Bari Weiss introduced me to you via her podcast just as I was finding myself dislodged from the fixed matrix of my echo chamber, and I will be forever grateful that you helped make that path morally navigable. IMHO, the world needs a Senator Loury. I understand we can't have nice things, but thank you just the same.
In the end, this direction will be the slow grinding diminishment of the Substack platform’s growth and reach potential when adopted my many, but I can empathize with the choice. Hopefully Substack will learn from the community model of Stack Exchange, as it seems to work well enough there.
First, for clarity, Stack Exchange is not a single site. It is a very wide collection of federated sites. How they handle community sanity is with a variety of 1) “points” combined with 2) upvoting or downvoting of posts and comments. Where “voting” itself incurs a minor “cost”. Having more points means more site privileges. Everything is incentivized to be conscientious and cogent. There are other schemes to gain points with other engaging behaviors. It is somewhat complex on it’s face, but you don’t have to worry about it, just be thoughtful and contribute positively and you are spared worrying about the complexity that is far more of a macro-scale control.
You are welcome Thomas. Your request for clarity was received sincerely. The Stack Exchange community model is probably not one that can drop nicely into Substack. It is more a (technical) Question, Answer dialog. And it is far, far more an objective truth environment. So I am just hopeful of the echoes of it making its way here.
The key feature that would be necessary in Substack on any upvote/downvote feature is that voting itself requires a currency and expense by the voter. Not just a popularity contest with consequence-less icon clicking, which is the drivel of contemporary massive social platforms that have driven us to Substack in the first place.
The basis of that currency is usually as simple as gaining “one” when your posts or comments are upvoted and expending “one” to vote on something. There are some very strange and complex obstacles to establish “minting” (inflation) currency out of thin air at a non-toxic rate. It is an interesting puzzle Glenn would probably find intellectually interesting, given his lifelong profession.
Can someone pls tell me where I went wrong, apparently, in thinking the deal was “no pay, no comment”? If you could’ve commented before without paying, what was the benefit of paying?
I had the impression I could read & hear everything the few times I quit paying… just couldn’t comment, & maybe you had to wait a week for some things like the Glenn & John conversations if you didn’t pay, but I thought most everything was accessible. Hmmm… some clarification would be swell!
As a former non-paying sub—my current TGS sub was recently gifted to me by member "Yan Shen"— I believe I could comment anywhere on TGS with the exception of material released early to paying subs, then trickled out in short installments over a week or so to deadbeats like me, then finally being made fully accessible to all subs, paying and non. I could be mistaken but I put quite a few comments up on many different topics as a non-paying sub.
I appreciate your help, Richard. I guess I didnt do my due diligence. Just discovered, in ALL of Glenn's posting abt the new policy, what paying members got exclusively, and I see it was comments on the Q & A that non payers missed out on while regular comments were open to them. Also some "bonus" stuff as well as the early access. Now I guess it's as I thought it was before.
I'm usually late in listening/commenting and have missed quite a few talks, have gone for many months without commenting, even re TTBG/Glenn&John, yet I kept paying IN CASE I wanted to comment (thinking I had to).
Like with many subscriptions I dont often use, I begin to feel more like a kind benefactor, given how little I make use of the offerings. I do love what Glenn does here - hearing from him, his guests - it's the best of what I see out there (KUDOS!!! GLENN!!!), but I dont feel compelled to assist him with financial growth; I wager he's been quite comfortable for a good while. That's why it was kind of a relief to learn 10% of profits go to the worthwhile Robert Woodson foundation, as I deeply respect what Woodson does, what he has to say, and wish there were a lot more like him out there.
Yes, I believe you've got everything nailed down correctly. I'm not a big fan of the split-up sections (dribbles, I call them) of the whole weekly video due mainly to the difference in commenters (paid vs. non-paid subs). Seemed like two completely different discussions. I expect that will end soon as non-paid subs are banished from TGS. Hopefully, the dribbles will disappear as well...
Thx. So, if I understand you, the perk to paying was getting the full discussion a few days earlier than non payers (I thought it was a week) as well as being able to comment during those first few days, but after that point, even non payers could comment. And non payers had access to all postings in full after the initial wait time. And could comment on all of it? Is that right?
I'm a little disappointed, but maybe I'm missing some things. Were trolls that much of an issue? You get a LOT of comments, Glenn, and there've been a few times you've acknowledged taking comments down because of something egregiously racist or offensive. I don't read all of them by a long shot so maybe I'm missing a troll problem you may have. I would like to see everyone given the ability to comment return, and if you block the ones who've effed up, that's no big deal. I would like to see a wider variety of comments, but maybe you've already got so many paying subscribers it doesn't impact them much? I don't know.
Trolls are less of a problem if they aren’t fed. The best control mech is an intellectually honest and curious group. Engage with those, ignore the rest.
I’m confused. I thought I was paying bc only payers got to comment. Was it that way & it changed at some point to where anyone could comment? And now it’s changing back? Can someone pls tell me what I’ve been paying for?
As others have said in the comments to this post, it could create somewhat of an echo-chamber in the comments section.
What I have to add to these reflections is that emphasize the selection bias involved. Playing off what I said in my earlier post about this topic, it is precisely those people who disagree with Glenn's views that are likely to balk at paying him for a subscription.
Good point. Perhaps more host leeway in banning non payers would help maintain control. There may be a few dolts who need dumped. The group should be the best at discipline.
he was on Glenn's show that i watched last night - there is a picture of him holding a drink- anyway - glenn talked about cleaning out his desk since he never went to brown in person anymore but worked from home = and john started talking about his pretty non-woke views had pretty much gotten him banned him from all of his liguistic groups - didn't lose he job at columbia but evidently is pretty much cancelled amongst the variouos linguistic groups he was in - it was actually pretty sad - he was devastated you could tell -
I'll take a look for this. I feel bad just hearing about it. John seems like a decent guy (and maybe even a bit on the sensitive side, at least compared to Glenn), and I've seen his videos on linguistics produced by the Teaching Company/Great Courses. To say he is passionate about linguistics is obvious, since he made it his career, but the passion also shows through when he talks about and teaches the field.
Everybody (and her mother and his father) has a Substack now, and each is asking $40-$80 per year for a subscription.
Online news and commentary outlets, with a host of commentators contributing, run from what, $50-$150 per year.
So at $40-$80 a pop, most common people are going to be able to subscribe to just a handful of Substackers.
Glenn made the cut because of my incredible respect for him and what he has been doing online.
There are many other Substackers I like, but only at, say, $20-$40 per year. I'd make my own customized online news and commentary service from them.
Basic economics tells us that there are many, many people like me.*
We'll see how this Substack phenomena plays out.
---
* Everyone has a budget constraint of some sort, and they choose their bundles of Substack subscriptions to maximize their utility based on that budget constraint. The price of the various available Substack subscriptions is a factor in determining the "shape" of the budget constraint and therefore what a person's utility-maximizing bundle is.
i do find this unfortunate. There are many listeners of this podcast whose valuable insights we may lose. There are options to block and mute other substack members. However, that did not seem to work. If that did work then people could simply block members from their feed and we would not see the trolls or anyone else we did not want to. Similar to fbook. Hopefully, this will be instituted and TGS will move back to a free market of ideas and less of capitalist venture for substack and Glenn. :)
if you click on someones profile, it gives the option to block or mute someone. I tried that on someone. But the problem is, it didn't work. I was still seeing their new posts. I was assuming that if I blocked and muted them, I would not see their posts that were cluttering up thread with nonsense.
My ROI from TGS on substack is incalculably massive by any algorithm I am able to conjure. It is disheartening to realize Biden v Trump is our probable choice in '24 when you are exactly who the nation needs to lead us.
💡
Am I considered a paying troll subscriber? The subscriber consensus here? The issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion analysis? Lol!!!!
Such a smart idea. Your show is a highlight of my week. Thanks for thinking of ways to keep it engaging without the trolls.
Bari Weiss introduced me to you via her podcast just as I was finding myself dislodged from the fixed matrix of my echo chamber, and I will be forever grateful that you helped make that path morally navigable. IMHO, the world needs a Senator Loury. I understand we can't have nice things, but thank you just the same.
Glad you have the show here!
In the end, this direction will be the slow grinding diminishment of the Substack platform’s growth and reach potential when adopted my many, but I can empathize with the choice. Hopefully Substack will learn from the community model of Stack Exchange, as it seems to work well enough there.
Hi,
Honest ask to help me understand.
Could you please take a moment to express a brief synopsis of what Stack Exchange does with the "trolling" issue different than here on Substack/TGS.
I am not familiar with the platform or difference.
Thank you
First, for clarity, Stack Exchange is not a single site. It is a very wide collection of federated sites. How they handle community sanity is with a variety of 1) “points” combined with 2) upvoting or downvoting of posts and comments. Where “voting” itself incurs a minor “cost”. Having more points means more site privileges. Everything is incentivized to be conscientious and cogent. There are other schemes to gain points with other engaging behaviors. It is somewhat complex on it’s face, but you don’t have to worry about it, just be thoughtful and contribute positively and you are spared worrying about the complexity that is far more of a macro-scale control.
Ohhhhhhhhhh... very clarifying. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Very Interesting.
Much appreciated.
I do find the assertion that this particular policy move by TGS is the path towards the reduction of _____.
Just don't observe this policy as static or ad infinitum.
Your comment showed me that other platforms incentivize differently. Thank you.
Will have to check for my self to see if interactions with heterodox thought is increased or decreased.
Thanks again Michael.
You are welcome Thomas. Your request for clarity was received sincerely. The Stack Exchange community model is probably not one that can drop nicely into Substack. It is more a (technical) Question, Answer dialog. And it is far, far more an objective truth environment. So I am just hopeful of the echoes of it making its way here.
The key feature that would be necessary in Substack on any upvote/downvote feature is that voting itself requires a currency and expense by the voter. Not just a popularity contest with consequence-less icon clicking, which is the drivel of contemporary massive social platforms that have driven us to Substack in the first place.
The basis of that currency is usually as simple as gaining “one” when your posts or comments are upvoted and expending “one” to vote on something. There are some very strange and complex obstacles to establish “minting” (inflation) currency out of thin air at a non-toxic rate. It is an interesting puzzle Glenn would probably find intellectually interesting, given his lifelong profession.
Subjective AND Objective truth conversations in good faith. The search for me has yet to find one place that has it all.
I kind of hope that never actually happen tbh.
Thnx again
Can someone pls tell me where I went wrong, apparently, in thinking the deal was “no pay, no comment”? If you could’ve commented before without paying, what was the benefit of paying?
I had the impression I could read & hear everything the few times I quit paying… just couldn’t comment, & maybe you had to wait a week for some things like the Glenn & John conversations if you didn’t pay, but I thought most everything was accessible. Hmmm… some clarification would be swell!
As a former non-paying sub—my current TGS sub was recently gifted to me by member "Yan Shen"— I believe I could comment anywhere on TGS with the exception of material released early to paying subs, then trickled out in short installments over a week or so to deadbeats like me, then finally being made fully accessible to all subs, paying and non. I could be mistaken but I put quite a few comments up on many different topics as a non-paying sub.
I appreciate your help, Richard. I guess I didnt do my due diligence. Just discovered, in ALL of Glenn's posting abt the new policy, what paying members got exclusively, and I see it was comments on the Q & A that non payers missed out on while regular comments were open to them. Also some "bonus" stuff as well as the early access. Now I guess it's as I thought it was before.
I'm usually late in listening/commenting and have missed quite a few talks, have gone for many months without commenting, even re TTBG/Glenn&John, yet I kept paying IN CASE I wanted to comment (thinking I had to).
Like with many subscriptions I dont often use, I begin to feel more like a kind benefactor, given how little I make use of the offerings. I do love what Glenn does here - hearing from him, his guests - it's the best of what I see out there (KUDOS!!! GLENN!!!), but I dont feel compelled to assist him with financial growth; I wager he's been quite comfortable for a good while. That's why it was kind of a relief to learn 10% of profits go to the worthwhile Robert Woodson foundation, as I deeply respect what Woodson does, what he has to say, and wish there were a lot more like him out there.
Yes, I believe you've got everything nailed down correctly. I'm not a big fan of the split-up sections (dribbles, I call them) of the whole weekly video due mainly to the difference in commenters (paid vs. non-paid subs). Seemed like two completely different discussions. I expect that will end soon as non-paid subs are banished from TGS. Hopefully, the dribbles will disappear as well...
Thx. So, if I understand you, the perk to paying was getting the full discussion a few days earlier than non payers (I thought it was a week) as well as being able to comment during those first few days, but after that point, even non payers could comment. And non payers had access to all postings in full after the initial wait time. And could comment on all of it? Is that right?
I'm a little disappointed, but maybe I'm missing some things. Were trolls that much of an issue? You get a LOT of comments, Glenn, and there've been a few times you've acknowledged taking comments down because of something egregiously racist or offensive. I don't read all of them by a long shot so maybe I'm missing a troll problem you may have. I would like to see everyone given the ability to comment return, and if you block the ones who've effed up, that's no big deal. I would like to see a wider variety of comments, but maybe you've already got so many paying subscribers it doesn't impact them much? I don't know.
Trolls are less of a problem if they aren’t fed. The best control mech is an intellectually honest and curious group. Engage with those, ignore the rest.
I’m confused. I thought I was paying bc only payers got to comment. Was it that way & it changed at some point to where anyone could comment? And now it’s changing back? Can someone pls tell me what I’ve been paying for?
completely valid new policy. i'm here for glenn and john's takes anyway. what they do to the comments section is inconsequential.
It would be interesting to know how many subs are quiet like you vs how many comment. Thx for adding your piece.
Says a non-commenter...
Perfection is elusive. Will this new protocol improve the discussion? Who can say? I hope Glenn will re-evaluate in 6 months and adjust as needed.
Seems like there are plenty of contentious but smart and capable personalities here without stowaways crashing the party.
Another problem with pay-to-comment:
As others have said in the comments to this post, it could create somewhat of an echo-chamber in the comments section.
What I have to add to these reflections is that emphasize the selection bias involved. Playing off what I said in my earlier post about this topic, it is precisely those people who disagree with Glenn's views that are likely to balk at paying him for a subscription.
Good point. Perhaps more host leeway in banning non payers would help maintain control. There may be a few dolts who need dumped. The group should be the best at discipline.
he was on Glenn's show that i watched last night - there is a picture of him holding a drink- anyway - glenn talked about cleaning out his desk since he never went to brown in person anymore but worked from home = and john started talking about his pretty non-woke views had pretty much gotten him banned him from all of his liguistic groups - didn't lose he job at columbia but evidently is pretty much cancelled amongst the variouos linguistic groups he was in - it was actually pretty sad - he was devastated you could tell -
I'll take a look for this. I feel bad just hearing about it. John seems like a decent guy (and maybe even a bit on the sensitive side, at least compared to Glenn), and I've seen his videos on linguistics produced by the Teaching Company/Great Courses. To say he is passionate about linguistics is obvious, since he made it his career, but the passion also shows through when he talks about and teaches the field.
Okay, here's a problem:
Everybody (and her mother and his father) has a Substack now, and each is asking $40-$80 per year for a subscription.
Online news and commentary outlets, with a host of commentators contributing, run from what, $50-$150 per year.
So at $40-$80 a pop, most common people are going to be able to subscribe to just a handful of Substackers.
Glenn made the cut because of my incredible respect for him and what he has been doing online.
There are many other Substackers I like, but only at, say, $20-$40 per year. I'd make my own customized online news and commentary service from them.
Basic economics tells us that there are many, many people like me.*
We'll see how this Substack phenomena plays out.
---
* Everyone has a budget constraint of some sort, and they choose their bundles of Substack subscriptions to maximize their utility based on that budget constraint. The price of the various available Substack subscriptions is a factor in determining the "shape" of the budget constraint and therefore what a person's utility-maximizing bundle is.
i do find this unfortunate. There are many listeners of this podcast whose valuable insights we may lose. There are options to block and mute other substack members. However, that did not seem to work. If that did work then people could simply block members from their feed and we would not see the trolls or anyone else we did not want to. Similar to fbook. Hopefully, this will be instituted and TGS will move back to a free market of ideas and less of capitalist venture for substack and Glenn. :)
Agree, the sub should have the ability to block anyone for any reason. That leaves the censors to deal with fewer, big issues.
if you click on someones profile, it gives the option to block or mute someone. I tried that on someone. But the problem is, it didn't work. I was still seeing their new posts. I was assuming that if I blocked and muted them, I would not see their posts that were cluttering up thread with nonsense.
My ROI from TGS on substack is incalculably massive by any algorithm I am able to conjure. It is disheartening to realize Biden v Trump is our probable choice in '24 when you are exactly who the nation needs to lead us.