We use analytics and advertising tools by default. You can update this anytime.
Nathan Baschez is the cofounder and CEO of AI word processor Lex. He cofounded Every, was the first employee at Substack, and co-created Product Hunt.
Also: Clubhouse’s accelerator program, Twitter’s new monetization tools for Spaces, a platform that lets fans control creators’ lives, and more
Mar 18, 2021 · 10 min readUpdated Jul 24, 2026
ICYMI: Li auctioned the artwork for her essay on The Creator Middle Class as an NFT! It eventually sold to James Young for 13.37 ETH! ($25,264). Congrats Li!
And now, onto the news…
Li:
Substack is wading into the territory of publishers, rather than strictly being a platform. By funding certain writers, they are picking and choosing what gets published. At bottom, those are editorial decisions.
Turner:
I don’t think so. They're not accepting or rejecting posts from individual writers—they are merely choosing which writers to invest in.
These programs could be seen as a growth marketing strategy, and not editorial control. Substack is just paying writers to attract more readers and more writers. They're incentivising high profile creators to kickstart the flywheel of network effects.
Writers ultimately control what gets written.
Li:
That’s a good point, but funding writers supports their success in a much more direct way than just allowing them to use the platform. It makes sense that Substack be held more responsible for the kind of content that gets published by Substack Pro writers compared to normal writers. It speaks to Substack’s values. And it also has legal implications.
Section 230 says that internet platforms are not liable for what their users post. But publishers are liable for what their writers write. Does Substack Pro jeopardise their Section 230 status?
Nathan:
It might! With Substack Pro they’re still a platform, but they’re also sort of a publisher on their own platform now. I don’t see why it would affect their section 230 status for normal platform users, but I can imagine it getting tricky for writers who are a part of Substack Pro.
The bigger issue to me isn’t legal status, but cultural mores. We used to have a stable set of mores clearly labeling the difference between things like platforms and publishers. But the Platform/Publisher binary is more like a spectrum now—and we will eventually update our ethical standards to reflect that fact. Between now and then, it will be an active conversation.
Turner:
When it comes to platforms trying to formulate creator-oriented strategies, I’ve seen two broad approaches so far: The first approach is open and application-based, like Clubhouse’s program here, TikTok’s Creator Fund, or Substack Bridge. The second approach is closed and invite-only, like Triller, Substack Pro, or Clubhouse’s previously announced Creator Pilot Program.
The first approach is more egalitarian and better at attracting talented emerging creators. The second is better at attracting celebrity creators because platforms typically pay big upfront-advances.
Li:
I think the second approach is really effective! It’s particularly good for Clubhouse. Whenever a famous person drops into Clubhouse, it goes wild.
But attracting big names only works if platforms have a strong user retention strategy. Which is not the case with Triller, for example.
Also, this Clubhouse accelerator program seems so selective! I wonder if this makes creators feel left out if they're not chosen.
I remember when they first announced the Creator Pilot Program, some creators definitely felt that way.
Turner:
It's not about whether or not certain creators get chosen, but about whether the process seems fair. I think if there's a transparent application process, creators don’t mind. That’s what the open applications for this accelerator program are meant to do.
Li:
This is obviously a move to head off and capture some of Clubhouse’s success. Twitter is already the top of funnel for Clubhouse: people tweet about Clubhouse rooms before they go live and write tweetstorms about those rooms after they’re over. So it makes sense for Twitter to want to control the entire stack versus just being an informational layer for Clubhouse.
Turner:
Totally. Twitter has this opportunity because it is already the primary place of discovery for interesting articles, podcasts, threads, and people. Better creator monetization not only heads off Clubhouse’s success, it also allows them to more effectively capture a lot of value that they've left on the table for the last 10 years.
Besides, relying on advertising is not going to work for Twitter. Other platforms have much more compelling content formats better suited for the attention economy.
Li:
Yeah, I agree! They're also in a position to undercut everyone by having a 0% take rate on most creator tools because they have a steady stream of ad revenue.
Turner:
As an aside, focussing on creators has now become the primary way to build a social network. (Shoutout to Li!) Early-stage networks need content and community. Creators make content and bring communities of their fans to the platform. Helping creators monetize has a strong network effect.
Li:
NewNew is like playing a video game but with fans playing as their favourite creator.
Turner:
To me, the concept seems dystopian. But what makes it slightly better is that creators get to frame the choices fans make for them in these paid polls. My hope is that they frame these choices responsibly.
Li:
NewNew would make more sense if it was an embedded feature in an existing social platform that creators were already using, rather than a standalone app.
For example, stories on Instagram already have a polling feature so it could be embedded as a format within them.
Nathan:
I agree! Latching onto an existing network is crucial for NewNew’s success.
The essential toolkit for those shaping the future
"This might be the best value you
can get from an AI subscription."
- Jay S.
Every Content
AI&I Podcast
Monologue
Cora
Sparkle
SpiralJoin 100,000+ leaders, builders, and innovators
Already have an account? Sign in.
Daily insights from AI pioneers + early access to powerful AI tools
Front-row access to the future of AI
In-depth reviews of new models on release dayPlaybooks and guides for putting AI to workPrompts and use cases for buildersIn-depth reviews of new models on release dayPlaybooks and guides for putting AI to workPrompts and use cases for builders
Katie Parrott
Every Staff
Kieran Klaassen
Comments