I have been a Substack and Patreon user for a few years now. And though more than one social media giant has, in recent months, expressed the desire to help writers and journalists monetise their audience, there are very good reasons to take these SOPs with a pinch of salt.

Because the reason Patreon and Substack came into existence was not the need for a new business model. It was as a cure for the old business model - an algorithm-driven ad revenue system that powered the attention economy. The attention economy turned audiences into scrollers...
...who were in it for the next viral hit. Quality of information suffered, the nature of discourse suffered, and as a result, democracy itself suffered. Much of this was enabled by the social media giants who are trying to copy the Substack and Patreon model right now in an...
...attempt to "put creators first". But what we must not lose sight of is that the Substack / Patreon model only emerged as a result of the bad practices the social media giants enabled. The algorithm made a toxic internet possible and they were what hit back. Today, multiple...
...podcasting tools video streaming services have donation buttons built in. But it was not always so. I applaud all attempts that anyone makes to help independent media not have to rely on ad money, but I am not going to ever be able to see Facebook's newsletter tool as a...
...Substack equivalent. One should not get credit for coming last in the race to solve a problem that they themselves created. Especially when in my own country, these social media giants' links to fascism enablers remain as strong as ever. If they can delete dissident voices'...
...accounts from their platform after a request from the government that those voices were speaking up against, why would I trust them with my mailing list? Why would I put all my eggs in the basket that has proven to be inadequate protection for them time and time again? Nope.

More from Internet

There are lots of problems with ad-tech:

* being spied on all the time means that the people of the 21st century are less able to be their authentic selves;

* any data that is collected and retained will eventually breach, creating untold harms;

1/


* data-collection enables for discriminatory business practices ("digital redlining");

* the huge, tangled hairball of adtech companies siphons lots (maybe even most) of the money that should go creators and media orgs; and

2/

* anti-adblock demands browsers and devices that thwart their owners' wishes, a capability that can be exploited for even more nefarious purposes;

That's all terrible, but it's also IRONIC, since it appears that, in addition to everything else, ad-tech is a fraud, a bezzle.

3/

Bezzle was John Kenneth Galbraith's term for "the magic interval when a confidence trickster knows he has the money he has appropriated but the victim does not yet understand that he has lost it." That is, a rotten log that has yet to be turned over.

4/

Bezzles unwind slowly, then all at once. We've had some important peeks under ad-tech's rotten log, and they're increasing in both intensity and velocity. If you follow @Chronotope, you've had a front-row seat to the

You May Also Like

Assalam Alaiki dear Sister in Islam. I hope this meets you well. Hope you are keeping safe in this pandemic. May Allah preserve you and your beloved family. I would like to address the misconception and misinterpretation in your thread. Please peruse the THREAD below.


1. First off, a disclaimer. Should you feel hurt by my words in the course of the thread, then forgive me. It’s from me and not from Islam. And I probably have to improve on my delivery. And I may not quote you verbatim, but the intended meaning would be there. Thank You!

2. Standing on Imam Shafii’s quote: “And I never debated anyone but that I did not mind whether Allah clarified the truth on my tongue or his tongue” or “I never once debated anyone hoping to win the debate; rather I always wished that the truth would come from his side.”

3. Okay, into the meat (my love for meat is showing. Lol) of the thread. Even though you didn’t mention the verse that permitted polygamy, everyone knows the verse you were talking about (Q4:3).


4. Your reasons for the revelation of the verse are strange. The first time I came across such. I had to quickly consult the books on the exegeses or tafsir of the Quran written by renowned specialists!