I think fundamentally it's because science and health journalism written by well-qualified and clear communicators is one of the few genres of mainstream journalism left that actually pays pretty well still for folks who've built up the necessary expertise. And it's also one of the forms of writing that there are alternative venues for that also pay well (e.g., you can write for think-tanks, you can write for government agencies, you can write for international agencies, you can write well-selling nonfiction books, and so on). So the people who could hold up a corner of a platform like Substack with that kind of work don't have much incentive to do this kind of gig writing unless Substack decides to heavily invest in building that kind of presence, and that isn't the way Substack's executives think--they subsidize individuals who bring over big audiences, but they don't really do it by topical area or overall niche.
I'm not sure I agree with your premise that politics is more balanced than healthcare. It's "more balanced" because one out of five isn't a rabble rouser? Weiss and Taibbi are the Mercolas of politics.
That said, the common denominator here is clicks. Substack might have been antidote for social media a few years back, but it's nothing more than long form social media now.
I don't think I'd characterise them as the Mercolas of politics. I'm not a fan of either of them, but if I was pressed to name the Mercolas of politics I'd be pointing to people like Alex Jones or Breitbart. To draw a better analogy with Weiss and Taibbi with health writers.... maybe I'd go as far as the Dr Ozs of politics!
I think some of these also show up in the Culture category? I could be wrong. I came across a newsletter with c. 600,000 subscribers with a piece on how statins made Americans uniquely susceptible to COVID. (I wish they’d make up their minds whether the disease is real or not.)
Nice comparison to flat-earthers. You might be interested in my novel satirizing all of this, especially the flatties.
Thanks, I'll check that out - I was really interested in nutty esoteric Earth shape theories once (Flat Earth, Hollow Earth, etc. - not interested as a believer by any means, but interested in the topic)
Saying those people weren't censored because they're doing well on Substack is somewhat of an absurd position: It wasn't long when every single social media platform had a massive leftist thumb on the scale for their moderation, and eg. Parler was just destroyed in a blatantly political fashion. Those people are on Substack in part because it has the policies it has.
Also, why might covid be so big on these leaderboards? Maybe because it involved massive enforced societal changes, some of them blatantly insane*, the media and social media had massive thumbs on the scale, the official messaging was very extreme where you weren't allowed to doubt a single thing: You were supposed to obey, even if the message kept changing to keep the draconian nonsense up.
I myself witnessed people in my country (not the US) advocating for camping the unclean as if it was the most normal thing in the world. The terrifying part wasn't the policy - it was that the advocates weren't people advocating for extreme policies in full knowledge of how heavy-handed they were, but just utterly oblivious to how batshit insane they seemed to anyone who hadn't drunk the same koolaid, and with no comprehension of how extreme their suggestions really were. It was the moment I ceased to have any doubt how nonsense like communism and Nazism happened. People just turn weird, and lose perspective. And then work will set you free, and everyone imagining they're the one person keeping their hand down in that one famous photo will be hailing the leader.
So no, it's no mystery why those sections are dominated by skeptics. It's also no wonder why there's flat earther grade people on the leaderboards: If no sensible person is supposed to have doubts about some of the most extreme anti-freedom policies within my lifetime, in the supposedly free world, the only ones who will voice their doubts will be the profoundly antisocial and the people who are nuts, because every other heretic has the good sense to shut up and avoid the witch hunts.
* eg. in my country they banned alcohol sales in bars after a certain time. Bad for the not at risk youngsters, and the bars were permitted to stay open if they ceased selling booze. Much less severe restrictions were levied at cafes during the daytime, where the elderly - the people at actual risk of severe and/or lethal disease - gathered. Weird, is it not?
I think fundamentally it's because science and health journalism written by well-qualified and clear communicators is one of the few genres of mainstream journalism left that actually pays pretty well still for folks who've built up the necessary expertise. And it's also one of the forms of writing that there are alternative venues for that also pay well (e.g., you can write for think-tanks, you can write for government agencies, you can write for international agencies, you can write well-selling nonfiction books, and so on). So the people who could hold up a corner of a platform like Substack with that kind of work don't have much incentive to do this kind of gig writing unless Substack decides to heavily invest in building that kind of presence, and that isn't the way Substack's executives think--they subsidize individuals who bring over big audiences, but they don't really do it by topical area or overall niche.
I'm not sure I agree with your premise that politics is more balanced than healthcare. It's "more balanced" because one out of five isn't a rabble rouser? Weiss and Taibbi are the Mercolas of politics.
That said, the common denominator here is clicks. Substack might have been antidote for social media a few years back, but it's nothing more than long form social media now.
We don't need better algorithms. We need fewer.
I don't think I'd characterise them as the Mercolas of politics. I'm not a fan of either of them, but if I was pressed to name the Mercolas of politics I'd be pointing to people like Alex Jones or Breitbart. To draw a better analogy with Weiss and Taibbi with health writers.... maybe I'd go as far as the Dr Ozs of politics!
I think some of these also show up in the Culture category? I could be wrong. I came across a newsletter with c. 600,000 subscribers with a piece on how statins made Americans uniquely susceptible to COVID. (I wish they’d make up their minds whether the disease is real or not.)
Nice comparison to flat-earthers. You might be interested in my novel satirizing all of this, especially the flatties.
https://open.substack.com/pub/larryhogue/p/welcome-aboard-the-ship-of-fools-1e4?r=1hfx9&utm_medium=ios
Thanks, I'll check that out - I was really interested in nutty esoteric Earth shape theories once (Flat Earth, Hollow Earth, etc. - not interested as a believer by any means, but interested in the topic)
This doesn't bode well for our species 😔
Little does these days.
Aye😔
I had this same experience. Was following health and just seeing vaccines cause autism crap. Had to unfollow the category as it kept pissing me off.
Saying those people weren't censored because they're doing well on Substack is somewhat of an absurd position: It wasn't long when every single social media platform had a massive leftist thumb on the scale for their moderation, and eg. Parler was just destroyed in a blatantly political fashion. Those people are on Substack in part because it has the policies it has.
Also, why might covid be so big on these leaderboards? Maybe because it involved massive enforced societal changes, some of them blatantly insane*, the media and social media had massive thumbs on the scale, the official messaging was very extreme where you weren't allowed to doubt a single thing: You were supposed to obey, even if the message kept changing to keep the draconian nonsense up.
I myself witnessed people in my country (not the US) advocating for camping the unclean as if it was the most normal thing in the world. The terrifying part wasn't the policy - it was that the advocates weren't people advocating for extreme policies in full knowledge of how heavy-handed they were, but just utterly oblivious to how batshit insane they seemed to anyone who hadn't drunk the same koolaid, and with no comprehension of how extreme their suggestions really were. It was the moment I ceased to have any doubt how nonsense like communism and Nazism happened. People just turn weird, and lose perspective. And then work will set you free, and everyone imagining they're the one person keeping their hand down in that one famous photo will be hailing the leader.
So no, it's no mystery why those sections are dominated by skeptics. It's also no wonder why there's flat earther grade people on the leaderboards: If no sensible person is supposed to have doubts about some of the most extreme anti-freedom policies within my lifetime, in the supposedly free world, the only ones who will voice their doubts will be the profoundly antisocial and the people who are nuts, because every other heretic has the good sense to shut up and avoid the witch hunts.
* eg. in my country they banned alcohol sales in bars after a certain time. Bad for the not at risk youngsters, and the bars were permitted to stay open if they ceased selling booze. Much less severe restrictions were levied at cafes during the daytime, where the elderly - the people at actual risk of severe and/or lethal disease - gathered. Weird, is it not?
Another great piece, Peter. Keep it up! You're on the right track.