Substack is not a suitable alternative to Twitter.
If Elon Musk can buy Twitter, he can buy Substack.
However, Elon Musk cannot buy the Fediverse. No one company owns it. It is not for sale.
Substack is not a suitable alternative to Twitter.
If Elon Musk can buy Twitter, he can buy Substack.
However, Elon Musk cannot buy the Fediverse. No one company owns it. It is not for sale.
At this point, if a social network refuses to join the Fediverse, I’m not interested.
Anyone trying to build yet another proprietary walled garden is just a mini-Musk.
You do not need a billionaire or a VC fund to use social media.
They are just middlemen opportunists trying to insert themselves between you and your friends.
The Internet was built to make it easy for you to connect with others, and that is getting easier with protocols like ActivityPub.
You don’t need Elon Musk. You don’t need Mark Zuckerberg. You certainly don’t need any Silicon Valley tech bro to let you use social media.
If Elon Musk walked into Substack's office right now (probably with a sink) and offered them $585 million to buy it, do you think their shareholders would say "No"?
Not on their life.
They would be skipping for joy. Everyone who owns equity in Substack would be popping open bottles of champagne.
Meanwhile, all those writers that Substack is paying will now be under Musk's thumb -- yet again.
This is why the Fediverse is the better choice compared to Substack.
Some folks might be thinking, “Unlike the Fediverse, Substack gives writers an opportunity to get paid.”
Not so fast.
When @TexasObserver was nearly shut down because they lacked funding for operations, they turned to the Fediverse for help.
Within 48 hours, we helped them raise $250,000 in funding—and now that 70-year-old newspaper still lives.
As a result, 17 journalists still have their jobs.
So ... how does the world encourage NPR get (say) a social.npr.org instance?
To people who say that Elon Musk won't buy Substack because he could "barely afford" to buy Twitter: Substack is no unicorn.
Substack's current valuation sits at $585 million.
That might be an over-estimation because its revenue for the entirety of 2022 was probably $18.6 million.
Elon Musk bought Twitter for $44 billion. He can assuredly buy Substack if he wanted it.
https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/28/23660473/substack-retail-investors-revenue-profit
I've worked for a social media start-up before. In fact, I was an early employee at a well known one. I know how this goes.
Founders start with the best of intentions.
But then VCs start making demands. And at that point, startups go for the fastest, easiest method to acquire revenue growth. That is, if they want to stay on board.
A good many of them take their exit as soon as it becomes available. Just look at Instagram and WhatsApp.
@gdiak As Twitter already demonstrated, a walled garden is convenient until it’s not.
I don't completely agree on that. it might be better in some aspects and worse in others.
substack wins with respect to convenience. and many people value convenience over ownership, control, rights
@TimWardCam Weird because I was just on Usenet recently, and required no Google services to do that.
In fact, Google does not own Usenet.
@atomicpoet Maybe. Google sort-of took over Usenet - most users of Google Groups probably don't know where it came from.
I didn't know google groups was still even around, it became so useless I stopped even trying.
The story of the DejaNews acquisition becoming whatever is left of google groups is a textbook example of Doctorow's enshittification theory.
@atomicpoet I know that, you know that, I'm just saying that most users of Google Groups probably don't.
@TimWardCam Not very many people use Google Groups nowadays so that’s a red herring.
@atomicpoet I am old enough to remember when FB allowed some federation. Probably before Thiel.
@atomicpoet History is littered with examples of platforms that no longer exist or are irrelevant, however owning your own domain name, website and list of subscribers will always work out in the long run.
The problem is that you now need security services, scalability, DDNS attack prevention...a LOT to setup on your own and maintain.
In the long run, everyone cannot become AirBnB.
@staidwinnow @aaron Then buy from a host that manages all that for you.
?
“But Elon Musk could buy all 23,000 Fediverse servers and do the same thing here!”
I assure you that my servers are not up for sale. And from speaking to numerous other admins, they won’t be selling either.
You see, for the same reason people play basketball because it’s fun—not because they want a $50 million NBA contract—many of us run and operate Fediverse servers.
But it’s amazing that some people can’t imagine doing things without a profit motive.
Imagine if people asked the silly “How do you make money?” question about other hobbies.
“You play chess. How do you make money from it?”
“You eat cheese. How do you make money from it?”
“You own a cat. How do you make money from it?”
Maybe I do these things for their own sake—because they give me joy.
@atomicpoet wait.. you don't monetise your cat?
The difference between Substack and my Fediverse servers is that Substack has a fiduciary duty to shareholders to generate profit.
I do not.
@hosford42 What you are describing can be referred to as #ExitToCommunity ! Perhaps you are already aware of it, perhaps others aren't. It's a cool concept!
/cc @Marc
@atomicpoet And this is the bottom line. You just summed up everything that's wrong with the model of capitalism that America follows, in one thread.
Imagine if instead of having an IPO to get their payday after building a business, the founders instead sold the company to the workers or customers, and it was converted to a co-op. Suddenly the motive from start to finish becomes building value for the community, period. No more shady manipulations, where customers are frogs in a warming pot, becoming nothing more than resources to mine.
Imagine if all businesses either stayed privately owned or went this route. No more swinging, crashing stock markets. No more billionaire oligarchs living on financial rent. No more treating human beings like livestock milked for their money by strangers so far removed that they can't remember the humanity of those they are exploiting.
@atomicpoet “Where’s the profit motive” mfs getting upset when I hang out with my friends without charging them for it
@alienghic @cstross @Lazarou What you're referring to is mercantilism, and it was definitely a motivating factor in colonialism and well as the creation of capitalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism
@alienghic @cstross @Lazarou Just want to point out that capitalism is a recent thing, and has only been with us ~300 years.
Whereas Christianity has been around for ~2,000 years.
Also, like many things, the West appropriated Christianity from elsewhere. Ethiopia has been a Christian nation for much longer than England, for example.
The reason I'm thinking that there's a relationship is the Europeans seemed to have two major priorities when conquering the Americas looking for loot and imposing Christianity.
It seems like after running out of easy to find loot in the Americas, they used the wealth from that loot to start the transatlantic slave trade, and here again the slavers frequently used Christianity to justify subjugating non-christian populations.
I saw an argument suggesting that funding Columbus was an example of an early capitalist like activity.
The already rich Spanish royalty used their wealth to fund Columbus' high risk, high return venture in a way similar to more modern venture capitalism.
They lacked the legal advancements of the limited liability joint stock corporation, so it's not as developed as modern capitalism, but does arguably represent a capitalist like enterprise.
I think most people would agree that later ventures enterprises like the Northwest Territories company or the East India company were quite similar to modern capitalist companies and were major implementers of colonialism.
Christianity, colonialism, and capitalism are major themes in western history, and they all intertwined with each other in ways that my understanding of history is inadequate to tease apart.
I'm not sure if capitalism is directly its own religion or if its a consequence of Christianity?
My current guess is that Christianity gave Europeans an excessive sense of their own superiority. With that they then went out and conquered the Americas and Africa with colonialism, and imposed the economic system called capitalism.
The three Cs seem deeply connected in hard to separate ways.
As examples:
Is it even possible to separate americas work obsession from the Protestant work ethic?
The American wealthy classes seem to be heavily invested in spreading prosperity theology.
@atomicpoet @Lazarou Capitalism is a religion. Not healthy.
I could stand to understand the relationship between mercantilism and capitalism better.
@atomicpoet @alienghic @Lazarou @cstross Armenia (in Europe) and Ethiopia were both successfully evangelized at by Christians ("appropriated Christianity") within decades after Jesus's supposed death.
Rome resisted until the emperor was successfully converted, and the new Christian power base evangelized at or conquered the rest of the continent over the course of the next 1000 years.
@clacke @alienghic @Lazarou @cstross In Rome, state and religion were one and the same. In fact, prior to the rise of Christianity in Rome, emperor worship was used as a means of spreading Roman imperialism.
Rome becoming Christian wasn’t due to Christians taking over but an emperor appropriating an exotic religion to suit his dominance over others.
Specifically, it was Constantine who did this.
https://www.britannica.com/place/ancient-Rome/Cult-of-the-emperors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea?wprov=sfti1
@clacke @alienghic @Lazarou @cstross Constantine could have just as easily chose Manichaeism instead of Christianity. Perhaps if that happened, Europeans would have revered Mani instead of Jesus instead.
@atomicpoet @alienghic @Lazarou @cstross He didn't, because Christianity evangelized more effectively.
Either way, Christianity originated within the Roman empire and explicitly evangelized at Romans from the get go.
@clacke @alienghic @Lazarou @cstross Actually, here’s a better article on Constantine.
And if you see the highlighted part, it’s clear that Constantine saw his role as an enforcer of Christianity.
Either way, in Ancient Rome, Christianity was a tool of state apparatus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great_and_Christianity?wprov=sfti1
@atomicpoet @alienghic @Lazarou @cstross There is nothing in this comment and quote I disagree with.
What I disagree with is a religion evangelizing at an empire for 300 years, and when they finally succed someones comes along 1700 years later and says "look, typical empire, they just appropriated that stuff, as they do".
They do, but this is the worst example possible unless your point is that Paul appropriated and romanized a fringe Messianic Judaic sect for his own purposes.
As for Europe outside Constantine's Roman Empire, they were victims of Constantine's Roman Christianity. They/we appropriated many things over the centuries, but not this one.
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.