I don’t know the New York they write about in classic essays, because all of those are from the perspective of an out-of-state romantic, an Oklahomer, who moves into the fast lane of Manhattan and thinks it’s the only speed to live in the city. But actually the best way to exist in New York is at the edges. For one, you can see the skyline, but really, you get the perks of a normal life with the convenience of being a train ride away from the center of the world. I just got a last-minute invite to an event at Substack’s NYC office and so now I’m going.
The guest list was full when I last checked it, but I must have been on the waitlist and some spots just opened up. It’s 4:30 PM and I have to make it to 25th Street by 6 PM (so again, nice to be able to get to the center of the world with almost no notice). I live in Queens, so I shifted a meeting, made plans for my mother-in-law to pick up my pregnant wife, took a shower, and headed out. En route, I reread the invite:
“Hear directly from our product and partnerships teams with a behind-the-scenes look at the Feed: what’s working, what’s next [emphasis mine], and how to grow and connect through Notes. There’ll be live demos, insider tips, and plenty of time for Q&A.”
My hope was to learn the future of Notes, the “feed product” that Substack is nudging everyone into, the place where many longform writers loathe. For the record, I have a history of being a Substack evangelist, and as recently as last week, I went hard on a friend: “Notes isn’t the problem; you’re the problem.” What I meant was that, a social media feed will always be imperfect, but it’s the best way to write in public, and since Note is the best option around, it’s each of our responsibilities to set a productive mental frame so we can show up as “citizens of the Internet.” It’s up to us to make Notes a place that’s worth spending time on. Personally, too, now that my career effectively depends on me talking about Essay Architecture in public, I feel the need to trick myself into loving Notes.
I was led to believe we would have a glimpse at the roadmap, some new vision, but mostly, this event confirmed a sinking suspicion: although Substack describes its own algorithm as a noble alternative, it’s just as optimized for revenue as the enshittified feeds it claims to be above, and could have a similar cultural conclusion.
The first thing I noticed when walking out onto the 12th (?) floor was that everyone was loud, beautiful, and extroverted. These people write? I would’ve guessed it to be an Instagram crowd. I recognized three people: I saw Hamish McKenzie, the CEO being mobbed by a crowd of schmoozers—who I would have loved to talk to—, I saw … Jamie? … a writer who recognized me last meetup, but I’ve forgotten her name, and I saw Daniel Pinchbeck of Liminal News (which I pay for) who writes about politics, psychedelics, and the occult, and who I imagined to be similarly uncomfortable with the vibe (I don’t know what he thought, but he did leave early).
At 6:10 PM, before Hamish gave his traditional pitch, he thanked us for baptising the new NYC office, and acknowledged it was his first time here too (this got me to believe, out of the gate, that the purpose of this get-together was to welcome the boss). I assume this office is possible because of the Series A round from a16z. We got the stats, good stats: 32 million free subscribers, half a million paid, and you’re 7x more likely to be shared within the app. He comforted us, told us they won’t follow the same fate as X or Facebook. “As you can tell, our culture is different.”
Soon, after the “head of social media” presented, but as if the room had never heard of Notes before. We got tips, but mostly, we were shown the different archetypes. We could be a “Tumblr Girl” or a “Reply Guy” or one of several other pre-packaged attitudes, and she showed memes and everyone laughed. She said she knows that writers hate to market their own work, and then showed an image of a writer’s Note showing their audience growth graph. We saw Viv Chen’s self-help note, proof that one note can get you 32,000 likes and $5,000 in paid subscribers. Paul Staples was in there too. I didn’t get the sense that Notes was about promoting our own work at all; I got the sense that Notes was about being snarky and ironic, campy and performative. There wasn’t one note with a paragraph. She closed with “so if you didn’t find those notes (her examples) funny, you’re boring and need to rethink your attitude.” The room roared.” (The room roared a lot, especially at tip #5, which was “visualize success and manifest it.”)
She almost forgot to show us new features. One: if you’re a publication with multiple writers, you can now add @ to write a note from a specific editorial staffer. Two: there’s a new embed format to crosspost to LinkedIn. Reminder: this is the roadmap update I rearranged my night for.
Finally we heard from Mike Cohen, “head of AI/ML,” the guy in charge of the feed. His goal is to turn people and content into numerical representations: it’s his job to figure out who you are, what you like, what’s out there that you’ll like, what will get you to subscribe, and ultimately what will get you to pay. This is the reward function. How do you get paid? Because that’s how they get paid too. This is noble, sort of. He made a point that the world “algorithm” has soured, but you can build good ones, it just depends what you optimize for. “Yeah, if you don’t like writers getting paid, then you’ll complain about this.” He said it sarcastically, as in, who would question the good intention of getting writers paid? Of course, I like writers getting paid. I’m a writer and I like getting paid! But when you slant the algorithm towards monetization, you pollute the culture, you elevate the growth-hackers, marketing businesses, and media companies, and you drown out the artists, the weirdos, and the free press.
His last question was what the roadmap is for the next 2 years, and we got, “we’re always trying new things … always tweaking the core retrieval engine … we keep iterating if what you see is relevant at all times … until what you see is perfect, which will never be.”
I feel like this would be a wasted trip if I didn’t personally talk to Mike Cohen and try to confirm my conspiracy theories on how the feed works. After my terrible warm open (“look my name is Mike too,” pointing at my name tag) I asked him to confirm it. I said that in November 2024 I hosted a workshop that brought in $10,000 founding tier subscriptions in a day or two, and unexpectedly, an old post of mine (from Nov 2023) started going mega-viral. It went viral for months. I asked him if the algorithm resurfaces posts from writers who are generating revenue. He said yes, but not revenue, subscribers. I clarified, paid subscribers? “All subscribers, but yes, even more so paid.” So it seems like paid subscribers are the strongest boost you can get.
Selfishlessly, this doesn’t bother me. I know what I need to do. By doubling down on paid subscriptions, I’ll be able to grow my audience faster on the platform. This validated my decision to host my book on Substack and not my own website. If I were mercenary and bold enough to hack the system, I’d set up some discount codes for 90% off, and set up 100 fake accounts through different VPNs, so for $100/month, I could be top of the Rising charts and hack the algorithm. I would bet this is exactly what lots of these AI-generated growth accounts are doing. I wonder if this is detected and manually banned though? Probably not worth the risk, especially because I already have a solid paid content strategy, but I imagine once people realize this, it will be rampant.
But, if I think outside of my selfish needs—and my confidence to crack Notes, eventually, somehow—, I think it’s a bad algorithm for culture. Yes, it’s framed as “for creators,” and it is, but there are side effects if money is the main attractor. It means that hucksters, partisan politics, slop, and smut will thrive. Effectively, it means that even though Substack says they care about culture, its algorithm doesn’t actually. Substack has an underbelly of amazing writers who simply can’t and won’t monetize their prose, and for that they will be lapped by salesmen. I shouldn’t have been surprised, but I was unable to articulate the source of a low-grade depression for the last few hours, possibly because the illusion popped; there really isn’t a place on the Internet that is unreasonable enough to defy economics and do something for culture’s sake.
Before leaving, I asked Mike if they try to measure quality—I mentioned that I do this, and got a vague, “oh, cool”—and he said, “you know, I wonder if writers stopped writing and just used AI to generate their posts … if that got more readers to pay for their work, is that really so bad? Who are we to decide what’s good?”