It’s easy to miss a quiet revolution in a world dominated by the noisy chaos of Twitter threads, AI clickbait, and influencers slinging collagen gummies. But that’s exactly what Substack has pulled off, amidst the rise of AI content pushing audiences even more desperately in search of authenticity. What started as a niche newsletter platform has evolved into the intellectual’s social network — a place where writers, journalists, and thinkers reclaim the direct, authentic connection that social media, mainstream media, and algorithms all seem hellbent on destroying.
Substack didn’t emerge with the loud, self-congratulatory fanfare of a Silicon Valley IPO or the viral buzz of a flashy social app. It didn’t promise to “disrupt” anything or “revolutionize” human connection with AI. No, Substack’s ascent has been quieter, more purposeful — like the thoughtful hum of a coffee shop where real conversations are happening amidst the chaos of a noisy world. And that’s precisely why it has struck a chord with a growing community of thinkers.
But why do I characterize them as empirical? Aside from my other favorite place for intellectual discourse, Quora, we find ourselves on an internet inundated with opinion, perspective, and emotion, even academic discussion has been overwhelmed good intention, outright bias, or misled understanding, leaving us challenged to find meaningful content from pragmatic and altruistic authors. Above that fray, Substack has, in my experience, positioned itself as a home for people who want more than rationality for the sake of argument. It’s for those who crave ideas rooted in observation, evidence, and authenticity. These thinkers aren’t content with the thin veneer of clickbait or algorithmically engineered fluff; they’re seeking depth, substance, and meaningful connections. Substack has tapped into this need, becoming the platform for those tired of the shallow discourse found on social media and in much of mainstream media.
To appreciate how, I want to explore its roots, the evolution of online content, and why readers are abandoning the endless scroll for something real.
The Founding of Substack: A Rebellion Against the Content Economy
Substack was founded in 2017 by Chris Best, Hamish McKenzie, and Jairaj Sethi with one simple but subversive idea: What if writers could publish directly to readers and get paid for it? Crazy, right? Best, the former CTO of Kik, had seen the power of unfiltered communication. McKenzie, a tech journalist who grew disillusioned with how ad-driven media warped what got published. Together with Sethi’s technical genius, they created a platform that feels like a throwback to a time when writing wasn’t dictated by clicks or trends.
Substack’s pitch was deceptively simple: Writers own their lists and content, charge subscriptions, and interact directly with their readers. No ads, no algorithms, no middlemen. This was more than a business model; it was a rebellion… back to, perhaps, the way the internet should be.
The platform quickly attracted writers who had grown frustrated with traditional media’s increasing reliance on clicks and social media’s hollow echo chambers. It wasn’t just journalists, though. Thought leaders, analysts, and creatives of all kinds found Substack to be a haven—a place where they could focus on producing quality work for an audience willing to pay for it.
Substack didn’t just cater to content creators; it also met the needs of readers who were increasingly disillusioned with mainstream platforms. The rise of AI content further fueled this frustration, as readers found themselves wading through a swamp of auto-generated articles and clickbait masquerading as journalism. Substack’s human-driven, subscription-based model offered something rare: content that felt real.
A Brief History of Content Online: From Blogs to the Newsletter Renaissance
Substack didn’t emerge in a vacuum. It’s the culmination of decades of internet content evolution. Start with blogging — personal, raw, and revolutionary. Platforms like Blogger and WordPress democratized publishing, giving everyone a soapbox while giving rise to Web 2.0 and social media. But blogging required an audience, and as social media exploded from there, in the mid-2000s, blogs started looking like the neglected MySpace profiles of internet content.
In the attention economy, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and their ilk capitalized on our desire to connect, only to warp it. Algorithms rewarded sensationalism, reducing complex ideas to catchy headlines and shallow debates. At the same time, content mills emerged, churning out SEO-driven fluff designed to rank on Google rather than provide value. Then came Medium, promising to bridge the gap with sleek, shareable posts. But as it grew, Medium lost something, just as, unfortunately, has my long favorite, Quora, as the quest for monetization invariably pulls advertising into the fold, which pushes for pages views, which favors virality and popularity, which draws the click bait.
Meanwhile, newsletters, once dismissed as relics of the early internet, quietly began making a comeback. MailChimp and TinyLetter paved the way, but Substack seized the moment by combining newsletters with blogging and a subscription model that incentivized quality over quantity. It didn’t just bring newsletters back; it made them indispensable. Before I explain, let’s clarify the rise of “Fake News” and the end of traditional media, briefly…
Social Media’s Impact on Journalism: Headlines Over Substance
By the time Substack hit its stride, social media had already gutted traditional journalism. Platforms like Twitter reduced complex stories to bite-sized outrage. I am referring to it as “Twitter” by the way on purpose, that is what it was; henceforth we’ll go with X. Algorithms rewarded sensationalism, leaving substance to wither in the margins. News outlets, scrambling for clicks, began chasing headlines that played well on social media rather than investing in the depth readers craved. All, driven by Publishers with little grasp of the internet, even less understanding of AdTech (advertising technology), and a misplaced belief that the Brand in news still meant something to readers (or should). Hell, even today you’re seeing the death throes of mainstream media (often referred to as MSM) as it yells into the void that self-designated authorities are more credible than everyone sharing what’s happening.
Add AI to the mix (which in this case, is ultimately just going to report the news to us, in the way we each prefer), and the problem metastasized. Tools like ChatGPT and Jasper made it easier than ever to flood the internet with auto-generated content. Suddenly, readers were drowning in SEO-optimized spam and shallow, regurgitated takes. The internet had become a content farm, and readers were left starving for authenticity.
The Emergence of Authenticity: Why Readers Want Real Connections
This is where, I think, Substack found its foothold; it’s certainly why I turned my attention to it for my community. As readers became increasingly disenchanted with the superficiality of social media and the cynicism of influencer marketing, they began craving something real. Substack’s genius lies in its ability to deliver exactly that. Writers like Bari Weiss (The Free Press) and Matt Taibbi (Racket News) have built thriving newsletters that bypass traditional media gatekeepers. Even Tucker Carlson, no stranger to controversy, is evidence of this shift, having found success connecting directly with his audience after his departure from Fox News.
Substack isn’t just the domain of journalists though; it’s a thriving hub for scientists, venture capitalists, and even politicians who are tired of the filtered, PR-driven discourse dominating mainstream platforms. Biologist and author Heather Heying, for example, uses her Substack to explore complex scientific ideas with rigor and nuance, reaching audiences who crave discussions grounded in evidence rather than the sensationalism of traditional media. Venture capitalists Lenny Rachitsky and Steve Blank have each built a massive following by sharing detailed insights into product management, growth strategies, and startup trends, creating spaces where business leaders can access empirical, actionable advice. Even political pundits such as Heather Cox Richardson or Timothy Snyder in history, Jennifer Rubin with The Contrarian, or Andy Borowitz‘s comedy, have taken to Substack, using the platform to bypass soundbites and engage directly with readers on policy and governance. These creators exemplify the shift toward unfiltered, thoughtful discourse, where the emphasis isn’t on fitting into a narrative but on fostering honest, data-driven conversations. They’re living proof that authenticity and empiricism resonate far beyond the world of journalism.
The common thread? These creators don’t rely on clicks or algorithms. Their success hinges on their ability to engage directly and authentically with their readers. Substack has effectively killed the publisher and elevated the platform, allowing individuals to self-publish and build loyal audiences without compromise.
A Social Layer Without the Noise
Substack’s latest move, Notes, takes the platform even further. Launched in 2023, Notes is an X-like feature that encourages short-form posting and conversations among writers and readers. But unlike X Notes doesn’t prioritize viral engagement; it’s built to foster meaningful exchanges. By adding this social layer, Substack has positioned itself as the intellectual alternative to social media—a space where ideas, not outrage, reign.
Starting with Substack Notes is straightforward, and it’s a game-changer even if you’re not a writer with a newsletter to promote. Notes is designed for conversations, not just broadcasting, so you don’t need a polished essay or a grand idea to get started. Begin by following writers, thinkers, and creators whose work you enjoy—they’ll populate your feed with thoughtful updates and discussions. Jump in by sharing shorter, more informal posts: a question to spark debate, an interesting link, or even a quick insight you’ve been mulling over. Engage with others by liking, replying to, or resharing their Notes, fostering connections in a way that feels natural and conversational. Notes isn’t about building an audience; it’s about participating in an ecosystem of ideas, connecting with others who value thoughtful discussions. Think of it as a University Library for the digital age — one where you can exchange ideas without the noise and ego that dominate other platforms.
Regardless of Where, Start Building Your Audience Now
The rise of Substack marks a pivotal moment in how we consume and create content. It’s a wake-up call for anyone still tethered to the old ways of publishing, where gatekeepers, algorithms, and ad dollars dictate what gets read. Substack has proven that readers are willing to pay for thoughtful, authentic content and that writers can thrive by bypassing the noise and speaking directly to their audience.
The world doesn’t need more noise. It needs more thinkers. It needs you.
Again, I encourage you start writing, there here, and if you’re so inclined to simply join me there as a subscriber, you can find me on Substack here.
Thanks for this informative history and assessment, Paul! I personally love Substack (and Medium) and have been contemplating sharing my writing on both as I explore next steps.
My favorite Substack creator: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/
“Quality content always finds its audience. The direct creator-to-reader model strips away middlemen and proves people will pay for value. As Ben Thompson notes, ‘The internet enables infinite niches, and sustainable businesses can be built on remarkably few true fans.'” #ContentEvolution #DirectValue
I love this shift! Substack is really bringing back the kind of meaningful, genuine content we’ve been missing. It’s a refreshing change from all the noise and clickbait on other platforms.
Junaid Asghar precisely
It’s cool to see Substack reviving genuine content! What do you think are the next big trends in online content creation? Are more platforms returning to authenticity like Substack, or could there be a new evolution in the making???
Chirag, yes… and, beyond what I’ve covered here?
Paul, this is such a refreshing perspective on the evolution of online content! Substack truly feels like a haven for meaningful, authentic conversations, and your insights capture its essence perfectly. Grateful for your thoughtful take on this shift back to depth and connection—definitely inspiring!
Great piece Paul! Truth is more than a brand. I’ll, too, soon be migrating with the hippest herdsters!
In my notes right now there’s a lot of discussion about Substack’s recent comments regarding Elon Musk and “free speech.” He’s not exactly the thinking person’s figurehead right now. Do you think Substack will survive their bad rhetoric? I don’t think people will buy that they are fundamentally principled rather than economically driven, especially with their past experience and investor roster. Calling profit driven decisions an ideologically minded inquiry is becoming a really bad look.
Great comment, though, respectfully, saying Elon Musk is “exactly the thinking person’s figurehead right now.” is a subjective opinion. While people don’t like his style, it can’t be refuted that he built not one, but many of the most innovative and successful companies of the 21st century, worked his way into the U.S. federal government to influence the White House, and orchestrated influence over just about everyone in the world. Like it or not, his impact will last for centuries.
I can’t name many people in history who have accomplished as much… Rasputin, Da Vinci? And if you want to assert that those accomplishments don’t require unusual mental capacity, we’ll just have to agree to disagree right here.
“thinking” doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with ethics, morals, or profit / philanthorpy. Which is not to say I’m judging Elon Musk in any way in this regard, I’m just pointing out that I disagree that he’s not a thinking person’s figurehead, even if people don’t like him, he decisions, or his accomplishments. They aren’t related.
One might justifiably argue as an analogy, that he’s playing chess at a Grand Master level, economically and socially. That doesn’t mean anyone likes or agrees with the outcomes.
Where I would debate you more directly, is what seems to be our respective positions on profit motivation. As an economist, we study the fact that all humans (all living things) are driven by profit, be that storing fat, accumulating wealth, or appeasing our dopamine levels, our GOOD need to profit in the cause of all innovation and improvement in the world.
You can that it’s not good when it’s financial profit (wealth) and you’re welcome to that opinion, but history and economics would prove that you’re wrong. What humans don’t like is unreasonable wealth accumulation, fraud, theft, or in some other way, how we *feel* that someone is undeserving or not sharing their wealth. Profit (wealth accumulation) is what drives down costs, funds government, pushes for efficiency or optimization, pushing for invention, and creates jobs.
If (when) people or organizations lack the profit motivation, they are inherently less impactful, less successful, less innovative, and less efficient.
There are of course, circumstances where this is required: government and certain philanthropic endeavors that the private market won’t support. We’re accepting that these entities need to exist and that they will be inefficient, but the alternative is to go without. That said, the reason they have resources to work with is because of others’ profit motivation and the creation of wealth.
When you propose that it’s a bad look, what do you suggest everyone do that’s better? Explain how that will work out holistically.
one of the insidious way discrimination works is that people in power demand that people with grievances offer solutions to the problems that they name, when in fact it’s the people in power who must first agree to the grievance.
Any chance you caught the Hacker News post from years ago, that became popular for comparing entrepreneurship to a game of darts? I just reposted it as a Note here, to share, https://substack.com/profile/10262012-paul-obrien/note/c-90063088
Point being, the post was wrong. It asserts that people with wealth and connections are more likely to be successful at the entrepreneurship, because they have more darts to throw.
It sounds right but it’s misleading.
People with power, wealth, or control, don’t make the best entrepreneurs and innovators, it just makes them better at the game being played.
It’s the people with grievances who change the game.
so being smart does not make you thoughtful. elon musk is an impulsive child who likes to use intimidation, manipulation, rhetoric, black and white thinking and distorted lies to get more candy. maybe it’s only mothers who can see through his games.
to your statement: I can’t name many people in history who have accomplished as much i would say: EVERY SINGLE MOTHER I’VE ever known has accomplished already so much more than this man ever has. when you say humans are driven by profit that’s not my experience. sorry it’s yours.
this is, in fact, the lies about money that i’d suggest we THINK ourselves out of. spend one day with a secure child and you’ll see that people are driven by laughter, by fun, by connection and intimacy. THOSE are the values that ought to be our commodities.
i agree. it’s just that you challenged my asserting that Substack has a bad look by asking me to have the solution. Ok, i take the bait. Moderate content just like the people in the world have to do every day? Put pressure on your payment processor to not take money from hate speech? Stop saying you’re making a “new economy” with a CMS system? Ask Marc Andreeson to step down and tell the community why and ask them to pay something for Substack to replace his investment? Make a new web browser that is the social layer of the web that Marc Andreeson always meant to release but conveniently didn’t? I don’t know, that’s the end of my list.
I see that you sidestepped my notes about Elon musk so I’ll count my points there.
You’ll count your points? This isn’t an argument to win, it’s a discussion of perspectives. At least, as far as I’m concerned.
Respectfully, I don’t wade into discussions trying to learn and be helpful, when people resort to insults. I respect your opinions of Elon Musk as yours but I don’t see any value in spending my time trying to talk about him or anything related if you view a successful adult as an “impulsive child.”
I’m a father of 3 so also, I don’t appreciate a conversation that presumes things about me, such as needing to spend a day with a secure child, to what, gain perspective? Well, I have it, thank you.
We can agree to disagree, I get it, you don’t like him, and you think his accomplishments are on par with most people. Cool. We disagree.
I think you just don’t like that my ideas (above) are spot on and that I’m a woman. Otherwise you would have addressed them, since you asked for them in the first place. So now you see why people don’t bring their ideas to powerful people, since they won’t engage with ideas they can’t personally benefit from.
But these are your opinions. And now you’re asserting what, that being a woman has anything to do with my replies? I didn’t bring up you being a woman, why are you?
I didn’t say I won’t engage in ideas and possibly benefit from them, I said I don’t waste my time engaging in discussions with people who resort to insulting others. That tells me you have an inherent bias and you’re not talking about validated ideas, you’re wanting to establish that Elon Musk is an “impulsive child” and that Substack should be judged poorly too because of what OTHER people do.
But, I’ll keep going, let’s go through your ideas on the basis we have, that Elon is childish and Substack should look bad for their position.
* Moderate content just like the people in the world have to do every day?
They do. Lots of people are banned from Substack and their Terms are clear. If I were to hazard a guess based on what the founders have implied, I think they support free speech and so they won’t remove much. They’ll remove fraud, libel, slander, and probably photos, videos, discussion of crimes and harm.
* Put pressure on your payment processor to not take money from hate speech?
Hate speech isn’t a crime. Hate speech isn’t clearly defined. Hate speech is subjective. What’s your definition and what specifically do you want Elon or Substack to police?
* Stop saying you’re making a “new economy” with a CMS system?
I’m not even sure what you mean by this but in the work I do and in my world, this is very accurate of what they’re doing. Innovations create new economies, jobs, and opportunities; they are building a new CMS that is doing that. So, what are you getting at?
* Ask Marc Andreeson to step down and tell the community why and ask them to pay something for Substack to replace his investment?
Not even sure where this is coming from, why?
Marc is a venture capital investor with a responsibility to deliver financial returns to his investors, and Substack is doing well. He’d be irresponsible to step down.
* Make a new web browser that is the social layer of the web that Marc Andreeson always meant to release but conveniently didn’t?
It’s been tried and proven many times, that you can’t really accomplish this.
Microsoft, Google, and Apple won’t let you gain much market share as a browser. Social media APIs won’t let you track users or discussions. And any such thing to work, it has to be ubiquitous enough that it at least works over the major platforms and with enough adoption to be meaningful; neither is really possible.
Pretty sure RSS was the empirical thinkers way of getting news.
Substack seems ok, but I don’t really see the advantage over RSS
Was … in 2004? Sure. Then social media came along, publishers fell apart and chased dollars, SEO caused content farms, social media influencers tricked algorithms, and AI flooded us with more.
Yet it still works.
It’s still my main way to get news. SEO doesn’t affect it and I don’t have to deal with social media.
heck, sites like Reddit literally host every subreddit as an RSS