michael-dean-k/

Screens are unfairly tainted. I'd love to write a post about how screens are underrated, a glorious technology that would be marveled at by basically any other generation in history. Screens are the scapegoat because they are the point-of-contact, the portal through which bad or selfish actors bend your pixels to their whims. I know people lament over "blue light" and the physical strain from staring at something for many hours, and of course that is real at excessive doses, but might that then be an software or psychology issue?

The main reason I started writing this was to riff on screen-time with kids. There is a revealing nuance in the advice, "no screen time for kids below 2 years old, but FaceTime with relatives is fine." Why is that? It's not the screen, but the nature of what's on them. FaceTime is fine because there is a fix and unchanging frame of which a fixed and unchanging person moves within. There is stability and coherence. We take this for granted, but infants haven't modeled this yet! They might not even have object permanence (ie: if they disappear from the frame, are they gone forever?). So by this logic, any piece of media with a stable frame is potentially infant safe; beyond FaceTime that includes single-shot lectures, text editors, etc. Obviously an infant will not be in gDocs, but the point is, if they see you using a static interface, there is little harm, it's simply another object in their environment.

By contrast, cartoons and commercials are the real issue. To explain this to my mother-in-law, I counted out loud the camera cuts in an ad, and it less than once per second. There is a whole psychology on why they do this, which I can guess, but should probably look into. But when an infant see this, I imagine the frame resets are alluring, but disorienting. If the frame changes every second, they're locked trying to make sense of this self-evolving landscape, an experience novel and typical from every other thing they've seen. It has no continuity.

By this logic, it also explains why feeds are worse than personal websites. You just stream past 100 things per second and have no steady frame. Even though my site is feedish now, it's all from a single person, so at least that's a constant. I'd feel okay with my daughter at 5-years old reading personal websites and having her own, but I wouldn't want her to be using algorithmic social media feeds at 15.

Chris Best, founder of Substack, posted that they caught “President Plump,” the #1 growing account on Substack, for using fake subscriptions to boost discovery. I think this was intended to comfort everyone that they caught a scammer (justice!), but actually it confirmed what many were starting to notice: discovery is contingent on you making money. If you have paid subscribers turned off, no algorithmic wind will blow your way. But if you have a spike of paid subscribers in a month, suddenly your old posts will start to go viral, in hopes that even more paid subscribers will bring the platform 10% (this has happened to me before). This isn’t inherently bad. For every President Plump, there is an earnest person trying to finance their creative project.

But at scale I fear it creates a bad pattern, because the accounts that everyone sees will be the ones making the most, and generally these will be marketers and growth hackers more than artists. I think you will find better writing in the gutters of Substack than on their rising leaderboard. If authentic culture emerges outside of monetization, then there’s a real rift between what Substack wants to be (“an engine for culture”) and what it actually is (an algorithm that only rewards monetization).

I think the best we can do is use this information to our advantage. For example, I could have new Essay Club members pay directly through Stripe, but by handling payments through my Founding Members tier on Substack, I get a discovery boost, which is worth the 10% fee. Similarly, if you make small digital products, it might make sense to bundle them into a subscription instead of charging per item.

Should you use a credit card masking service to give yourself 20 paid subscriptions for $5 each? Depends. Basically, for $10/month, you can pay for a probably noticeable increase in discovery. The question is, will you get caught? Maybe they are on the lookout now, but my guess is they would only penalize it at a certain scale. Sam Kriss speculated that President Plump was paying himself around $5,000 per month to reach #1. I’ve never done this, and wouldn’t necessarily recommend it unless you have a hacker mentality and really need the growth. 

At the very least, you should consider having paid subscriptions turned on. Cate Hall found success in charging $1/month and getting to #1 rising. Our very own Yehudis Milchtein also set up $1/month subscriptions and is now #91 rising in literature.

However you approach this, it brings up a bigger question for me on how to build a real engine for culture. It seems like you can’t have an algorithm for a single reward (popularity or money) or else they will be gamed; instead you could give everyone curatorial power relative to their cultural reputation, however you measure that. For example, if we all trust Ted Gioia, then somehow Ted’s like should count more than 10,000 bot likes or $1,000 in fake subscriptions.

I hope this triggers more transparency from Substack on how their algorithm works, and also hope for a new generation of platforms where each person has visibility into and control of the thing that is routing them information.

One of the thrills of the AI revolution will be how it untangles software from bad incentives. Today, software is expensive to build and maintain, and so it needs returns to fund itself. The big social media companies have annual expenses of $50m-$50b; they are in no position to operate from virtues, or to deliver on their stated aspirations of “connecting the world,” because they need to optimize for attention and convert it to revenue to fund the ridiculous scale of the operation.

But now we’ve hit the point where autonomous coding is real: Claude’s Opus 4.5 can code for 30 hours straight. I am currently “rebuilding Circle,” the community platform, except not as a platform, but as a single customized instance for my community (Essay Club). I am maybe 4 hours in and half way done. Circle wanted $1k/year, so I built my own with a $20/mo Cursor subscription.

When you can just prompt software into existence, you don’t need fundraising, an expanding team, and all the sacrifices that come with capital. Software can start reflecting the will of visionaries, rather than the exploited psyches of the masses. Of course, AI coding will also enable huckster bot swarms to sell Candy Crush clones and other brain rot variants, but more importantly I think we’re entering a new era of techno-activism.

Millions will use their weekends to spin up apps, sites, tools, platforms, and networks, not for the sake of colonizing the planet’s attention, but for the sake of gift-giving or mischief-making or culture-shaping. It could mean that we shift our attention from hyper-commoditized feeds to mission-driven places.

Today, I think a single person could spin up a million-person writing-based network for under $100k/year (my guess is that’s <0.2% of Substack’s cost). If you clone something exactly (like Twitter>Bluesky), there’s little reason to switch because you lose the network effects. But the oozification of code & interface means that we can start experimenting with better social architectures. How might a network built for human flourishing actually function? A novel concept paired with a small critical mass (just a few hundred people) might be enough to trigger a cascade of platform switching.

The irony is that AI coding is only possible because big companies have been able to amass extreme amounts of capital, resources, and data, but in doing so they’ve released something that could erode their own monopolies on attention, the last scarce resource. Now I think it comes down to what people decide to build. If everyone can build anything, will we each try to build our own empire of extraction, or will we contribute to a culture we want to live in ourselves?

I didn’t realize that Substack is open about paying off-platform creators to join their platform. See their $20m accelerator fund. My quick understanding is that, if you make $X revenue/year elsewhere, they guarantee you’ll make that, and will make up the difference if after a year, you don’t. A friend thinks there’s an additional secret fund that pays bonuses for celebrities to join (ie: Dolly Parton, Charlie XCX). I was surprised by how articulate Charlie XCX was—I only have a meme-level understanding of her—but I suppose it’s possibly ghostwritten. Idk.

I don’t have problems with this, but what doesn’t register to me is why they wouldn’t allocate money to help the on-platform, original writers. Obviously, these kinds of things piss of 95% of their userbase. Even if there was something like $100-$1m for on-platform writers with audiences under 1,000, that would build a tremendous amount of goodwill. My guess (and fear) is that they have a business model blindness, and aren’t thinking along the planes of “what actually builds organic culture?” Instead, there’s a lot of rationalizing: “here’s why bringing Derek Thompson on platform is good for you” (but the obvious benefit comes from the 10% they get from DT).

It’s weird to me that in some sense I’m giving more to it’s existing writers ($10,000), than the platform that raised $100,000,000.

Even if a SM feed is filled with all of your favorite ideas, friends, and thinkers, it would still be poison from the sheer volume of randomness. Even the act of seeing two things in feed, forces you to shift from one context to another, forcing you to shift frames, destabilizing and disembodying you.

Alternatively, if you had a feed of a hundred things, but they all revolve around the same content, all spawned from a singular intention, I think it would be less dizzying; it’s more enables depth into your present, embodied frame. There is less of a “slot machine” effect. 

It’s not that feeds or algorithms are bad; they only became bad when they strip context. The logic of most feeds, however, do not care if you feel oriented. They have a simple reward function, show you as many different things as they can, to see which ones drive behavior. They are running a real-time self-adaptive experiment on your preferences, in the hope to discover which patterns might nudge you into their desired behavior (whether it’s towards an ad or towards an on-platform paid subscription by a beloved writer, they are effectively the same—it’s an algorithm that is not being real with you, and not respecting your attention).

I feel like a broken record in prescribing a solution, but it’s basically Plexus (RIP): show nothing until you post, and then from what you post, share a feed of semantically related posts. Substack, as a writing network, is a unique position to build this. It has a lot of long form content: not just notes, but essays, podcasts, and videos. It should be looking at the granular units, semantically embedding paragraphs, and then those become atomic objects that help populate the “semantic feed” generated after every Note.

So Alex Dobrenko started a new personal website (I will not link to it because it’s secret), but he sent it to me, so I spent some time on it and wrote him some notes, and then he wrote a reply post to me, and now I’m making a reply log to that (and upon re-reading, I realize it’s now a whole essay). It’s something like a semi-public letter exchange. 

Letters, emails, same thing. 

Similar to how the 20th century has books like “Virginia Woolf: The Letters,” I wonder if the 21st century will have “Alex Dobrenko: The Emails,” where his children posthumously assemble and publish all their dad’s best emails. ((Also, now that my cholesterol is borderline, and my daughter is on the way, I’m having new thoughts about preparing for my death, like “THIS IS DAD FROM THE PAST AND HERE ARE ALL THE PASSWORDS.”) Something about losing all my writing forever feels worse than dying. We eventually have to die, but you only lose your writing forever if you’re careless and lazy. Rant over.)

What I like about letters/emails over essays is that there isn’t a mass-market context, and so you’re writing for just one person. That’s good essay advice too (“write for one person”—we literally taught this in Write of Passage), but deep down, it’s hard to forget that you’re writing for all people of all times, especially if you are.

Recently I mentioned that I’ve spent 2 years nerding out on essay patterns (the objective stuff on the page), but I want to start thinking more about the process: how do I show up to write?

One idea is to start essays as letters to specific people. Eventually, that can evolve into something for the main list, but I don’t want to start with them in mind. I want to start with a specific problem in my life, and then, with a small group of people who relate to that problem. Any idea I have comes with a clear person in mind, someone who would probably be most excited to read it, and has all the context needed so I can avoid the bush beating.

If I want to write about Alternate Internet Communities and weird websites, I’ll write to Alex. If I want to write about the insanity of the Dark Enlightenment, I’ll write to Andrew. Theology to Taylor, Emerson to Will, Hope to Isabel, Fatherhood to Dan, Greeks to Chris, Dreams to Garrett, AGI to Davey, Architecture to Liz, etc. It’s also special to say, “I wrote this for you, and we should talk and get to the bottom of this,” and that could really change the nature of the essay because someone else is co-shaping it with you.

Alex brings up a good question: why doesn’t Substack feel like this? I have to think more on this, but I think the stage effect is still at play. If you have a 10k audience, it still feels like a megaphone, and when you’re on Notes, you participate in American Idol, again with new skin. It’s still the best town in town, and there are tricks (ie: set up an opt-in Section for experiments so you can have a “shadow audience” that’s 1% the size of your main one), but there’s friction in tricks like that. It’s not the main way the platform is intended to be used. It’s meant for loud, marketing-style updates, that confidently funnel readers into a paid subscription tier (I got 15 paid subs from my last one, and so I realize the value in learning to play that game, but it’s just that, a game, yet a game that determines my financial security, but it’s not the full “culture” in “culture engine” that Substack can possibly build; it’s a reward function that could make this place like LinkedIn in <3 years).

So, how do you build a “culture engine,” for real? What is it beyond a tagline or positioning? To start, I think it goes beyond revenue. Of course, Substack needs to pay bills (separate point, but once we reach the vibe code singularity, the bills might be so low that SM networks won’t have to ruthlessly optimize). I think Substack could 1) diversify their business model, so that they don’t have a single attractor that incentives every thought to be monetized, and 2) make decisions from a cultural perspective—even if there’s no explicit revenue tie-in, by creating a good culture, you retain the people and prevent a Writer’s Exodus.

But to get even more specific, a “culture engine,” sounds like the kind of place that would trigger long letters back and forth between writers, kind of like this. I used to see some of that happening, but it seemed like a performance too: “And now, here is email 6 of 7 about how to start a public email debate” or something. The core difference is that, when there’s two people writing back and forth, there’s permission to perform less and less until you’re eventually just very real with each other. This is what I love about Neal Cassady’s letters to Jack Kerouac (troubled guys, who are a topic for another time). 

Why aren’t Substack comments like this? For one, they’re truncated. But two, I don’t know, sometimes comments even feel performative too? I feel it, on both the giving and receiving end. After I post, it feels like a chore to respond, even though I often love what people write and want to respond. I think it’s because, since it’s in public, and everyone can read, it feels like an obligation to respond. I wish there was an option to have “private comments,” and even “private replies to comments.” Like, other readers could see, “Michael Dean replied to this, privately” so they know I’m not a dick.

Okay, last thing, maybe: I think the real problem is that the discovery mechanics are all wrong. Like, I don’t want to blast this letter to everyone I know. But yet also, I don’t mind if everyone I know happens to stumble across it. There is a huge difference. I’ll put this in my logs, but realistically, no one is going to find it. I guess I could put it on Notes? But that feels too vulnerable too. Ideally, the right people will find it as they write about similar issues. So if some Substacker is also writing about private comments, to themselves, or to a friend, they will suddenly find a thread between Alex and Michael talking about a similar thing, and then suddenly we all have visibility into each other’s notes, letters, essays about those things. Forks merged.

The social media network I want to park in (or plug my personal website into) is one where everything is semi-public, but you only discover things through your own writing. I don’t know the right metaphor: it’s like each notes or essay is a flashlight that you use to move around this massive information cavern and you make friends along the way. It has nothing to do with engagement or revenue, but semantic similarity. This feels closer to the original vision of the Internet, to connect people based on ideas.

Sublime has some features that are adjacent to this, and Plexus was very close to this too, but I do think there’s something to owning your place. Is there some protocol where you can fuse the autonomy of your website with the connectivity of a network? I feel like AI is going to simultaneously bring us to (a) slop town, and (b) a golden age in social media experimentation; as sloptown gets neck high, people will want to move.

PS1: To clarify: I love having an audience, I just don’t love the way my writing is distributed to them, and also don’t love the way conversation is facilitated. Comments are okay, but the Chat feature feels pretty off. I wish I could write 30 essays per month, like this, and each one would get the 3 that are most relevant.

PS2: It took Alex 9 days to reply to my original notes, which is still ~2x faster than the letter cadence back in the day. That’s fast! I wonder if AIM culture poisoned letter culture. I haven’t responded to my Substack comments from 5 days ago, and I feel bad.

Just heard Hamish (on a livestream) say that Substack is a revolution, a “found economy,” that materialized 5 million paid subscriptions that wouldn’t have existed otherwise. What is a revolution though? I think I want to zoom into this positioning, because many words are being used interchangeably. Yes, it’s a new business model for monetization, but is that a “cultural revolution”?

It feels like there’s a bit of a fixation on the 10% mechanism, and the risk is that this reward function turns Substack into LinkedIn in the next 3 years. If the goal is to make a “culture engine,” you need to really ask what a culture is. If you’re culture is limited to paid subscriptions, it’s a small, unrepresentative, utilitarian culture, much more slanted to journalism and business tactics, regardless of an editorial attempt to bring a flair of literature.

We need to define culture (in terms of taste, values, and quality), and then make platform design decisions that have nothing to do with revenue. Of course, I’m not saying to abandon revenue focus; I’m saying that they need to allocate some percent of their attention to “doing weird things” to prevent a writer exodus as enshittifcation strengthens.

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?”

I haven't shared with you my latest political views, but I’m exploring this idea of Radical Centrism, meaning, it might be okay to justify a centralized state-controlled media platform if that technologically and systematically guarantees a sane/just information environment. Obviously, this is hard, if not impossible, to do right.

It’s whole goal would be to invent an architecture that make it impossible for polarization or propaganda to occur. The key UI invention is that every news event would be presented as an atomic unit, with a mosaic of interpretations surrounding (not just left/right, but dozens of angles). Anyone who hits a certain POV too much would get de-ranked, so both Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel would be equally penalized because they predictably align with a faction. It would have to be structurally impossible for governments, media, money, or power to use their resources to promote a message above the system. Any media company who does not comply will be taxed into oblivion.

Of course everyone should have the right to say/think whatever they want without consequence, but the real issue isn't free speech, but in frame control.