Over a decade ago, my book publisher told me that it was absolutely critical to generate a social media following in order to help sell my next title. I dutifully followed the advice (more like command) and built up a robust-at-the-time group on Facebook. It took time, attention, some money, and alot of creative output on my part. And yet, I continue to have to feed the beast and hope--as Hamish says--that the algorithm will like me with each continuing day.
There is nothing more empowering than controlling that destiny here on Substack. My following here's isn't quite as big, but I still reach many more people with each post than I do with an average one on Facebook. And it's guaranteed.
So glad to be here and exercising so much more freedom over my fans. Thanks all at Substack!
Neal
p.s. I could write another screed on how it's publishers that should be the ones creating their own sizable direct channels to their readers, but somehow that seems a lost cause.
Agree with that, but given the amount of content--and authors--that the big 5 publishers have at their ready, they could have founded a robust site, at the very least like LitHub and their social channels could be much more than one bookcover after the next. IMO.
As a tiny publisher I believe it is both myself and the authors responsibility to have social networks in which to market books too. It is that initial push and hope of pre-orders that effectively make a book viable a lot of the time. I don’t have any stats, but if a author has an audience of 10k+ that are quite engaged, it does give confidence that the book will sell.
Quitting Twitter after 14 years has been an odd experience, but a refreshing one. There are things I miss, but ultimately I found that it diverted my attention from things that brought me more joy - writing longer-form content on Substack and in other places, for example. I found that the chemical hit of approval (or disapproval) sent me on an up-and-down rollercoaster that became dangerously familiar. I had a lot of fun there, and got a LOT out of it. If I were a purist I'm sure I wouldn't be on social media at all! Ultimately it helps to whittle down one's presence to the sites that bring one happiness, and that's different for everyone. I'm glad to have more time to focus on writing here and elsewhere. I learn so much from many writers here.
Did you quit Twitter due to Elon purchasing it? That seems odd. He seems to be motivated by allowing more voices into the conversation. It was a “whatever the government narrative is” platform that will now be open to those allowed to question state narratives. As a writer (and a lover of the first amendment), I assumed that would draw more people to Twitter. It is weird to see people, who had no issues with Twitter when it engaged in censorship, leave when that censorship is relieved, at least a little.
Having said that, I too love the long form conversations and reporting that can occur on platforms like Substack and through podcast. Through those outlets, like Rogan’s show and reading writers who were banned for questioning the truthfulness of the pandemic narrative (which were all proven correct over time), it allows the reader or listener to actually hear an issue be discussed in depth, and it covers both sides of an argument that just cannot exist in 280 characters, especially when at least a quarter of the responses are most likely bot accounts.
So I would encourage you, if you’re interested in finding truth and not just a like minded audience, to continue to engage on Twitter, Substack, and other outlets. This is the only way to have the debates necessary to keep those in power checked by the press (which is currently just a propaganda arm for the Democrat Party, except Fox News, which is just propaganda for the Republican Party) and “We the people.” There is a shift occurring, away from those cheerleading operations and toward actual debate. Your voice is needed (and everyone else’s) to find the answers to what type of society we want. Do we want the social compact outlined in our declaration and constitution, or, are we going to continue to see it be degraded by those who swore to uphold and defend it, specifically, politicians and the press?
That makes total sense. Thanks for an adult response, unlike some of the other responses, which are further exhibits of the points I outlined. Congrats on your recovery! One day at a time!
If you really believe that Musk has any genuine interest in facilitating the publication of increased diverse opinion and/or freeing up content without mitigation of the simplistic, abusive and quarrelsome, then I'm surprised. Clearly you are intelligent and articulate and in favour of genuine discourse. My feeling is that all indications are that Musk is not of similar ilk.
Thanks James for this important comment. I thought the same thing. Been scratching my head in disbelief for two years as so many went along happily with censorship of every kind.
Not on Twitter but I am excited to see many voices returned to this outlet so once again open conversations can ensue
Yes, the “you are one of the silliest clown” argument is incredibly powerful and totally the retort of a mature adult. Tell me you’re a Leftist without telling me you’re a Leftist.
Inform me, please, on the “pandemic” and the “treatment.”
What ingredients are in the “vaccine?”
Does the “vaccine” prevent infection or transmission?
Did government officials, from Trump, Fauci, And Birx, down to Biden and his regime, claim that the “vaccine” prevented infection and transmission of the virus?
Where did the virus come from and how did it get released? What evidence do you have to support any claims you make?
Is it constitutional for the government (or anyone else) to require someone to inject unknown drugs into their bloodstream in order to keep their job?
Why were certain doctors censored on Twitter and other platforms for their information regarding the early treatment of patients with Covid?
Did states with draconian lockdowns and mask mandates decrease the spread of the virus compared to states who did not?
Were the lockdowns and mask mandates constitutional? If so, where in the Constitution provides the federal government that authority?
These are just a few questions that would be answered already if you lived in a free country with a free press. What we have is government propaganda arms. They are not interested in being honest (I mean we’ve had 9,000 hearing on Jan 6th where apparently 500 boomers are capable of overthrowing the greatest government and military on the earth without using a single firearm), they are interested in their “team” winning “elections.” The Right has their own propagandist, but there is only one channel for that. What we need is a citizenry that desires to hold both sides to what the Constitution says, and nothing more or less. However, I feel like the blue koolaid has stained your dress due to how quickly you sucked the bottom out of that cup!
Twitter is going the way of unregulated, unsafe social sites. Such unsafe platforms are literally trolled by machines and it's users are regularly victims manipulated by these troll farms, hate accounts and disinfo algorithms, often encouraged or paid for by foreign entities that have zero interest in democracy or the health of it's people. Telegram, Rumble for example are nearly all Ru operations designed to convert users to extremism, spread disinfo and act as a collective place for extremism and hate. Ask a real OSInt researcher who studies this, it's factually clear, but they are crushed by opposition and greed and people like you spreading falsities about constitutional rights.
Such sites are often strongly associated with Ru disinfo operations. It's literally the modern day version of active measures or ideological subversion flowering from it's cold war roots.
Once you hopefully make the connection, you'll realize how wrong you are, and see how it's infected our social fabric as designed. These aren't single users with one account, it's a machine, a disinfo engine.
I used to follow you on Twitter, Sara. I quit the bird app when Elon started going for it, and I’m so happy to have found the writers I love on Substack!
Great points. I think there is real evidence, for al to see, that the 'tech bubble' has brought with it many issues. Corruption of the large companies involved, censoring of free speech, rampant profiteering. I quit twitter, though I'd only used it for a couple of years. Perhaps the most important thing is that we all start really engaging with our own communities again - real, physical ones, you know, the ones where we grew up and that kind of thing(!). 'Tech' is very concerning in many ways. Perhaps we can accelerate it's decomposition to some degree by simply moving away from it as far as possible. Perhaps the rest, the more dire and odious consequences of tech, or at least potential ones such as the lunacy planned by very large companies regarding our privacy and i.o.t and its extensions will need campaigning.
Sad to read, given the content of the article to which these comments are attached. Perhaps, anyway, it's better that you stick with Twitter or Facebook where such facile responses are ubiquitous.
Your point did not go over my head. Indeed, its puerile & pointless articulation was about as far from subtle as could be.
That you don't like fruit is irrelevant to this topic. That you don't like Apple is your own affair but in this context, not rational as neither is the general one underlying your comment, ie. that if one doesn't like something one shouldn't use it, even if it is the only option. There are many, many, aspects of life and its artefacts, etc. that most, if not all, of us don't like but we use them anyway for many different reasons.
Continuing the base nature of your comment, in your response, is even more sad.
Suggestions for possible improvements for Substack:
1. Consolidation of Newsletters Option:
One of the biggest issues I find Subscribers have is they find publications are effectively flooding their email inbox, so they have to choose to keep deleting emails (to see their other, important work or personal emails) or unsubscribing from Substackers who are 'too' frequent. It also discourages free subscription expansion, and I imagine bandwidth wise it might be an issue for Substack servers if it goes exponential in adoption.
I think this could be solved if Subscribers got a single email a day (at a time of their own choosing) that lists all of the new Substack articles from their various subscriptions that have been published publicly. That way they get a single email that is a list, it no longer clogs up their inbox, and Substack can reduce bandwidth overheads.
2. De-lineate Likes and Comments Notifications:
Currently Substack have an email notification option that toggles *both* likes and comments. It needs to be separated. Personally, notifications about likes as an author seeking to engage with the public aren't particularly useful, and they become a time drain because they have the exact same heading as comment responses on emails.
This makes it very time consuming to respond to comments in a timely manner, especially if you get a lot of likes and comments, because you have to manually check emails to see which are likes and which are actual comments.
3. Have An "Online Only" Option
One of the biggest issues in journalistic reporting is you may, from time to time, be required to issue corrections or retractions for inevitable human mistakes. The problem with this is, you cannot 'retract' or 'correct' a mistaken or erroneous email, which inevitably means you must fire off another email - thus adding one more email to the spam flood counter - in order to notify users of the error, that might have already been corrected on the online version.
I'm aware emails can't really load dynamic content, so what is needed is an option that essentially shows the title and sub-title of the article, and then prompts the user to read online, that way ensuring they are reading the latest (typo-free) edition.
4. Use Sub-Section Delta Changes Instead Of Entire Article Updates
Currently if you want to correct a section - say you're like me and sometimes make an illiterate spelling mistake - you have to load up the *entire* article to correct one word. Wikipedia solves this issue by allowing individuals to edit *sub-sections* of an article.
There's a number of advantages to this. One, it reduces bandwidth overheads for both server and client, which lowers networking costs. Two, it allows writers to more quickly make corrections and changes, without eating into EG mobile data if you're say, a journalist on the move in remote locations.
5. Tracking Data For Unsubscribes For Specific Articles
Ignoring unsubscriptions is a type of toxic positivity, and knowing what articles the public don't like or aren't interested in can help refine a writers' style. Maybe the article wasn't as good quality as it could have been. Currently, unsubscription notices are sent via email, however the option to unsubscribe is often at the bottom of a newsletter. It can therefore be inferred the specific newsletter, in part or in whole, spurred the unsubscription, and that data would be useful to know.
For example, MrBeast - second largest YouTuber in the world at time of writing - on YouTube uses viewership retention rate drop-offs to work out which part of his videos do not work for the audience, so he can remove those unwanted aspects. So capturing which articles were unwanted can give writers crucial feedback, as there may be a trend or an issue to fix.
6. Prompt For Optional Feedback On Why People Are Unsubscribing (And Give It To The Author)
Another issue is currently Substack has no optional feedback form from unsubscribers to let authors know why they chose to unsubscribe. Were the newsletters too regular? Low quality? Topic too offensive for them? Not regular enough? Did not feature the topics they subscribed for? Perhaps the writer was a fraudster? Or maybe they'd like to leave a comment remarking why?
7. Provide Substack Authors With Access To a CSV File Of Their Metadata
I had to build a tool to manually webscrape metadata from Substack, but it is slow, inefficient and cannot provide real time updates. That metadata allowed me to analyse what readers enjoyed from articles, spot trends, and work out what sort of messages promoted growth.
It would be more practical - seeing as other people don't have access to my tool and I don't intend to maintain it for public use - to be able to download article metadata in a .CSV format (this is a widely useable spreadsheet format that can be ported and used on many OSes and read by many software packages). This would aid writers in making decisions and spotting trends.
8. Provide Article-by-Article Timeseries Breakdowns
Another feature Substack could add is a timeseries marking when likes, comments, shares and other interaction events occurred. One thing I'm still blindly guessing is what time of the day my readers actually interact with my Substack at because I don't know when the majority of likes happen.
This wouldn't require any additional data as knowing when a like was pressed is as simple as recording the timestamp of when that happened; likewise shares, subscribes. Comments already have timestamps. Essentially, an 'engagement metric' that shows time-of-date.
9. Audience Origin Breakdowns
Another missing feature is knowing what country most of your subscribers are from (inferred from IP). I like to tailor my topics to accommodate where my audience is from. Americans won't be interested in British law, and British people won't be interested in American law. Currently, I randomly mix the areas of coverage, but it would be nice to know where most are from so I can infer topics of interest and bring them higher quality reporting for their interests. It doesn't need Subscriber specific breakdowns, just an aggregate data that gives a percentage of how many X are from America, how many Y are from Europe etc.
Very good ideas that if implemented would be very beneficial. I hope your reply gets read as data is everything. I particularly like the consolidation idea.
I ended up on here because I wanted to get a message out and a few people told me that I needed to use substack for that purpose. My substack ended up taking off and in the space of 8.5 months I've gotten almost 18,700 subscribers and 1.5 millions views despite having no following prior to entering here. That is an amazing degree of reach and something that I 100% owe substack for facilitating.
The thing I really like about this platform is that it incentives making good quality content and being genuine, which is very rare on the internet (I would not want to spend my time being a content creator otherwise), and has an audience which is also extremely receptive to it. I am also astonished that substack gives you access to your mailing list and makes it easy to export (as that is extremely generous on their part).
You all have a great business model and I hope I can continue to support it!
That's really incredible! I've had a (much smaller) but similar experience here in the past 3 weeks with almost 8K views! Congratulations to you—you have a new subscriber too!
That is an incredible following in such a short amount of time. I have just started a marketing guide for small businesses on Substack, and wonder if I could interview you please about your phenomenal growth?
in the late 2000s those of us who were blogging noticed a drop-off in the comments sections as twitter rose in popularity. so you are talking about reversing time here. might happen
Having come to Substack as a Twitter exile, I have been most pleased with Substack's independence from governmental pressures (so far!), as well as the ability to formulate ideas that require more than 2 sentences, or a bunch of disconnected tweets in a thread. A third point that is important is the "dopamine hit" nature of some social media such as Twitter is much attenuated on Substack. In that sense, it feels like a "healthier" platform. We'll see how Elon Musk evolves or restores Twitter. There may well be a place for collaboration between the two platforms in as yet unknown ways
I was permanently suspended from Twitter 4 years ago. I started writing on Facebook, and developed a lovely following~ a community of like-minded people, which has felt nourishing. I'm on Substack (love it), Linked-In, Tumbler and Truth Social, as well. Today I opened another acct. on Twitter, and they somehow recognized me and froze my account again. I'm hoping Musk brings us all back from Twitter exile, but I suppose it'll take several weeks. Anyhow, I'm a blabbermouth with some wisdom, irony and present-day political vitriol to share, and I'm thankful everyday, I have found platforms that enable me to share my truth~ whether it's carried in my YouTube videos, or the aforementioned venues. I've written penetrating, thought-provoking materials since my 20's~ and it's utterly marvelous to share them with a worldwide audience, rather than keep 'em tucked away in a desk drawer.
I don't really think Substack and Twitter are in the same space (sorry). We need an alternative to Twitter, but Substack is something else. Don't get me wrong, loving it!!
I disagree. I think that people (at least a significant portion of them) are rejecting shorter-form, more commercial interactions (sitcoms, terrestrial radio, cable news) and replacing them with longer-form and more complex media (JRE/podcasts, bingeable tv, foreign films/anime, etc.)
Why wouldn't it be the same with words? Twitter ----> Substack & Medium? I get what you're saying, I just disagree.
The strength of Twitter lies in the real time responses to major events, however the shortform promotes a loss-of-depth which leads to misunderstandings as writers are forced to omit context and details. It also essentially stifles any deep thoughts or insights, and the presence of 'Twitter threads' - chains of Twitter messages by the same author writing on the same topic - shows it is several sizes too small.
Agree. I was quite wrong 20 years ago when social sites began, that more intellectually built social sites would reveal the true power of like minded brains. "Papers", articles, journals would be cited between nerds in these interest areas, information and thought would flow more easily than our arguably monolithic educational and science containers where such knowledge (or at least aspects of the process around knowledge) requires significant investment or time.
Gotta go, I may need to elaborate more. Idea was my Student Research Library project no one's ever heard of 😉
I am an active Twitter member, and have had very little experience of the Twitter wars, although my account is heavily shadowbanned due to the two topics on which I focus - all things related to Julian Assange, and the coronavirus madness.
Twitter is very definitely a different thing than substack. I use Twitter as a signpost facility - pointing to (supporting or highlighing) events and articles on those topics. My own writing is a tiny percentage of what I am sharing. My substack works in reverse - my own writing as maincourse, within which I point to the work of others.
I don't see these styles of platform as being in competition at all. They are complemenary.
I used to use Twitter primarily to follow writers / independent journalists that I respect. Luckily, many of them migrated to Substack and I was able to ditch Twitter during the whole Elon fiasco.
For a complimentary short-form site, I like Counter Social, as it tends to deplatform science / election denier types.
Looking forward to the next steps. I'm interested in chat function after popping in on Slow Boring last night but it has a bit of a chaotic feel, too. One thing I experimented with at my New York Times #dotearth blog in the early days was inviting my readers to post video greetings in the comment space (the code allowed me to do that with YouTube videos) that served as a calling card. I still vetted them like any comment but they added a humanizing form of connectivity. This was the first one, from Wang Suya in Japan. I can't believe it was 14 years ago! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONKJsYF-dXI Keep up the good work. Glad I moved here.
Here's what I want to say to potential subscribers: "Look, you can come browse my feed, read my original fiction, listen to my podcast and original music, watch my videos, and even hang out with me online. Substack is like the corner café where the Lost or Beat generation artists would meet to exchange ideas, riff with each other, and move their medium forward. We are the Media Generation, creating and hanging out online. Come spend some time with us. Come to Storyslinger on Substack."
Free speech is the foundation to your success. If you protect it and empower writers, you will succeed. Big Social is failing because of censorship and lack of transparency. Let one thousand substacks bloom! https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-repeat-history-part-2
You're going to have to beef up the platforms content discoverability if you really want to increase engagement to "compete" with social networks. It needs an indexed full text search, the ability to filter results by date, as well as Substack specific attributes like toggling paid vs. free and seeing only results for stacks that have posted within a certain time frame. Nobody wants to browse through an egregious number of newsletters that launched two years ago, and somehow show up at the top of a search/discover even though they have written next to nothing. It makes the platform look like a ghost town.
This is a huge problem with social networks. They want you to find popular people and give them increased engagement and the false notion of being an authoritative voice (blue check anyone). Social networks are not interested in new users building ground up organic followings anymore because it uses up resources that they want to dedicate to accounts that generate clicks and views for advertisers. Discoverability is last on their list of priorities. Substack needs to think differently than that, and get users discovering new content, not people. Flip the script so the content is king again.
Brian, this is what I touched on in another comment on this thread, although I think you've laid it out more cleanly. This article mentions the standard social media algorithms that sort of force people toward what the algorithm has decided is worthy without noting that Substack also does so.
On Substack, it occurs algorithmically and manually. The former is evident in overall discoverabilty, as you've mentioned, as well as - on a more granular level - on magazine layout "popular post." Both guide readers to what others have decided, not necessarily what the reader may want.
Manually, it occurs - as I mentioned earlier - via Substack promotion of folks who are already up the ladder, so to speak. I think Substack could really be different if it flipped that dynamic around, at least some of the time.
Absolutely! The sooner the platform can get to that state the better. I think it will benefit both the big names and the small voices that are coming up through the ranks.
I've never been a fan of the Twitter model with its super short form. There's not enough there to develop an idea, except for certain threads.
Social media algorithms do promote the "rich get richer" scenario as algorithmic popularity begets popularity, much as a snake can eat its own tail.
I've noticed that Substack also goes this route and hope that maybe you will consider changing it up, at least sometimes. What I mean by this is that Substack promotes (in various articles, interviews, etc.) stacks that are already popular, that is to say those that are in the least need of promotion. A similar phenomenon occurs in listings. If at times smaller publications also received some Substack level love, both the creator and Substack could benefit.
However it goes, I'm enjoying the ability to have control over my odd (weird?) fiction and appreciate the work that you've put into the tools that make it possible. I get value and inspiration here, both from the Substack articles and various authors of fiction, essay, and other commentary. Thanks.
"I've never been a fan of the Twitter model with its super short form."
It is very Orwellian, isn't it? Akin to the abolishment of vocabulary to a handful of double-meaning words, the shortform effectively stifles speech and encourages shortsighted, kneejerk, out-of-context, rapid-fire messages, better optimised for a rapid barrage of insults than the deep philosophical leanings.
I think Substack's format reverses that trend, without (somehow) hitting the issues that plagued Blogger or WordPress. I think it is the much needed context in the modern information age.
Yes, you've said it quite nicely. Shortsighted, knee jerk, and frequently way the hell out of context. Attempting to go deeper on Twitter mostly doesn't work. Seems people like the entertainment value found in who can cut the "best" insult in the fewest characters.
I abhor small talk. The twitter format forced me (before permanent expulsion) to be concise in my thoughts and delivery. In some ways, it was great discipline... but I often contend that small talk comes from small minds~ and given the plethora of left-leaning, woke saturation on that platform, perhaps it's best to let sleeping dogs lie. I still look forward to being reinstated, once Musk cleans house and restores sanity over there, but it'll never again be my favorite social media pitstop, 'cause I have way too much head and heart to impart. :~)
What does left leaning mean? This is the kind of generalisation that I would have thought is an example of what Substack might abhor. It appears to be an insinuation that any ideas that might embrace social values in contrast to total individualism is bad. As for WOKE; it's another of those generalisations that is meaningless apart from the fact that it implies something or someone is somehow bad.
Depends on who's using the term, and how it's being used (obviously). Aside from being grammatically incorrect, racially derived, driven, sanctioned and turned into a colloquialism during the Biden-time administration, I hate it as much as I detest the too-often, overused greeting "hey," which makes full grown adults sound like the teenagers who gave birth to it. I for one, wanna reinvigorate the adjective, "bitchin!"
"As for WOKE; it's another of those generalisations that is meaningless"
Actually, the term is often used to refer to a subset of political actions, practically always in relation to 'social justice', who would historically often go around screaming people needed to 'Wake Up' and declaring they are already 'awake' [woke] and that everyone else was 'asleep'.
So I would reject the assertion it is 'meaningless'. It has history and connotations, and the colloquial political usage by people has relevance to them.
That is an interesting and good explanation of the term, WOKE. As you rightly say it is used in relation to social justice. But there is nothing wrong with 'social justice' itself so it would appear that the negative connotation has got to do with people who, you explain, are screaming at others to 'wake up' to these social issues around justice. The problem, I see, with your definition is that 'WOKE' would equally apply to people who have different opinions on social justice and also scream loudly that they are in the right.
It would appear to me that what is really at the heart of this matter is the alarm that the term 'social justice' evokes in many people. Even the word 'social' triggers reactions of hate for anyone who might use such terms and somehow this term WOKE appears to engender this violent reaction to anything prefaced with the word 'social'.
I'm an Irishman and European and we live in a Republic that embraces social justice and ideas around social responsibilities around all our citizens especially, for example, those who find themselves seriously disadvantage through lack of educational or work opportunities. We don't always fully live up to our responsibilities but we do take them as necessary criteria for a civil society.
As an outside observer of American life I think the USA is really in a perilous state. The term WOKE has somehow become a mindless catch-word implying someting sinister about thos e who use it.
"But there is nothing wrong with 'social justice' itself"
"Social justice" - like many shallow, virtue signalling terms - often doesn't actually involve any sort of social justice. People who work under it try to abuse white kids telling them they're racist simply for being white (which is such a meta-level of paradox and hypocrisy), telling companies to remove customers who say things they don't like (if you've ever been censored or deplatformed on Twitter you can thank the so-called 'social justice' movement), whilst often engaging in fraud and financial corruption themselves.
Case in point, the BLM leader who took $14 million to buy a mansion and never split the money with the other BLM members.
None of those examples you cite have anything to do with social justice. Social justice is a well defined idea. You are conflating the idea of people who conveniently misuse the term. It's like people claiming to be Christian who in effect adopt the most unchristian-like attitudes in their daily lives and attitudes towards other.
Over a decade ago, my book publisher told me that it was absolutely critical to generate a social media following in order to help sell my next title. I dutifully followed the advice (more like command) and built up a robust-at-the-time group on Facebook. It took time, attention, some money, and alot of creative output on my part. And yet, I continue to have to feed the beast and hope--as Hamish says--that the algorithm will like me with each continuing day.
There is nothing more empowering than controlling that destiny here on Substack. My following here's isn't quite as big, but I still reach many more people with each post than I do with an average one on Facebook. And it's guaranteed.
So glad to be here and exercising so much more freedom over my fans. Thanks all at Substack!
Neal
p.s. I could write another screed on how it's publishers that should be the ones creating their own sizable direct channels to their readers, but somehow that seems a lost cause.
It’s a lost cause because a lot of readers don’t buy because of the publisher. This is less true in niche houses like poetry or Buddhist stuff.
Agree with that, but given the amount of content--and authors--that the big 5 publishers have at their ready, they could have founded a robust site, at the very least like LitHub and their social channels could be much more than one bookcover after the next. IMO.
Yes!!!
As a tiny publisher I believe it is both myself and the authors responsibility to have social networks in which to market books too. It is that initial push and hope of pre-orders that effectively make a book viable a lot of the time. I don’t have any stats, but if a author has an audience of 10k+ that are quite engaged, it does give confidence that the book will sell.
Quitting Twitter after 14 years has been an odd experience, but a refreshing one. There are things I miss, but ultimately I found that it diverted my attention from things that brought me more joy - writing longer-form content on Substack and in other places, for example. I found that the chemical hit of approval (or disapproval) sent me on an up-and-down rollercoaster that became dangerously familiar. I had a lot of fun there, and got a LOT out of it. If I were a purist I'm sure I wouldn't be on social media at all! Ultimately it helps to whittle down one's presence to the sites that bring one happiness, and that's different for everyone. I'm glad to have more time to focus on writing here and elsewhere. I learn so much from many writers here.
Did you quit Twitter due to Elon purchasing it? That seems odd. He seems to be motivated by allowing more voices into the conversation. It was a “whatever the government narrative is” platform that will now be open to those allowed to question state narratives. As a writer (and a lover of the first amendment), I assumed that would draw more people to Twitter. It is weird to see people, who had no issues with Twitter when it engaged in censorship, leave when that censorship is relieved, at least a little.
Having said that, I too love the long form conversations and reporting that can occur on platforms like Substack and through podcast. Through those outlets, like Rogan’s show and reading writers who were banned for questioning the truthfulness of the pandemic narrative (which were all proven correct over time), it allows the reader or listener to actually hear an issue be discussed in depth, and it covers both sides of an argument that just cannot exist in 280 characters, especially when at least a quarter of the responses are most likely bot accounts.
So I would encourage you, if you’re interested in finding truth and not just a like minded audience, to continue to engage on Twitter, Substack, and other outlets. This is the only way to have the debates necessary to keep those in power checked by the press (which is currently just a propaganda arm for the Democrat Party, except Fox News, which is just propaganda for the Republican Party) and “We the people.” There is a shift occurring, away from those cheerleading operations and toward actual debate. Your voice is needed (and everyone else’s) to find the answers to what type of society we want. Do we want the social compact outlined in our declaration and constitution, or, are we going to continue to see it be degraded by those who swore to uphold and defend it, specifically, politicians and the press?
Nope. I'm an addict in recovery, and have found certain social media platforms to be more addictive for me personally. You can check out my post about it here though. https://sarajbenincasa.substack.com/p/quitting-can-be-fun
That makes total sense. Thanks for an adult response, unlike some of the other responses, which are further exhibits of the points I outlined. Congrats on your recovery! One day at a time!
If you really believe that Musk has any genuine interest in facilitating the publication of increased diverse opinion and/or freeing up content without mitigation of the simplistic, abusive and quarrelsome, then I'm surprised. Clearly you are intelligent and articulate and in favour of genuine discourse. My feeling is that all indications are that Musk is not of similar ilk.
Jesus, dude. Calm down.
LOL... Amen.
Thanks James for this important comment. I thought the same thing. Been scratching my head in disbelief for two years as so many went along happily with censorship of every kind.
Not on Twitter but I am excited to see many voices returned to this outlet so once again open conversations can ensue
You’re hilarious. Your understanding of Elon, Rogan, and the pandemic is hilarious. You are one of the silliest clowns, and for that i thank you
Yes, the “you are one of the silliest clown” argument is incredibly powerful and totally the retort of a mature adult. Tell me you’re a Leftist without telling me you’re a Leftist.
Inform me, please, on the “pandemic” and the “treatment.”
What ingredients are in the “vaccine?”
Does the “vaccine” prevent infection or transmission?
Did government officials, from Trump, Fauci, And Birx, down to Biden and his regime, claim that the “vaccine” prevented infection and transmission of the virus?
Where did the virus come from and how did it get released? What evidence do you have to support any claims you make?
Is it constitutional for the government (or anyone else) to require someone to inject unknown drugs into their bloodstream in order to keep their job?
Why were certain doctors censored on Twitter and other platforms for their information regarding the early treatment of patients with Covid?
Did states with draconian lockdowns and mask mandates decrease the spread of the virus compared to states who did not?
Were the lockdowns and mask mandates constitutional? If so, where in the Constitution provides the federal government that authority?
These are just a few questions that would be answered already if you lived in a free country with a free press. What we have is government propaganda arms. They are not interested in being honest (I mean we’ve had 9,000 hearing on Jan 6th where apparently 500 boomers are capable of overthrowing the greatest government and military on the earth without using a single firearm), they are interested in their “team” winning “elections.” The Right has their own propagandist, but there is only one channel for that. What we need is a citizenry that desires to hold both sides to what the Constitution says, and nothing more or less. However, I feel like the blue koolaid has stained your dress due to how quickly you sucked the bottom out of that cup!
Twitter is going the way of unregulated, unsafe social sites. Such unsafe platforms are literally trolled by machines and it's users are regularly victims manipulated by these troll farms, hate accounts and disinfo algorithms, often encouraged or paid for by foreign entities that have zero interest in democracy or the health of it's people. Telegram, Rumble for example are nearly all Ru operations designed to convert users to extremism, spread disinfo and act as a collective place for extremism and hate. Ask a real OSInt researcher who studies this, it's factually clear, but they are crushed by opposition and greed and people like you spreading falsities about constitutional rights.
Such sites are often strongly associated with Ru disinfo operations. It's literally the modern day version of active measures or ideological subversion flowering from it's cold war roots.
See this:
https://youtu.be/tR_6dibpDfo
Once you hopefully make the connection, you'll realize how wrong you are, and see how it's infected our social fabric as designed. These aren't single users with one account, it's a machine, a disinfo engine.
But you do you, or are you Ru too.
Think: Digital Red Dawn
They didn't send military equipment to destroy democracy like in the movie.
AMEN!
I used to follow you on Twitter, Sara. I quit the bird app when Elon started going for it, and I’m so happy to have found the writers I love on Substack!
Happy to hear that, oh my goodness. Thank you!
Great points. I think there is real evidence, for al to see, that the 'tech bubble' has brought with it many issues. Corruption of the large companies involved, censoring of free speech, rampant profiteering. I quit twitter, though I'd only used it for a couple of years. Perhaps the most important thing is that we all start really engaging with our own communities again - real, physical ones, you know, the ones where we grew up and that kind of thing(!). 'Tech' is very concerning in many ways. Perhaps we can accelerate it's decomposition to some degree by simply moving away from it as far as possible. Perhaps the rest, the more dire and odious consequences of tech, or at least potential ones such as the lunacy planned by very large companies regarding our privacy and i.o.t and its extensions will need campaigning.
Good for you for getting off!
Currently giving the chat feature a try, and I'm into it
Ok, dumb question probably, but where do I find this chat feature?
Apparently, you have to have an Apple phone for that feature. https://support.substack.com/hc/en-us/articles/10410279875092-How-do-I-start-a-Chat-thread-
:( apple can suck my fat one
Sad to read, given the content of the article to which these comments are attached. Perhaps, anyway, it's better that you stick with Twitter or Facebook where such facile responses are ubiquitous.
oh look a clever retort, pity i dont have twatter or facecrap accounts. i bet you do though.
my point obviously went over your head, i dont like apple and wouldnt use it if it were the only option. customer lost until they move elsewhere
Your point did not go over my head. Indeed, its puerile & pointless articulation was about as far from subtle as could be.
That you don't like fruit is irrelevant to this topic. That you don't like Apple is your own affair but in this context, not rational as neither is the general one underlying your comment, ie. that if one doesn't like something one shouldn't use it, even if it is the only option. There are many, many, aspects of life and its artefacts, etc. that most, if not all, of us don't like but we use them anyway for many different reasons.
Continuing the base nature of your comment, in your response, is even more sad.
All I wanted to know was when there will be an android version and when might it be available on desktop as well? Thank you
They say soon.
I found way more interesting and productive than on Twitter.
Suggestions for possible improvements for Substack:
1. Consolidation of Newsletters Option:
One of the biggest issues I find Subscribers have is they find publications are effectively flooding their email inbox, so they have to choose to keep deleting emails (to see their other, important work or personal emails) or unsubscribing from Substackers who are 'too' frequent. It also discourages free subscription expansion, and I imagine bandwidth wise it might be an issue for Substack servers if it goes exponential in adoption.
I think this could be solved if Subscribers got a single email a day (at a time of their own choosing) that lists all of the new Substack articles from their various subscriptions that have been published publicly. That way they get a single email that is a list, it no longer clogs up their inbox, and Substack can reduce bandwidth overheads.
2. De-lineate Likes and Comments Notifications:
Currently Substack have an email notification option that toggles *both* likes and comments. It needs to be separated. Personally, notifications about likes as an author seeking to engage with the public aren't particularly useful, and they become a time drain because they have the exact same heading as comment responses on emails.
This makes it very time consuming to respond to comments in a timely manner, especially if you get a lot of likes and comments, because you have to manually check emails to see which are likes and which are actual comments.
3. Have An "Online Only" Option
One of the biggest issues in journalistic reporting is you may, from time to time, be required to issue corrections or retractions for inevitable human mistakes. The problem with this is, you cannot 'retract' or 'correct' a mistaken or erroneous email, which inevitably means you must fire off another email - thus adding one more email to the spam flood counter - in order to notify users of the error, that might have already been corrected on the online version.
I'm aware emails can't really load dynamic content, so what is needed is an option that essentially shows the title and sub-title of the article, and then prompts the user to read online, that way ensuring they are reading the latest (typo-free) edition.
4. Use Sub-Section Delta Changes Instead Of Entire Article Updates
Currently if you want to correct a section - say you're like me and sometimes make an illiterate spelling mistake - you have to load up the *entire* article to correct one word. Wikipedia solves this issue by allowing individuals to edit *sub-sections* of an article.
There's a number of advantages to this. One, it reduces bandwidth overheads for both server and client, which lowers networking costs. Two, it allows writers to more quickly make corrections and changes, without eating into EG mobile data if you're say, a journalist on the move in remote locations.
5. Tracking Data For Unsubscribes For Specific Articles
Ignoring unsubscriptions is a type of toxic positivity, and knowing what articles the public don't like or aren't interested in can help refine a writers' style. Maybe the article wasn't as good quality as it could have been. Currently, unsubscription notices are sent via email, however the option to unsubscribe is often at the bottom of a newsletter. It can therefore be inferred the specific newsletter, in part or in whole, spurred the unsubscription, and that data would be useful to know.
For example, MrBeast - second largest YouTuber in the world at time of writing - on YouTube uses viewership retention rate drop-offs to work out which part of his videos do not work for the audience, so he can remove those unwanted aspects. So capturing which articles were unwanted can give writers crucial feedback, as there may be a trend or an issue to fix.
6. Prompt For Optional Feedback On Why People Are Unsubscribing (And Give It To The Author)
Another issue is currently Substack has no optional feedback form from unsubscribers to let authors know why they chose to unsubscribe. Were the newsletters too regular? Low quality? Topic too offensive for them? Not regular enough? Did not feature the topics they subscribed for? Perhaps the writer was a fraudster? Or maybe they'd like to leave a comment remarking why?
7. Provide Substack Authors With Access To a CSV File Of Their Metadata
I had to build a tool to manually webscrape metadata from Substack, but it is slow, inefficient and cannot provide real time updates. That metadata allowed me to analyse what readers enjoyed from articles, spot trends, and work out what sort of messages promoted growth.
It would be more practical - seeing as other people don't have access to my tool and I don't intend to maintain it for public use - to be able to download article metadata in a .CSV format (this is a widely useable spreadsheet format that can be ported and used on many OSes and read by many software packages). This would aid writers in making decisions and spotting trends.
8. Provide Article-by-Article Timeseries Breakdowns
Another feature Substack could add is a timeseries marking when likes, comments, shares and other interaction events occurred. One thing I'm still blindly guessing is what time of the day my readers actually interact with my Substack at because I don't know when the majority of likes happen.
This wouldn't require any additional data as knowing when a like was pressed is as simple as recording the timestamp of when that happened; likewise shares, subscribes. Comments already have timestamps. Essentially, an 'engagement metric' that shows time-of-date.
9. Audience Origin Breakdowns
Another missing feature is knowing what country most of your subscribers are from (inferred from IP). I like to tailor my topics to accommodate where my audience is from. Americans won't be interested in British law, and British people won't be interested in American law. Currently, I randomly mix the areas of coverage, but it would be nice to know where most are from so I can infer topics of interest and bring them higher quality reporting for their interests. It doesn't need Subscriber specific breakdowns, just an aggregate data that gives a percentage of how many X are from America, how many Y are from Europe etc.
Some ideas.
Like these
Very good ideas that if implemented would be very beneficial. I hope your reply gets read as data is everything. I particularly like the consolidation idea.
I ended up on here because I wanted to get a message out and a few people told me that I needed to use substack for that purpose. My substack ended up taking off and in the space of 8.5 months I've gotten almost 18,700 subscribers and 1.5 millions views despite having no following prior to entering here. That is an amazing degree of reach and something that I 100% owe substack for facilitating.
The thing I really like about this platform is that it incentives making good quality content and being genuine, which is very rare on the internet (I would not want to spend my time being a content creator otherwise), and has an audience which is also extremely receptive to it. I am also astonished that substack gives you access to your mailing list and makes it easy to export (as that is extremely generous on their part).
You all have a great business model and I hope I can continue to support it!
That's really incredible! I've had a (much smaller) but similar experience here in the past 3 weeks with almost 8K views! Congratulations to you—you have a new subscriber too!
Impressive! Did you write anything on Long Covid yet? We are nearly a couple of years in...
Indirectly but not directly, still need to put more things into place first.
Ok! Let me know if you want feedback or quotes from this end.
Midwestern doc..... I just wanted to say that I found your substack first and that led me onto more stacks after that.
Appreciate your writing more than you’ll ever know. Thank you
Thank you. That is very kind thing to say :)
That is an incredible following in such a short amount of time. I have just started a marketing guide for small businesses on Substack, and wonder if I could interview you please about your phenomenal growth?
in the late 2000s those of us who were blogging noticed a drop-off in the comments sections as twitter rose in popularity. so you are talking about reversing time here. might happen
Having come to Substack as a Twitter exile, I have been most pleased with Substack's independence from governmental pressures (so far!), as well as the ability to formulate ideas that require more than 2 sentences, or a bunch of disconnected tweets in a thread. A third point that is important is the "dopamine hit" nature of some social media such as Twitter is much attenuated on Substack. In that sense, it feels like a "healthier" platform. We'll see how Elon Musk evolves or restores Twitter. There may well be a place for collaboration between the two platforms in as yet unknown ways
I really enjoyed meeting you here :)
Why, thank you!
I was permanently suspended from Twitter 4 years ago. I started writing on Facebook, and developed a lovely following~ a community of like-minded people, which has felt nourishing. I'm on Substack (love it), Linked-In, Tumbler and Truth Social, as well. Today I opened another acct. on Twitter, and they somehow recognized me and froze my account again. I'm hoping Musk brings us all back from Twitter exile, but I suppose it'll take several weeks. Anyhow, I'm a blabbermouth with some wisdom, irony and present-day political vitriol to share, and I'm thankful everyday, I have found platforms that enable me to share my truth~ whether it's carried in my YouTube videos, or the aforementioned venues. I've written penetrating, thought-provoking materials since my 20's~ and it's utterly marvelous to share them with a worldwide audience, rather than keep 'em tucked away in a desk drawer.
Agreed. Invest in your own brand, not someone else's.
I don't really think Substack and Twitter are in the same space (sorry). We need an alternative to Twitter, but Substack is something else. Don't get me wrong, loving it!!
I disagree. I think that people (at least a significant portion of them) are rejecting shorter-form, more commercial interactions (sitcoms, terrestrial radio, cable news) and replacing them with longer-form and more complex media (JRE/podcasts, bingeable tv, foreign films/anime, etc.)
Why wouldn't it be the same with words? Twitter ----> Substack & Medium? I get what you're saying, I just disagree.
To be clear, there will always be a place for short-form updates, links, quick videos, and jokes...and I think Twitter is very good for that.
It's also an incredible journalism outlet, but Substack is much more flexible.
The strength of Twitter lies in the real time responses to major events, however the shortform promotes a loss-of-depth which leads to misunderstandings as writers are forced to omit context and details. It also essentially stifles any deep thoughts or insights, and the presence of 'Twitter threads' - chains of Twitter messages by the same author writing on the same topic - shows it is several sizes too small.
Twitter would be perfect, if people were.
Substack is a more realistic place to unfold and unpack your ideas without compromising your message or your integrity (by accident or on purpose!)
agree with you there. twitter is actually good at what it's for... one-ish liners... not deep thought engagement.
Agree. I was quite wrong 20 years ago when social sites began, that more intellectually built social sites would reveal the true power of like minded brains. "Papers", articles, journals would be cited between nerds in these interest areas, information and thought would flow more easily than our arguably monolithic educational and science containers where such knowledge (or at least aspects of the process around knowledge) requires significant investment or time.
Gotta go, I may need to elaborate more. Idea was my Student Research Library project no one's ever heard of 😉
I am an active Twitter member, and have had very little experience of the Twitter wars, although my account is heavily shadowbanned due to the two topics on which I focus - all things related to Julian Assange, and the coronavirus madness.
Twitter is very definitely a different thing than substack. I use Twitter as a signpost facility - pointing to (supporting or highlighing) events and articles on those topics. My own writing is a tiny percentage of what I am sharing. My substack works in reverse - my own writing as maincourse, within which I point to the work of others.
I don't see these styles of platform as being in competition at all. They are complemenary.
BTW a good alternative to Twitter is on the way. Look in to Panquake. https://twitter.com/PanQuakeDev
I used to use Twitter primarily to follow writers / independent journalists that I respect. Luckily, many of them migrated to Substack and I was able to ditch Twitter during the whole Elon fiasco.
For a complimentary short-form site, I like Counter Social, as it tends to deplatform science / election denier types.
Nice! Substack is great for sure! And I’m glad to see Musk get Twitter. Many good things to come from that.
Good for you. I have no interest in seeing Twitter post-Elon.
That’s fine. I actually didn’t use it before, as bad as it was, but I’ll definitely consider using it now that it’ll hopefully improve a lot.
Looking forward to the next steps. I'm interested in chat function after popping in on Slow Boring last night but it has a bit of a chaotic feel, too. One thing I experimented with at my New York Times #dotearth blog in the early days was inviting my readers to post video greetings in the comment space (the code allowed me to do that with YouTube videos) that served as a calling card. I still vetted them like any comment but they added a humanizing form of connectivity. This was the first one, from Wang Suya in Japan. I can't believe it was 14 years ago! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONKJsYF-dXI Keep up the good work. Glad I moved here.
Video greetings is a great idea.
Here's what I want to say to potential subscribers: "Look, you can come browse my feed, read my original fiction, listen to my podcast and original music, watch my videos, and even hang out with me online. Substack is like the corner café where the Lost or Beat generation artists would meet to exchange ideas, riff with each other, and move their medium forward. We are the Media Generation, creating and hanging out online. Come spend some time with us. Come to Storyslinger on Substack."
Free speech is the foundation to your success. If you protect it and empower writers, you will succeed. Big Social is failing because of censorship and lack of transparency. Let one thousand substacks bloom! https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-repeat-history-part-2
Idea:
Create a feed of all the latest posts published by Substack writers
on the http://substack.com front page?
Love it!
Sorted by topic/category, customisible by the user, with a recommended promotion of similar Substacks.
Essentially, kinda like how one discovers new video creators on YouTube.
Yes! I also love the organization of “Hacker News”:
https://news.ycombinator.com/
Absolutely! Anything that improves discoverability of Substackers would be a boon!
Don't be "a reply guy". Be "yours truly reply guy".
You're going to have to beef up the platforms content discoverability if you really want to increase engagement to "compete" with social networks. It needs an indexed full text search, the ability to filter results by date, as well as Substack specific attributes like toggling paid vs. free and seeing only results for stacks that have posted within a certain time frame. Nobody wants to browse through an egregious number of newsletters that launched two years ago, and somehow show up at the top of a search/discover even though they have written next to nothing. It makes the platform look like a ghost town.
This is a huge problem with social networks. They want you to find popular people and give them increased engagement and the false notion of being an authoritative voice (blue check anyone). Social networks are not interested in new users building ground up organic followings anymore because it uses up resources that they want to dedicate to accounts that generate clicks and views for advertisers. Discoverability is last on their list of priorities. Substack needs to think differently than that, and get users discovering new content, not people. Flip the script so the content is king again.
Brian, this is what I touched on in another comment on this thread, although I think you've laid it out more cleanly. This article mentions the standard social media algorithms that sort of force people toward what the algorithm has decided is worthy without noting that Substack also does so.
On Substack, it occurs algorithmically and manually. The former is evident in overall discoverabilty, as you've mentioned, as well as - on a more granular level - on magazine layout "popular post." Both guide readers to what others have decided, not necessarily what the reader may want.
Manually, it occurs - as I mentioned earlier - via Substack promotion of folks who are already up the ladder, so to speak. I think Substack could really be different if it flipped that dynamic around, at least some of the time.
Absolutely! The sooner the platform can get to that state the better. I think it will benefit both the big names and the small voices that are coming up through the ranks.
I've never been a fan of the Twitter model with its super short form. There's not enough there to develop an idea, except for certain threads.
Social media algorithms do promote the "rich get richer" scenario as algorithmic popularity begets popularity, much as a snake can eat its own tail.
I've noticed that Substack also goes this route and hope that maybe you will consider changing it up, at least sometimes. What I mean by this is that Substack promotes (in various articles, interviews, etc.) stacks that are already popular, that is to say those that are in the least need of promotion. A similar phenomenon occurs in listings. If at times smaller publications also received some Substack level love, both the creator and Substack could benefit.
However it goes, I'm enjoying the ability to have control over my odd (weird?) fiction and appreciate the work that you've put into the tools that make it possible. I get value and inspiration here, both from the Substack articles and various authors of fiction, essay, and other commentary. Thanks.
"I've never been a fan of the Twitter model with its super short form."
It is very Orwellian, isn't it? Akin to the abolishment of vocabulary to a handful of double-meaning words, the shortform effectively stifles speech and encourages shortsighted, kneejerk, out-of-context, rapid-fire messages, better optimised for a rapid barrage of insults than the deep philosophical leanings.
I think Substack's format reverses that trend, without (somehow) hitting the issues that plagued Blogger or WordPress. I think it is the much needed context in the modern information age.
Yes, you've said it quite nicely. Shortsighted, knee jerk, and frequently way the hell out of context. Attempting to go deeper on Twitter mostly doesn't work. Seems people like the entertainment value found in who can cut the "best" insult in the fewest characters.
Amen.
I abhor small talk. The twitter format forced me (before permanent expulsion) to be concise in my thoughts and delivery. In some ways, it was great discipline... but I often contend that small talk comes from small minds~ and given the plethora of left-leaning, woke saturation on that platform, perhaps it's best to let sleeping dogs lie. I still look forward to being reinstated, once Musk cleans house and restores sanity over there, but it'll never again be my favorite social media pitstop, 'cause I have way too much head and heart to impart. :~)
What does left leaning mean? This is the kind of generalisation that I would have thought is an example of what Substack might abhor. It appears to be an insinuation that any ideas that might embrace social values in contrast to total individualism is bad. As for WOKE; it's another of those generalisations that is meaningless apart from the fact that it implies something or someone is somehow bad.
Depends on who's using the term, and how it's being used (obviously). Aside from being grammatically incorrect, racially derived, driven, sanctioned and turned into a colloquialism during the Biden-time administration, I hate it as much as I detest the too-often, overused greeting "hey," which makes full grown adults sound like the teenagers who gave birth to it. I for one, wanna reinvigorate the adjective, "bitchin!"
"As for WOKE; it's another of those generalisations that is meaningless"
Actually, the term is often used to refer to a subset of political actions, practically always in relation to 'social justice', who would historically often go around screaming people needed to 'Wake Up' and declaring they are already 'awake' [woke] and that everyone else was 'asleep'.
So I would reject the assertion it is 'meaningless'. It has history and connotations, and the colloquial political usage by people has relevance to them.
That is an interesting and good explanation of the term, WOKE. As you rightly say it is used in relation to social justice. But there is nothing wrong with 'social justice' itself so it would appear that the negative connotation has got to do with people who, you explain, are screaming at others to 'wake up' to these social issues around justice. The problem, I see, with your definition is that 'WOKE' would equally apply to people who have different opinions on social justice and also scream loudly that they are in the right.
It would appear to me that what is really at the heart of this matter is the alarm that the term 'social justice' evokes in many people. Even the word 'social' triggers reactions of hate for anyone who might use such terms and somehow this term WOKE appears to engender this violent reaction to anything prefaced with the word 'social'.
I'm an Irishman and European and we live in a Republic that embraces social justice and ideas around social responsibilities around all our citizens especially, for example, those who find themselves seriously disadvantage through lack of educational or work opportunities. We don't always fully live up to our responsibilities but we do take them as necessary criteria for a civil society.
As an outside observer of American life I think the USA is really in a perilous state. The term WOKE has somehow become a mindless catch-word implying someting sinister about thos e who use it.
"But there is nothing wrong with 'social justice' itself"
"Social justice" - like many shallow, virtue signalling terms - often doesn't actually involve any sort of social justice. People who work under it try to abuse white kids telling them they're racist simply for being white (which is such a meta-level of paradox and hypocrisy), telling companies to remove customers who say things they don't like (if you've ever been censored or deplatformed on Twitter you can thank the so-called 'social justice' movement), whilst often engaging in fraud and financial corruption themselves.
Case in point, the BLM leader who took $14 million to buy a mansion and never split the money with the other BLM members.
None of those examples you cite have anything to do with social justice. Social justice is a well defined idea. You are conflating the idea of people who conveniently misuse the term. It's like people claiming to be Christian who in effect adopt the most unchristian-like attitudes in their daily lives and attitudes towards other.