More power to you wherever you build. But with Substack, you own what matters: your mailing list and your content. That gives you a rock-solid guarantee that—even if a meteor were to strike the platform—you have total ownership of the assets that matter to your publication and business. You lose nothing. By building on Substack, you only…
More power to you wherever you build. But with Substack, you own what matters: your mailing list and your content. That gives you a rock-solid guarantee that—even if a meteor were to strike the platform—you have total ownership of the assets that matter to your publication and business. You lose nothing. By building on Substack, you only gain. You get access to a network that helps you grow your audience, tools that help you maximize your reach and revenue, and a system that keeps evolving to give you the best publishing power on the internet.
YouTube, Threads, even TikTok content creators also own their own content.
Yeah, on Substack you own your mailing list. But ya' know why? Because YOU HAVE TO BRING IT! The point of those other platforms is that they BRING you an audience you had no access to previously.
You are reaching so hard here to take advantage of a situation that is orthogonal to your offering.
1) Platforms can't "censor" you, they're not official governing bodies. They can choose not to host your material—it's an agreement to use their product.
2) You really believe there's "censorship" on those platforms?!?
Okay, I'm assuming this is probably a joke I'm not getting, but just in case...
You're aware that cloud data also exists on servers somewhere, right..? And that Substack's hosting will certainly be spread across servers in multiple locations just like yours?
Haha yeah. The meteor strike is a silly reason to say people should use Substack (the author's argument), which was kinda my original point.
What's more likely than a meteor strike is Substack shuts down, changes owners, cancels my account, or whatever. With my own cloud servers I don't need to worry about that nearly as much. While I think the author's points are good and more creators should have more sovereignty in general, I do not think Substack is the solution. It's the pot calling the kettle black.
That's only true if you never make your own backups. It would be true of anything stored on your computer, without offsite backups, if you had a house fire (or meteor strike, etc.). I think Hamish's larger point is that you retain intellectual/copyright ownership of your own content.
Consider the mailing list directed arrows pointing into your publication and account. We own it and it matters. But our experience is also what we subscribe/follow. Arrows pointing out from our account. Do we own that?
Which analogy?
Ownership as in homesteading?
Ownership as in Condo? (Is there a Substack condo board?)
Do we own our privacy within the platform?
Do we have a say in shared infrastructure. Would that be included in what matters from your perspective?
And if your town gets hit by a meteor, whoever survives is going to want to make physical contact with each other, because that's the essential Human experience.
We mustn't LOSE that, and that's what the Nasties want... for us to lose our connections to each other in REAL LIFE.
More power to you wherever you build. But with Substack, you own what matters: your mailing list and your content. That gives you a rock-solid guarantee that—even if a meteor were to strike the platform—you have total ownership of the assets that matter to your publication and business. You lose nothing. By building on Substack, you only gain. You get access to a network that helps you grow your audience, tools that help you maximize your reach and revenue, and a system that keeps evolving to give you the best publishing power on the internet.
YouTube, Threads, even TikTok content creators also own their own content.
Yeah, on Substack you own your mailing list. But ya' know why? Because YOU HAVE TO BRING IT! The point of those other platforms is that they BRING you an audience you had no access to previously.
You are reaching so hard here to take advantage of a situation that is orthogonal to your offering.
Yeah, maybe, but there's no censorship here.
1) Platforms can't "censor" you, they're not official governing bodies. They can choose not to host your material—it's an agreement to use their product.
2) You really believe there's "censorship" on those platforms?!?
Uh, yeah. 🤔
So much talking about ”owning”, why add followers in the first place? I have lost many ”owning subs” because of it.
Except that if you get hit by meteor, all your servers will be destroyed and I'd be left with nothing. No thanks.
You'd be left with REAL LIFE, lol. It's not so bad!
So where are you hosting your online content that's completely immune to meteor strike?
The "cloud" 🙃
Okay, I'm assuming this is probably a joke I'm not getting, but just in case...
You're aware that cloud data also exists on servers somewhere, right..? And that Substack's hosting will certainly be spread across servers in multiple locations just like yours?
Haha yeah. The meteor strike is a silly reason to say people should use Substack (the author's argument), which was kinda my original point.
What's more likely than a meteor strike is Substack shuts down, changes owners, cancels my account, or whatever. With my own cloud servers I don't need to worry about that nearly as much. While I think the author's points are good and more creators should have more sovereignty in general, I do not think Substack is the solution. It's the pot calling the kettle black.
At you in the cloud with regional redundancy? Asking for a friend …
LOL
That's only true if you never make your own backups. It would be true of anything stored on your computer, without offsite backups, if you had a house fire (or meteor strike, etc.). I think Hamish's larger point is that you retain intellectual/copyright ownership of your own content.
Fair regarding the backups. How often do Substack writers backup their content I wonder?
You also retain intellectual ownership on your own blog and social media so I don't really get Hamish's point (see https://boagip.com/social-media-and-intellectual-property-rights-protect-your-digital-creations/). On social media or Substack you don't own your account, which is my point.
I haven’t backed up. I likely should.
Assume distributed, redundant cloud. But if Substack infrastructure got hit by a physical meteor, we earthlings have other problems.
Information meteors, however … you are right; particularly if info lost before we can back up or corrupted in ways we can’t detect.
Consider the mailing list directed arrows pointing into your publication and account. We own it and it matters. But our experience is also what we subscribe/follow. Arrows pointing out from our account. Do we own that?
Which analogy?
Ownership as in homesteading?
Ownership as in Condo? (Is there a Substack condo board?)
Do we own our privacy within the platform?
Do we have a say in shared infrastructure. Would that be included in what matters from your perspective?
But if a meteor were to strike 'it would be an Ele and coms would be fried..
And if your town gets hit by a meteor, whoever survives is going to want to make physical contact with each other, because that's the essential Human experience.
We mustn't LOSE that, and that's what the Nasties want... for us to lose our connections to each other in REAL LIFE.
Oh, and they also want us to LOSE our backups. ;)