they might *just* have implemented that, 6 years and 100 employees later.) It also has nasty design: subscribe nagware all over the page, that horrible fullscreen ad that pops up after a little while, remarkably intense web browser load, aggressive collapsing of comment subthreads... You've broken a ton of OB functionality: the tags are all gone, browsing by month/year, the per-author post lists, the comment sidebar, and I've probably forgotten some other things inasmuch as there's no way to check now that the site is gone.
I was not a regular reader of your blog, but your book and your conversations with Agnes Callard are why I immediately subscribed. I don't really care about exclusivity and would be happy if my payment signaled more mindsalmostmeeting.
I think Arnold Kling has an interesting model. He hosts regular discussions with paying subscribers on Zoom, but all the written content remains free.
Any news on the comments? I am interested in some ones from the AI Foom debate
How about something on political bias? Tribalism is wrecking the country.
https://open.substack.com/pub/sinatana/p/doctors-may-i-ask-you-a-question?r=zickz&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Lots to overcome and the identity game
I also want to express my love for Minds Almost Meeting. I can't wait for the next episode!
But Substack doesn't look as good as your old website did. And it is probably slower too. And now I have to change my OB scraping script :(. On that note, I trained GPT-3 on some of your works. It is private right now. Do you want access to the model?
Love your work. I understand most of it (OK - probably half of it). A topic i would encourage you to explore is coherence. I struggle to parse the general discourse. I concede that foundational differences often leave us on two sides of a deep ravine with no obvious bridges to use to cross (a la Sowell's Conflict of Visions) but i often find the arguments on any one side to be incoherent. For example a view that choosing your gender is ok but not your race. I freely accept that i am probably on the other side of the ravine on this particular view and no doubt suffer my own incoherent thoughts. Are there ways to build bridges ? Does it help (or hurt) to expose incoherence ? Is the incoherence a feature or a bug ?
Is it really the case that what people want to pay for is access to additional content? First, my hypothesis is that the value of your posts is, in a large part, derived from being able to discuss them with others (so, the widest possible access is desirable), and, in general, from introducing those ideas to the world. Second, I would guess (at least from personal experience) that paying for a blog like yours stems from the wanting-to-associate-with-elites drive.
I really miss the old comments so hope all goes well, as for paid content I think private discussions would probably be best.
Most of the content on my Substack is free, but I have a handful of paying subscribers and at times I post something for paying subscribers only (with a 50% free preview). I set the full subscription fee at the minimum allowed ($5/month or $30/year), and I think there should be a cheaper option (say $10/year). However, your blog is popular so I’m sure you’ll have lots of paying subscribers if you find a good model. Perhaps 1 post in 3 for paying subscribers?
Finally! You’re the last blog that I’ve wanted to move to Substack. Glad to have you here!