Is Substack corrupting? *
Corrupting towards psycho-spiritual assimilation into, and support of, the global totalitarian-materialist ideology?
Yes; it does seem to be.
And the reason is obvious: Substack exists and is configured to extract payment, and (as of 2026, in this world as-is - it was not always thus) writing for money (even desultory sum of money that most Subtackers collect!*) is corrupting.
(The Economy is corrupt; already, and ever more so.)
Most Substack outputs are very obviously money collecting operations, e.g. those by ex-journalists, those with clickbait extracts (pay-up if you want to read more!) - and evident readership-pandering (that increases the longer the Substack continues).
When I say that Substack is corrupting, then I mean that is its tendency - it tends to draw people into the mind-set of writing for money.
I don't mean that all Substackers yield to the temptation! I don't mean, either, that the corruption is irresistible. I mean that is its tendency: a toehold of instrumentality is yielded, and that mental colonization usually seems to expand.
We live in an age when the amateur - the non-professional, the not-career - is best.
Of course, we must make a living - I am just suggesting that if you are serious about your writing, about what you write, what you think; then it is very much preferable Not to make your serious writing the means of making a living.
Or else to separate your "making a living" type of writing; from that writing where you really are doing your very best.
Someone doing his very best with his writing, best by the highest standards he knows, someone for whom the writing is a significant spiritual activity; does Not make reading that writing contingent upon paying, or even psychologically-associated with paying to read it: not if he can help it.
+++
* Of course Substack is not unique in its tendency to corrupt - and the criticisms that follow are intended to apply wherever applicable! But S. has been The Platform in my corner of the internet for the past several years; after the mass sackings of journalists began, and more widely since the lockdown era.
** It is wanting money from the writing that is corrupting; not the amount actually received, not the success of the money-making operation.
Note added: For context, as well as being a professional medical journal editor for about seven years; I wrote quite a bit of freelance paid journalism from the late 1980s and for more than a decade: fairly regularly for New Scientist, The Times (of London), Times Higher Education Supplement, and various commercial medical magazines - and odd pieces for The Independent and once for The Guardian.
Comment from Laeth:
ReplyDeleteSubstack is a strange case. it seemed like a genuine alternative (i was naive). though it never felt right to be paid to write blog posts i would write regardless, in theory it makes sense for professional writers.
why shouldn't there be 'good' professional writers. by good i mean, not bought and paid for by the powers that should not be. a modern form of collective, decentralized patronage. wonderful.
except the result is obviously atrocious. i could see the decline over the years. clearly a trap, and many people fell for it.
at the same time, personally, this obvious intrusion of money concerns and following corruption of the writing helped me along my increasing disconnect from the culture war (for lack of a better term), which i am very thankful for. clearly it is impossible to fight it, when every alternative, any avenue, is corrupted, or on its way to corruption. so in the end, as always, all this serves as a great lesson.
anyway, i am kind of stuck with it now, even though the interface is already deteriorating with all the AI nonsense (but that's another question, and another indication of corruption).
Bruce Charlton reply: Bad things that happen to us can often lead to valuable insights - which still being bad things.
Seeking something of value by paying people who write garbage for money is a stronger indicator of corruption; the belief paid content is better by default may be the corruption itself, which Substack relies on. Dishonesty is the core of the problem. As long as you write honestly, I don't care if you're trying to make money from it or not.
ReplyDeleteEverything that adopts an underlying motive toward money and thus "the message" becomes less fun, starts lacking vitality, or for me it gives off a vague feeling of being uncomfortable. Maybe my soul is reacting to it and knows something is off.
ReplyDelete@VF - "As long as you write honestly, I don't care if you're trying to make money from it or not.".
ReplyDeleteOf course, in an ultimate sense.
What I am saying is that adopting a monetization-optimized platform is stepping onto the monetization path, which *tends* to be corrupting of the writing - indeed typically I observe this happening very quickly, on a timescale of weeks and months.
This "make a few bucks on the side", "buy me a coffee", "grateful for your appreciation", "support this important work" stuff is not as innocent as the homespun rhetoric implies.
After all; the primary and most effective method of System corruption of institutions has been by subsidy, not by coercion.