When people subscribe to a newsletter, they do so with the expectation of privacy. Now that Substack publicly displays a newsletter’s subscribers (at least some of them, if not all), you’ve violated this implicit understanding between subscriber and publication.
When people subscribe to a newsletter, they do so with the expectation of privacy. Now that Substack publicly displays a newsletter’s subscribers (at least some of them, if not all), you’ve violated this implicit understanding between subscriber and publication.
Also, you reveal email addresses in some cases.
Will Substack do something about this? Some people write about sensitive topics and don't want their subscribers made public. But just overall, it's not a good thing.
This is not good. I think it's been slipped in to up the followers potential.... since by each subscriber there is a button to "follow" not subscribe. Sneaky. On a typical news letter subscribers are kept private... the newsletter is like one-2-one even though it's written as one-2-many.
Interesting. Checked my personal settings as well, expecting to find a switch to not show up. I could not find it. That seems an omission. I publicly subscribe to the substacks I subscribe to. Even comment publicly. But if you choose not to do so, you should be able to select that you don't show up in lists like this.
I've never seen the lists of subscribers to other writers' letters.
As the owner of my newsletter, I expect to see my subscribers' newsletters. I need access to those addresses so I can email individuals when they ask me to .
There's a link beneath your name that says "500 subscribers". Click that to see them. The wording of the link varies from pub to pub, but it's the same thing. Your list is now public, as is mine, and everybody else's.
When people subscribe to a newsletter, they do so with the expectation of privacy. Now that Substack publicly displays a newsletter’s subscribers (at least some of them, if not all), you’ve violated this implicit understanding between subscriber and publication.
Also, you reveal email addresses in some cases.
Will Substack do something about this? Some people write about sensitive topics and don't want their subscribers made public. But just overall, it's not a good thing.
This is not good. I think it's been slipped in to up the followers potential.... since by each subscriber there is a button to "follow" not subscribe. Sneaky. On a typical news letter subscribers are kept private... the newsletter is like one-2-one even though it's written as one-2-many.
Interesting. Checked my personal settings as well, expecting to find a switch to not show up. I could not find it. That seems an omission. I publicly subscribe to the substacks I subscribe to. Even comment publicly. But if you choose not to do so, you should be able to select that you don't show up in lists like this.
Wondering about this also.
I've never seen the lists of subscribers to other writers' letters.
As the owner of my newsletter, I expect to see my subscribers' newsletters. I need access to those addresses so I can email individuals when they ask me to .
Substack slipped this in without much fanfare. On your profile:
https://substack.com/@donaldeljohnson
There's a link beneath your name that says "500 subscribers". Click that to see them. The wording of the link varies from pub to pub, but it's the same thing. Your list is now public, as is mine, and everybody else's.