I second this, it's surprising and concerning to see Substack accepting money from Andreessen Horowitz. It's not like any another social media spaces comes to mind that changed drastically following a tech billionaires' increase in influence.
I third that - what makes you think they will allow you to be independent in the long run? They play the long game. I would have thought you were better at vetting your financial overlords.
I'm baffled by people saying getting money from Andreessen Horowitz is a bad sign. They *already* invested millions in Substack several years ago. So all this time the people have been using Substack it was funded by AH.
Bob, thanks for the history! I didn't know Andreessen Horowitz has been funding Substack for at least 6 years now. However, that is more concerning, not less.
I skimmed your most recent article from a few weeks ago on your Wordpress and it's about the dangers of AI, much of which I agree with. And Andreessen Horowitz invests plenty in AI, right? OpenAI?
Now I'm baffled, are you not concerned about AH's influence on Substack? (Bezos + WP) + (Zuck + FB) + (Elon + Twitter) + (AH + Substack) = a bad sign to me.
There seems to be a misunderstanding of my Note. I wasn't defending anyone, I was just explaining that AH had already invested in Substack years ago, because I saw that dozens of people didn't know it. (I don't even have a Substack, I just comment once in a while.)
That makes sense Bob, and I don't want to villainize you so I'm sorry if you feel a pile-on in the comments here.
To me and others, tech billionaires appear to be playing a similar role as the robber barons of late 1800s USA, hoarding power and money for their own gains at the expense of common people being able to meet their basic needs. They're being greedy.
So when tech VC capital invests (and 6 years later reinvests) in what can become a digital mouthpiece broadcasting to millions of people, there is a flashing red light on the dashboard of my mind that reads "bad sign." The fact that Substack leadership embraces billionaire dollars and posts about it like this spits in the face of their messaging, like Travis originally commented.
Your comment on being baffled that people don't know the history is one thing, but it's being misinterpreted that you're baffled why people don't like AH money in Substack.
These overlords are building their presence, and control, over a potential media player. No surprise if they have done nothing evil --- yet. Their motivations and vision for future do not include a healthy, educated, empowered democratic (little d) electorate. And I question more than just Andreessen Horowitz that is now well established as evil -- I question all of your big investors.
The chat wasn't on a Jeff Bezos site the chat was on a WhatsApp somebody on the WhatsApp who didn't agree took the screenshots. This is what this man really thinks and it is horrific
Open borders and DEI is a recipe for disaster. Or, haven’t you noticed? Check out Europe and tell me it is working. This has nothing to do with stopping poor and blacks from advancing. DEI kills opportunities for poor people and blacks.
Yeah, read the article and my article. Also, Europe seems to need immigration. Italy is giving away houses, but just not to Black or Brown people. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion help all of us! But yeah, your thinking is, I guess, what this site will become, a white grievance site.
WOW, one big difference is we need the immigrant workers, and Europe has no work for the Immigrants. It's better to have DEI, for different reasons, we fucked over them long enough and they have to be as qualified to get a position. So if the conservatives on the Supreme Court can vote to allow Trump to keep indiscriminately dismantling our Federal workforce with the explanation being, "well, let's see how it works out, and if it doesn't work out, we will stop Trump from fucking up America and turning it into a failed experiment, Democracy that is...then my vote says that we can stick with DEI.....
The way this chat works can get confusing. I was stating that Andreessen's comments were not because of Bezos. It turns out the secret WhatsApp chat was written about IN the WaPo, so I simply crossed messages. :)
I agree. I hope Substack's management spends some of that fortune on improving the comment utility instead of trying to turn Substack into another Facebook.
Shari, I can't guess the intent of your responses to me. Actually, I posted before you and wasn't aware of your comment to come. It seems that you have misunderstood my "five words" reply to Bob Sassone, who seems to think that Andreessen's investment in Substack is no big deal.
The intent of my comment is that Jeff Bezos bought WaPo, one of the most highly respected newspapers in the world. He did not interfere with the paper's daily operations or editorial position for years ... until he decided that a President Trump would be to his financial advantage. Bezos has transformed WaPo into a partisan rag that Katherine Graham wouldn't recognize.
Andreessen may not have exerted any influence on Substack thus far, but there will be a day when he comes calling, enforcing his will on the platform.
My reply to Bob Sassone had nothing to do with you or your comments.
The WP has been a rag way before Bezos. It’s still a rag. Print media is last weeks news. I don’t need editorial bullshit to tell me how to vote. Bezos just kept the whole raggedy boat from sinking, obviously because he thought it would give him cred and status.
Yes, and it has left an indelible mark. Every creator and every reader still have to be mindful of what's going on behind the studio lighting. At Substack, it's not clear. Creating taller, thicker paywalls seems inevitable and provides less clarity. IMNSHO, Post.news had a more realistic model of accessibility at reasonable cost to the consumer, but they failed to build enough trust into their payment system. The longer I'm on Substack, the more it feels like Oz with locked curtains.
It would be nice to have a little more info. Is this the first member they have put on the board? If not, how many investor representatives are on the board? How many total board members are there? What is the share structure and percentages? Somebody should start a Substack newsletter about the business of Substack. Maybe they could go to a board meeting and report on it.
What was post.news's economic model? All I can find is a reddit post with people making other speculations as to why it failed... And what was this "failed to build enough trust" problem?
I have my reservations as well when investors ask for a return, but I don’t think the values are the issue.
If Substack does stick to upholding this model, it holds potential to give everyone a financial return. The problem happens when there isn’t enough faith or time given to see the process play out and like a game of chicken people opt for less human friendly options to get the pressure off.
I do see people on all economic ladders waking up to the limited scope of the current status quo model where only a few get to win, and Substack is one that is so far still holding on to a different way of doing things.
I agree. There is becoming nowhere to turn with these platforms all controlled by the worst people in our culture which very strange ideas about government and democracy.
Where to turn, paper zines, shortwave radio, local meetings filled with CIA agent-provocateurs?
I came to make this same comment. Really want to pursue the values you claim? Raise money from small investors that use the platform. Take individual investors only, and cap at 1000$ per investor. Now market and deliver value. No big investing oligarchs. I'd invest.
WhenI get my hands on more working capital, maybe I'll build a platform for the small investors, by the small investors, of the small investor, great idea brother. Independent media will save the world from the, well whomever you think they are, I have my opinions.
I appreciate your stuff, but Substack is for the elite, hence part of the problem rather than the solution. Here's my talk to contributors:
I am trying to convince people not to use Substack. As a physician, I do not condone concierge medicine, medical care for those who can pay extra. Likewise I don't condone the idea of information and opinion for those who can pay extra-the model Substack best represents. Recently my local NPR station was doing a pledge drive. They acknowledged that many listeners don't pay but encouraged folks to pledge so that other people are not stuck behind paywalls. Substack wants people stuck behind paywalls. That's their business model. What kind of society will that produce? Isn't the answer obvious? Do we need more inequality? Surely you understand this. If you think your stuff is suitable and of interest for all I encourage you to convince Substack to have a "pay what you will" policy. Or please find another, more equitable, venue
Anything not behind a paywall will be scraped by AI models, and therefore devalued. In the future, real content creators will increasingly put their work behind paywalls - that's just the reality.
Most investors expect a typical market return on their investment. (Not everybody. For example, some of us lend microloans to women in third world, eg to buy a loom, to set up a microfirm in their village. Others, including me, donate to charities, or invest only in ethical stocks & shares, eg Cochlear Ear.)
By now it should be commonplace to expect that every major online platform and service is financially backed by people who have social interests that deviate from those of the average person.
Because those are the sort of people who make lots of money in this world. That's how they got filthy rich.
The people concerned with a so-called "common good" usually aren't interested in putting millions of dollars into tech startups. Because they don't make that much money anyway.
At this point, being shocked at the conflict you're painting is like being appalled that the people behind McDonald's don't care about health and nutrition even though they sell food.
Hmm, the age of AI is likely to come steam rolling in.
I think building an economic structure for culture, something uniquely human… (as in has a component not machine replaceable), is one of the top things to do.
Hopefully, this happens in many places. I like Substack because it’s a shared space between creators and industry newsletters, with the tools for long form writing and community building.
You are free to leave it, so…
Now, we just need to build the market for culture…
I thought so, too! But I did my research on Andresson. Because his name I believed was linked to Project 2025. But this is what I got with my research: 👇
No, Andreessen Horowitz (also known as a16z) is not explicitly part of Project 2025, a policy agenda created by the Heritage Foundation. While both entities operate within the broader tech and political landscape, their goals and activities are distinct. Andreessen Horowitz is a prominent venture capital firm focused on investing in and supporting tech companies, particularly in areas like AI, crypto, and biotech. Project 2025, on the other hand, is a policy blueprint aimed at reshaping the US federal government under a potential future presidential administration, with a focus on conservative governance principles.
Oh, money money American Predatory Capitalism and Celebrity Cultism TALK. Are there any values and ethics in these "communication tools" projects? I can imagine the back of the house Substack monitoring and screening and other facilitation tools to help the dirty rich and dirty Dystopian Dupes do their jobs.
Trash? Jens Grede, who is Skims's chief executive, and Kardashian together control a majority stake in the business, and Emma's personal fortune is ...
“Audiences vote with attention and money for the culture they want, acting as collaborators in shaping a media ecosystem rooted in intention and connection. And everyone is part of a network that rewards trust, not manipulation.”
Yes yes yes. Power to the people — the creators building from trust and their subscribers who thrive in such spaces. ☀️
Power to the LOUDEST, most viable people, you mean. People who are happily plugging away with a few hundred followers will just get eaten up. It feels so much like this place is becoming Medium.
Not crazy about tech investment in this. Tech has been a big factor in the erosion of our culture in the form of unregulated social media and “alternate facts” and the associated dumbing down of everything. Hope the platform isn’t co-opted big money / big tech.
I read this post top to bottom; it definitely says they just got co-opted by big money and big tech. The effects will lag behind this announcement, hopefully by a long time, but this is definitely what that means.
By the time you see it co-opted... it's too late. All you need to know is BigMoney and BigTech are involved and... that's your answer. Substack is on it's way down.
I've been hearing from certain fellow Substackers that algorithmic preferences are being given to big-name creators who tow a particular ideological party line.
How is it, for example, that Dan Rather or Glennon Doyle can suddenly appear on the platform and bloom hundreds of thousands of subscribers overnight like Venus on the half-shell?
I was initially attracted to Substack to follow Glenn Greenwald, who got his backside handed to him by The UK Guardian after breaking the Edward Snowdon story, and then again when his own staff at the Intercept blocked him from publishing the HB laptop story.
His ominous prophecy about Substack was that it would go the way of every other mainstream social media channel--replete with content surveillance, algorithmic manipulation of who gets featured and why, and downplaying of those voices that would speak uncomfortable truths to the hallowed VC investors.
Free speech is easy when it's speech we agree with.
The whole point of protecting free speech is precisely to protect the rights of the voices we would rather muffle--and yes, that extends to Nazis, racists, even the most vile screed imaginable.
Even that--even that--has a right to be here.
I've heard Greenwald tell a story that impressed him in his childhood to become the journalist he is today:
Back in the 1970s (I think), the KKK applied for a permit in a southern town to hold a march and rally. The town denied the permit.
The Klan sued. Who took on the case?
Three *Jewish* lawyers from the ACLU.
They took it to the Supreme Court and won, on First Amendment grounds.
Then the ACLU fired the three lawyers.
If indeed it's true that “audiences vote with attention and money for the culture they want ... and everyone is part of a network that rewards trust, not manipulation," then please TRUST us, your creators, enough that we can use our native attention with sufficient discernment to make this platform the beacon for free speech that it aspires to be. 🙏🏼
If what you say regarding what is already happening with preference at Substack, and what you advocate is anything and everything can have a Substack with total freedom of speech, then this app will soon be no different from any other app now in the system that drags people to their algorithms. It appears to me that all systems in the wireless space are taking us away from face to face conversation. This is the main problem, we no longer have any face to face eye contact. I'd love to sit down with you and have a meaningful conversation Marcella, but, of course, that's impossible, and that's the problem.
Well yes, that is indeed the larger problem altogether. Our relationships are becoming increasingly technologically mediated. As they say, we’re more connected and less bonded. However, never say never! With “God” (whatever that means to you), all things are possible. I’d love to meet sometime for rich discourse. Satsang is the Sanskrit word: “in the company of the truth.” You never know!
Thanks Marcella. We may be worlds apart in our personal convictions and list of virtues that drive our lives, but I never want to stop listening and caring about other people, no matter how different they may view this section of time we, together, occupy. I'm now 82, my dad lived to age 100. Good genes, I guess. Glad you have wonderful friends for person to person converstion. It is the lifeblood of community!
Nothing to do with what started this conversation, but at 83, I am not tied to my phone. I do not take it with me when I leave my home. Any calls or messages, I can get when I go home. I ask people to turn off their phones when they come to my home unless they are expecting an urgent call. If they are coming to visit me they don't need to be checking their phone all the time. I grew up first with no phone, then a phone with a party line, then a phone in my home with just me on the line, then an answering machine for when I was gone. Now a cell phone that I treat like a phone in my home with an answering machine. I think cell phones have a lot to do with people not conversing any more. People are tied to them and don't have time for important conversations. Yes, they are handy, but is handy the answer to conversations face to face?
My phone stays on a table, plugged in when I am home, in my purse when I am out. I have a message that says, “If you have a legitimate reason to call me, please leave a message and I will return your call as soon as possible. If you do not leave a message, I will block this number.”
I have had people say, “I called, but you blocked me.” Oh, well.
Thanks for being a kind person in the online space, Bill! Opinions come and go like leaves in a windstorm, but how separate can we really be if we both value human connection and understanding? It’s a delight to meet you, even here.🐘🐘
Ditto! I live on the west coast. I imagine that is a long way from you, but maybe a beer together on a barstool someday, somewhere, might be fun, if I don't meet my maker anytime soon. :-)
And if not me, someone else. I have friends here in town who I regularly meet with for stimulating in person conversation. We wander barefoot aimlessly across the universe of ideas, it’s great fun!
How can such a platform promote informed dialogue, where different viewpoints can be collected condensed and presented in a non provocative format, which serves to expand the readers understanding, providing the alternative views of others, rather than re-enforce and pilarise the readers current understanding and perspectives.
Yeah, it’s a dilemma. I realized today that any online space I want to occupy is de facto compromised by the allure of data capture, algorithms, and surveillance. Substack in fact might be one of the best around, but the bar is pretty low.
The ACLU did not fire the lawyers, according to any source I can get a hold of in the 3 minutes since I read your post (!). Two cases seems to be conflated here, first, Brandenburg vs Ohio (1969) and a permit for a 'National Socialist party' march in Skokie, IL in 1977. Several ACLU lawyers quit after the ACLU of Illinois decided to defend the case.
Ok yes, it looks like the Skokie event is what I was referencing. Neo-Nazis, not the KKK. And yes, lawyers did quit, but I do remember hearing GG say that the ones who took the case on were later fired. That's not something the ACLU would likely concede or publicize, so if you’re drawing from MSM sources that detail might be readily omitted.
The idea that the ACLU fired lawyers for representing the KKK is ludicrous. They have a history of representing people across freedom of speech. And freedom of speech today seems to only apply to racist and Nazis there is no freedom of speech for diversity or Equity or inclusion that's literally on a list of words you cannot say. There is no elevation of the impact of anti-black bias. Free Speech only comes into play when people want to call you the N word or talk about how stupid you are because of your race
Thanks for posting. I have a completely different experience in the online spaces I frequent, which I suppose is one of the blessings and the perils of free speech.
Trust is nice, but verification is better. Perhaps you have a citation to a news article to support your story that the ACLU fired lawyers who defended KKK first amendment rights. I don't think that actually happened. Prove me wrong.
I don't have that kind of verification. Evidence is anecdotal per Greenwald, once when interviewed by Tucker Carlson (can't remember when, he's been on TC's show several times), another time when talking with another journalist, it might have been Krystal & Saager? Rogan? Dunno. 🤷🏻♀️
Here's a tangential post from GG a few years ago; he doesn't directly mention the KKK event cited above, but from his reporting here one could surmise that the ACLU would have indeed fired those three lawyers: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-ongoing-death-of-free-speech
If you want to gnaw on this like a dog with a bone you could search more deeply, or maybe even ask that large-language Akashic Records library known as ChatGPT. Let me know what you find. 🧐
You are ducking the question and engaging in a very clear example of fake attribution.. Greenwald is no authority and referring your information as anecdotal is really reprehensible...anecdotal means unpublished...it's essentially a long fancy word for hearsay
Why is anecdotal information reprehensible? Should I "trust the science" instead?
I respect Greenwald's nuanced teasing out of the complexity surrounding these and other issues. I'm also being transparent in my attribution of this content as anecdotal and thus inherently subjective. What exactly is reprehensible about this? And what, pray tell, is the alternative? Isn't all information ultimately anecdotal in the long run? That's a sincere question.
If you don't like it or don't agree, fine. That's the whole point. Launching ad hominem mortar attacks someone you don't know seems more reprehensible.
Before words were put to page, anecdotal communication is how we humans "got the news." Now look where we are. Sheesh.
Something I would like to see is an effective micropayments system where I could put a balance into an account and then buy stories one at a time, rather than having to do a subscription. It should be priced to incentivize membership if you buy more than a few articles, but as things stand I have so much that's free or I'm already paying for that I'll almost always move on from articles that are members-only.
Obviously, you let the sites set their own article prices but provide guidance. Eventually it might make sense for non-Substack sites to join in.
Just chiming in to second the idea of an alternate payment system for buying stories one at a time. I've found so many new voices on Substack that I enjoy and have happily subscribed to several of them; I have no qualms with financially supporting great content providers. However, I've recently found myself passing over new paid members-only articles, despite how much they interest me, simply because I've hit my personal paid subscription threshold. I'd much rather show authentic loyalty to a creator by making a daily choice to consume their work than feel limited in what I can consume because of how much I'm already paying in monthly or annual subscriptions.
If not a pay-per-story model, another one is needed. There are many worthwhile writers posting on Substack - too many to pay for all of them. Some form of block payment for a group of contributors is needed. I don't know how it would be implemented, but some method to compensate for these stellar authors without breaking the readers' bank is needed.
I've had this idea more generally for the web and blew it off because I knew it would be really hard to get everyone to work with a third party like that. But for whithin Substack alone, I can really see it working. Not every site has to join in, but I can't see why they wouldn't.
Eventually, maybe the service could be offered outside of Substack. I run into stories in local papers that i'd like to read, but no way will I subscribe just to read one article.
This system of buying stories one at a time was tried. Forget the name of the app. I subscribed to it. Some major news outlets would post items, asking for __ points to read it. They tinkered with different amounts to see what public would pay. Some items were free. They had to shut it down, it didn't fly. We could read the same items free elsewhere. Substack could try this system if articles are not posted anywhere else.
That makes sense to me. It's definitely more workable if it's only within Substack. If it were my site and an article was available elsewhere, maybe I wouldn't make it available per-article. Linking to the pre-existing version would at least make Substack the referrer on the link, and the traffic numbers might be interesting.
Wow, we have a really unimaginative writer there. First, if $1 is not enough, charge more. Or don't participate in the per-article system. Personally, I wouldn't cancel any of the subscriptions I currently have; I subscribe to them because I read all or nearly all of their content.
"The subscription model carries benefits for the reader too." - None of these benefits are diminished by having a parallel per-article cost. In fact, more readers might buy one article and then decide they want to buy others or subscribe.
Owing to personal circumstances, I have had to curate my online content costs over the last year or so and I cancelled (I think) two Substack subscriptions because I wasn't reading them enough. Now I can't read ANY of the paywalled content.
Actually, I didn't see anything in the article that convinces me that a VOLUNTARY per-article option, with the price selected by the author on every individual article, including the option not to make a specific article available for individual purchase, would cut into subscriptions.
Like I said in the OP, "[i]t should be priced to incentivize membership if you buy more than a few articles." I would suggest Substack giving authors aggregated statistics on the revenue effects on other sites of offering per-article purchase and using it to provide guidance for the author.
The thing is, Substack wants us to find subscribers OUTSIDE of the platform, bringing in new eyes. If you're only hunting for subs within Substack, of course financial burnout will happen because everyone here is looking for the same thing. You have to find ways of bringing in new audiences, not just hoping to "stand out" on Substack. This place is so saturated now, we need new eyeballs.
Actually bananas that people still think 100 million from Andreessen & friends is gonna bring "power to the people" have we learned literally nothing (lol). Cue the complete enshittification of substack, it was good while it lasted. RIP.
All these guys have entire manifestos about how eugenics is the future of humanity. Also the idea that what we need to "save media" is more billionaire ownership is just completely laughable.
Andreessen Horowitz has supported anti-democratic actions and policies in the federal government, so I am not optimistic they will support democracy at Substack. More likely, your investors will soon be pressuring you to deplatform views they dislike while amplifying their preferred forms of bigotry.
The probability that Andreesen has invested without expectation of heroic returns is non-zero and the only way to make those is to create a monetization engine within/on top of Substack. Do you really expect us to believe that the monetization engine doesn’t at some point implement an AI driven advertising layer? Come on, this is exactly why we thought Substack was different… I fell absolutely lied to. And to top matters off, I now feel a tad gaslit as I’m being asked to “Congratulate “ you in the process.
Yes, and thank you. But how do you plan to PREVENT the conspiracies, liers, and others who do exactly what you say is the problem from infiltrating Substack? And from what ideological viewpoint will the Substack police come from? Just an honest question.
If the substatic model is anyone is free to say anything, it will be of limited value. Responsible reporting or journalism is backed by citation to sources. I suggest that is a good place to start. No system is without flaws or secure from deep fakes, because that's the mode of communication we have created. I suggest some system of citation for creators, and let users judge for themselves who to believe.
So did I. The money to be made is humongous so they will want to make it! It still pisses me off no end that I've been led down the garden path at my age!
Been with Substack for over 4 years. Recently went paid and, after facing problems with group discounts, I contacted Substack for help. They promised to be in touch, and I never heard a peep. Hopefully, some of this money will go toward making the core platform work well. Not just half arse loads of 'new' tools.
I hear you but now that they've told us who's supporting them I'm limiting my involvement. I've don't have an account with Facebook because in spite of me trying over and over to delete my account, even following their instructions, I can't!? These sites don't just want your money they want your soul.
I really hope I never need Defender, but the fact that you thought about it is encouraging.
By the way, thanks for all the improvements in video. The RTMP implementation is great and that is just the last of a long list of improvements (love the Chromecast support, the subtitles, the automatic shorts to YouTube...)
Some of your investors are dystopian broligarchs who don’t subscribe to the values you proclaim. It’s hard to square that. 💀🤷
I second this, it's surprising and concerning to see Substack accepting money from Andreessen Horowitz. It's not like any another social media spaces comes to mind that changed drastically following a tech billionaires' increase in influence.
I third that - what makes you think they will allow you to be independent in the long run? They play the long game. I would have thought you were better at vetting your financial overlords.
I'm baffled by people saying getting money from Andreessen Horowitz is a bad sign. They *already* invested millions in Substack several years ago. So all this time the people have been using Substack it was funded by AH.
Bob, thanks for the history! I didn't know Andreessen Horowitz has been funding Substack for at least 6 years now. However, that is more concerning, not less.
I skimmed your most recent article from a few weeks ago on your Wordpress and it's about the dangers of AI, much of which I agree with. And Andreessen Horowitz invests plenty in AI, right? OpenAI?
Now I'm baffled, are you not concerned about AH's influence on Substack? (Bezos + WP) + (Zuck + FB) + (Elon + Twitter) + (AH + Substack) = a bad sign to me.
There seems to be a misunderstanding of my Note. I wasn't defending anyone, I was just explaining that AH had already invested in Substack years ago, because I saw that dozens of people didn't know it. (I don't even have a Substack, I just comment once in a while.)
That makes sense Bob, and I don't want to villainize you so I'm sorry if you feel a pile-on in the comments here.
To me and others, tech billionaires appear to be playing a similar role as the robber barons of late 1800s USA, hoarding power and money for their own gains at the expense of common people being able to meet their basic needs. They're being greedy.
So when tech VC capital invests (and 6 years later reinvests) in what can become a digital mouthpiece broadcasting to millions of people, there is a flashing red light on the dashboard of my mind that reads "bad sign." The fact that Substack leadership embraces billionaire dollars and posts about it like this spits in the face of their messaging, like Travis originally commented.
Your comment on being baffled that people don't know the history is one thing, but it's being misinterpreted that you're baffled why people don't like AH money in Substack.
This is why: https://open.substack.com/pub/sharidunn/p/the-wealthy-have-plans-for-the-blacks?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2gyxmw
Good to see Andreessen Horowitz speak out against DEI racism
yeah, that looks bad.
Thanks for writing this Shari.
These overlords are building their presence, and control, over a potential media player. No surprise if they have done nothing evil --- yet. Their motivations and vision for future do not include a healthy, educated, empowered democratic (little d) electorate. And I question more than just Andreessen Horowitz that is now well established as evil -- I question all of your big investors.
Bob Sassone, I have five words: The Washington Post Jeff Bezos.
The chat wasn't on a Jeff Bezos site the chat was on a WhatsApp somebody on the WhatsApp who didn't agree took the screenshots. This is what this man really thinks and it is horrific
Open borders and DEI is a recipe for disaster. Or, haven’t you noticed? Check out Europe and tell me it is working. This has nothing to do with stopping poor and blacks from advancing. DEI kills opportunities for poor people and blacks.
Yeah, read the article and my article. Also, Europe seems to need immigration. Italy is giving away houses, but just not to Black or Brown people. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion help all of us! But yeah, your thinking is, I guess, what this site will become, a white grievance site.
WOW, one big difference is we need the immigrant workers, and Europe has no work for the Immigrants. It's better to have DEI, for different reasons, we fucked over them long enough and they have to be as qualified to get a position. So if the conservatives on the Supreme Court can vote to allow Trump to keep indiscriminately dismantling our Federal workforce with the explanation being, "well, let's see how it works out, and if it doesn't work out, we will stop Trump from fucking up America and turning it into a failed experiment, Democracy that is...then my vote says that we can stick with DEI.....
The way this chat works can get confusing. I was stating that Andreessen's comments were not because of Bezos. It turns out the secret WhatsApp chat was written about IN the WaPo, so I simply crossed messages. :)
I agree. I hope Substack's management spends some of that fortune on improving the comment utility instead of trying to turn Substack into another Facebook.
I got more than five words about screenshots about what he really said Jeff Bezos didn't make these words come out of his mouth the blacks and the immigrants have advanced enough https://open.substack.com/pub/sharidunn/p/the-wealthy-have-plans-for-the-blacks?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2gyxmw
Shari, I can't guess the intent of your responses to me. Actually, I posted before you and wasn't aware of your comment to come. It seems that you have misunderstood my "five words" reply to Bob Sassone, who seems to think that Andreessen's investment in Substack is no big deal.
The intent of my comment is that Jeff Bezos bought WaPo, one of the most highly respected newspapers in the world. He did not interfere with the paper's daily operations or editorial position for years ... until he decided that a President Trump would be to his financial advantage. Bezos has transformed WaPo into a partisan rag that Katherine Graham wouldn't recognize.
Andreessen may not have exerted any influence on Substack thus far, but there will be a day when he comes calling, enforcing his will on the platform.
My reply to Bob Sassone had nothing to do with you or your comments.
The WP has been a rag way before Bezos. It’s still a rag. Print media is last weeks news. I don’t need editorial bullshit to tell me how to vote. Bezos just kept the whole raggedy boat from sinking, obviously because he thought it would give him cred and status.
Yes, and it has left an indelible mark. Every creator and every reader still have to be mindful of what's going on behind the studio lighting. At Substack, it's not clear. Creating taller, thicker paywalls seems inevitable and provides less clarity. IMNSHO, Post.news had a more realistic model of accessibility at reasonable cost to the consumer, but they failed to build enough trust into their payment system. The longer I'm on Substack, the more it feels like Oz with locked curtains.
Total failure of imagination and the laws of economic and authoritarian gravity!
? Who
It would be nice to have a little more info. Is this the first member they have put on the board? If not, how many investor representatives are on the board? How many total board members are there? What is the share structure and percentages? Somebody should start a Substack newsletter about the business of Substack. Maybe they could go to a board meeting and report on it.
What was post.news's economic model? All I can find is a reddit post with people making other speculations as to why it failed... And what was this "failed to build enough trust" problem?
Yes there is one called; let's grab the money and run !!!! LMAO
I have my reservations as well when investors ask for a return, but I don’t think the values are the issue.
If Substack does stick to upholding this model, it holds potential to give everyone a financial return. The problem happens when there isn’t enough faith or time given to see the process play out and like a game of chicken people opt for less human friendly options to get the pressure off.
I do see people on all economic ladders waking up to the limited scope of the current status quo model where only a few get to win, and Substack is one that is so far still holding on to a different way of doing things.
I agree. There is becoming nowhere to turn with these platforms all controlled by the worst people in our culture which very strange ideas about government and democracy.
Where to turn, paper zines, shortwave radio, local meetings filled with CIA agent-provocateurs?
Yes it is and the money from Andresen is particularly concerning because he apparently says one thing in the light of day and another thing in chats https://open.substack.com/pub/sharidunn/p/the-wealthy-have-plans-for-the-blacks?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2gyxmw
Exactly ! Sad ! They will end up controlling the content.
Back to parchment and pigeons.
I came to make this same comment. Really want to pursue the values you claim? Raise money from small investors that use the platform. Take individual investors only, and cap at 1000$ per investor. Now market and deliver value. No big investing oligarchs. I'd invest.
WhenI get my hands on more working capital, maybe I'll build a platform for the small investors, by the small investors, of the small investor, great idea brother. Independent media will save the world from the, well whomever you think they are, I have my opinions.
I appreciate your stuff, but Substack is for the elite, hence part of the problem rather than the solution. Here's my talk to contributors:
I am trying to convince people not to use Substack. As a physician, I do not condone concierge medicine, medical care for those who can pay extra. Likewise I don't condone the idea of information and opinion for those who can pay extra-the model Substack best represents. Recently my local NPR station was doing a pledge drive. They acknowledged that many listeners don't pay but encouraged folks to pledge so that other people are not stuck behind paywalls. Substack wants people stuck behind paywalls. That's their business model. What kind of society will that produce? Isn't the answer obvious? Do we need more inequality? Surely you understand this. If you think your stuff is suitable and of interest for all I encourage you to convince Substack to have a "pay what you will" policy. Or please find another, more equitable, venue
Thanks for listening
Mark Miller
Seattle
Anything not behind a paywall will be scraped by AI models, and therefore devalued. In the future, real content creators will increasingly put their work behind paywalls - that's just the reality.
Most investors expect a typical market return on their investment. (Not everybody. For example, some of us lend microloans to women in third world, eg to buy a loom, to set up a microfirm in their village. Others, including me, donate to charities, or invest only in ethical stocks & shares, eg Cochlear Ear.)
By now it should be commonplace to expect that every major online platform and service is financially backed by people who have social interests that deviate from those of the average person.
Because those are the sort of people who make lots of money in this world. That's how they got filthy rich.
The people concerned with a so-called "common good" usually aren't interested in putting millions of dollars into tech startups. Because they don't make that much money anyway.
At this point, being shocked at the conflict you're painting is like being appalled that the people behind McDonald's don't care about health and nutrition even though they sell food.
💯
Hmm, the age of AI is likely to come steam rolling in.
I think building an economic structure for culture, something uniquely human… (as in has a component not machine replaceable), is one of the top things to do.
Hopefully, this happens in many places. I like Substack because it’s a shared space between creators and industry newsletters, with the tools for long form writing and community building.
You are free to leave it, so…
Now, we just need to build the market for culture…
Broligarchs you say Travis?
I thought so, too! But I did my research on Andresson. Because his name I believed was linked to Project 2025. But this is what I got with my research: 👇
No, Andreessen Horowitz (also known as a16z) is not explicitly part of Project 2025, a policy agenda created by the Heritage Foundation. While both entities operate within the broader tech and political landscape, their goals and activities are distinct. Andreessen Horowitz is a prominent venture capital firm focused on investing in and supporting tech companies, particularly in areas like AI, crypto, and biotech. Project 2025, on the other hand, is a policy blueprint aimed at reshaping the US federal government under a potential future presidential administration, with a focus on conservative governance principles.
While not a formal part of Project 2025, Andreessen is ideologically linked to Project 2025. He supports its implementation.
🎯
Oh, money money American Predatory Capitalism and Celebrity Cultism TALK. Are there any values and ethics in these "communication tools" projects? I can imagine the back of the house Substack monitoring and screening and other facilitation tools to help the dirty rich and dirty Dystopian Dupes do their jobs.
Trash? Jens Grede, who is Skims's chief executive, and Kardashian together control a majority stake in the business, and Emma's personal fortune is ...
“Audiences vote with attention and money for the culture they want, acting as collaborators in shaping a media ecosystem rooted in intention and connection. And everyone is part of a network that rewards trust, not manipulation.”
Yes yes yes. Power to the people — the creators building from trust and their subscribers who thrive in such spaces. ☀️
Maybe read this before celebrating https://open.substack.com/pub/sharidunn/p/the-wealthy-have-plans-for-the-blacks?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2gyxmw
It's not about the money anymore, this is personal now, I'll help if I can.
Oh, sweetie. It's always about the money.
We are resources refined to and by what?
Nope
Power to the LOUDEST, most viable people, you mean. People who are happily plugging away with a few hundred followers will just get eaten up. It feels so much like this place is becoming Medium.
Not crazy about tech investment in this. Tech has been a big factor in the erosion of our culture in the form of unregulated social media and “alternate facts” and the associated dumbing down of everything. Hope the platform isn’t co-opted big money / big tech.
I read this post top to bottom; it definitely says they just got co-opted by big money and big tech. The effects will lag behind this announcement, hopefully by a long time, but this is definitely what that means.
By the time you see it co-opted... it's too late. All you need to know is BigMoney and BigTech are involved and... that's your answer. Substack is on it's way down.
I've been hearing from certain fellow Substackers that algorithmic preferences are being given to big-name creators who tow a particular ideological party line.
How is it, for example, that Dan Rather or Glennon Doyle can suddenly appear on the platform and bloom hundreds of thousands of subscribers overnight like Venus on the half-shell?
I was initially attracted to Substack to follow Glenn Greenwald, who got his backside handed to him by The UK Guardian after breaking the Edward Snowdon story, and then again when his own staff at the Intercept blocked him from publishing the HB laptop story.
His ominous prophecy about Substack was that it would go the way of every other mainstream social media channel--replete with content surveillance, algorithmic manipulation of who gets featured and why, and downplaying of those voices that would speak uncomfortable truths to the hallowed VC investors.
Free speech is easy when it's speech we agree with.
The whole point of protecting free speech is precisely to protect the rights of the voices we would rather muffle--and yes, that extends to Nazis, racists, even the most vile screed imaginable.
Even that--even that--has a right to be here.
I've heard Greenwald tell a story that impressed him in his childhood to become the journalist he is today:
Back in the 1970s (I think), the KKK applied for a permit in a southern town to hold a march and rally. The town denied the permit.
The Klan sued. Who took on the case?
Three *Jewish* lawyers from the ACLU.
They took it to the Supreme Court and won, on First Amendment grounds.
Then the ACLU fired the three lawyers.
If indeed it's true that “audiences vote with attention and money for the culture they want ... and everyone is part of a network that rewards trust, not manipulation," then please TRUST us, your creators, enough that we can use our native attention with sufficient discernment to make this platform the beacon for free speech that it aspires to be. 🙏🏼
If what you say regarding what is already happening with preference at Substack, and what you advocate is anything and everything can have a Substack with total freedom of speech, then this app will soon be no different from any other app now in the system that drags people to their algorithms. It appears to me that all systems in the wireless space are taking us away from face to face conversation. This is the main problem, we no longer have any face to face eye contact. I'd love to sit down with you and have a meaningful conversation Marcella, but, of course, that's impossible, and that's the problem.
Well yes, that is indeed the larger problem altogether. Our relationships are becoming increasingly technologically mediated. As they say, we’re more connected and less bonded. However, never say never! With “God” (whatever that means to you), all things are possible. I’d love to meet sometime for rich discourse. Satsang is the Sanskrit word: “in the company of the truth.” You never know!
Thanks Marcella. We may be worlds apart in our personal convictions and list of virtues that drive our lives, but I never want to stop listening and caring about other people, no matter how different they may view this section of time we, together, occupy. I'm now 82, my dad lived to age 100. Good genes, I guess. Glad you have wonderful friends for person to person converstion. It is the lifeblood of community!
Nothing to do with what started this conversation, but at 83, I am not tied to my phone. I do not take it with me when I leave my home. Any calls or messages, I can get when I go home. I ask people to turn off their phones when they come to my home unless they are expecting an urgent call. If they are coming to visit me they don't need to be checking their phone all the time. I grew up first with no phone, then a phone with a party line, then a phone in my home with just me on the line, then an answering machine for when I was gone. Now a cell phone that I treat like a phone in my home with an answering machine. I think cell phones have a lot to do with people not conversing any more. People are tied to them and don't have time for important conversations. Yes, they are handy, but is handy the answer to conversations face to face?
My phone stays on a table, plugged in when I am home, in my purse when I am out. I have a message that says, “If you have a legitimate reason to call me, please leave a message and I will return your call as soon as possible. If you do not leave a message, I will block this number.”
I have had people say, “I called, but you blocked me.” Oh, well.
That is so wonderful, Judy. Many blessings to you, and thanks for sharing this. May we all be so wise in our use of this technology. 📲 🙅🏻♀️
Thanks for being a kind person in the online space, Bill! Opinions come and go like leaves in a windstorm, but how separate can we really be if we both value human connection and understanding? It’s a delight to meet you, even here.🐘🐘
Ditto! I live on the west coast. I imagine that is a long way from you, but maybe a beer together on a barstool someday, somewhere, might be fun, if I don't meet my maker anytime soon. :-)
And if not me, someone else. I have friends here in town who I regularly meet with for stimulating in person conversation. We wander barefoot aimlessly across the universe of ideas, it’s great fun!
I think your point raises the core issue.
How can such a platform promote informed dialogue, where different viewpoints can be collected condensed and presented in a non provocative format, which serves to expand the readers understanding, providing the alternative views of others, rather than re-enforce and pilarise the readers current understanding and perspectives.
Yeah, it’s a dilemma. I realized today that any online space I want to occupy is de facto compromised by the allure of data capture, algorithms, and surveillance. Substack in fact might be one of the best around, but the bar is pretty low.
I have been impressed how AI can summarise text drawing out the essence of the arguments, … without insults and unhelpful provacative remarks.
To me it is an obvious application to use a neutral? AI machine to facilitate quality human dialogue … helping to remove personal bias and traumas 😊
The ACLU did not fire the lawyers, according to any source I can get a hold of in the 3 minutes since I read your post (!). Two cases seems to be conflated here, first, Brandenburg vs Ohio (1969) and a permit for a 'National Socialist party' march in Skokie, IL in 1977. Several ACLU lawyers quit after the ACLU of Illinois decided to defend the case.
Ok yes, it looks like the Skokie event is what I was referencing. Neo-Nazis, not the KKK. And yes, lawyers did quit, but I do remember hearing GG say that the ones who took the case on were later fired. That's not something the ACLU would likely concede or publicize, so if you’re drawing from MSM sources that detail might be readily omitted.
The idea that the ACLU fired lawyers for representing the KKK is ludicrous. They have a history of representing people across freedom of speech. And freedom of speech today seems to only apply to racist and Nazis there is no freedom of speech for diversity or Equity or inclusion that's literally on a list of words you cannot say. There is no elevation of the impact of anti-black bias. Free Speech only comes into play when people want to call you the N word or talk about how stupid you are because of your race
Thanks for posting. I have a completely different experience in the online spaces I frequent, which I suppose is one of the blessings and the perils of free speech.
Trust is nice, but verification is better. Perhaps you have a citation to a news article to support your story that the ACLU fired lawyers who defended KKK first amendment rights. I don't think that actually happened. Prove me wrong.
I don't have that kind of verification. Evidence is anecdotal per Greenwald, once when interviewed by Tucker Carlson (can't remember when, he's been on TC's show several times), another time when talking with another journalist, it might have been Krystal & Saager? Rogan? Dunno. 🤷🏻♀️
Here's a tangential post from GG a few years ago; he doesn't directly mention the KKK event cited above, but from his reporting here one could surmise that the ACLU would have indeed fired those three lawyers: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-ongoing-death-of-free-speech
If you want to gnaw on this like a dog with a bone you could search more deeply, or maybe even ask that large-language Akashic Records library known as ChatGPT. Let me know what you find. 🧐
You are ducking the question and engaging in a very clear example of fake attribution.. Greenwald is no authority and referring your information as anecdotal is really reprehensible...anecdotal means unpublished...it's essentially a long fancy word for hearsay
Why is anecdotal information reprehensible? Should I "trust the science" instead?
I respect Greenwald's nuanced teasing out of the complexity surrounding these and other issues. I'm also being transparent in my attribution of this content as anecdotal and thus inherently subjective. What exactly is reprehensible about this? And what, pray tell, is the alternative? Isn't all information ultimately anecdotal in the long run? That's a sincere question.
If you don't like it or don't agree, fine. That's the whole point. Launching ad hominem mortar attacks someone you don't know seems more reprehensible.
Before words were put to page, anecdotal communication is how we humans "got the news." Now look where we are. Sheesh.
Something I would like to see is an effective micropayments system where I could put a balance into an account and then buy stories one at a time, rather than having to do a subscription. It should be priced to incentivize membership if you buy more than a few articles, but as things stand I have so much that's free or I'm already paying for that I'll almost always move on from articles that are members-only.
Obviously, you let the sites set their own article prices but provide guidance. Eventually it might make sense for non-Substack sites to join in.
Just chiming in to second the idea of an alternate payment system for buying stories one at a time. I've found so many new voices on Substack that I enjoy and have happily subscribed to several of them; I have no qualms with financially supporting great content providers. However, I've recently found myself passing over new paid members-only articles, despite how much they interest me, simply because I've hit my personal paid subscription threshold. I'd much rather show authentic loyalty to a creator by making a daily choice to consume their work than feel limited in what I can consume because of how much I'm already paying in monthly or annual subscriptions.
If not a pay-per-story model, another one is needed. There are many worthwhile writers posting on Substack - too many to pay for all of them. Some form of block payment for a group of contributors is needed. I don't know how it would be implemented, but some method to compensate for these stellar authors without breaking the readers' bank is needed.
I've had this idea more generally for the web and blew it off because I knew it would be really hard to get everyone to work with a third party like that. But for whithin Substack alone, I can really see it working. Not every site has to join in, but I can't see why they wouldn't.
Eventually, maybe the service could be offered outside of Substack. I run into stories in local papers that i'd like to read, but no way will I subscribe just to read one article.
GOOD POINT!
This system of buying stories one at a time was tried. Forget the name of the app. I subscribed to it. Some major news outlets would post items, asking for __ points to read it. They tinkered with different amounts to see what public would pay. Some items were free. They had to shut it down, it didn't fly. We could read the same items free elsewhere. Substack could try this system if articles are not posted anywhere else.
That makes sense to me. It's definitely more workable if it's only within Substack. If it were my site and an article was available elsewhere, maybe I wouldn't make it available per-article. Linking to the pre-existing version would at least make Substack the referrer on the link, and the traffic numbers might be interesting.
Yes. I would prefer to see a million readers giving $20 each than than four investors $5 million each.
Why do you assume it's an either/or question?
i do not think this is a good idea, and i urge you to read this thoughtful article as to why: https://www.cartoonshateher.com/p/substacks-pricing-model-is-fine-actually?utm_source=publication-search
Wow, we have a really unimaginative writer there. First, if $1 is not enough, charge more. Or don't participate in the per-article system. Personally, I wouldn't cancel any of the subscriptions I currently have; I subscribe to them because I read all or nearly all of their content.
"The subscription model carries benefits for the reader too." - None of these benefits are diminished by having a parallel per-article cost. In fact, more readers might buy one article and then decide they want to buy others or subscribe.
Owing to personal circumstances, I have had to curate my online content costs over the last year or so and I cancelled (I think) two Substack subscriptions because I wasn't reading them enough. Now I can't read ANY of the paywalled content.
Actually, I didn't see anything in the article that convinces me that a VOLUNTARY per-article option, with the price selected by the author on every individual article, including the option not to make a specific article available for individual purchase, would cut into subscriptions.
Like I said in the OP, "[i]t should be priced to incentivize membership if you buy more than a few articles." I would suggest Substack giving authors aggregated statistics on the revenue effects on other sites of offering per-article purchase and using it to provide guidance for the author.
The thing is, Substack wants us to find subscribers OUTSIDE of the platform, bringing in new eyes. If you're only hunting for subs within Substack, of course financial burnout will happen because everyone here is looking for the same thing. You have to find ways of bringing in new audiences, not just hoping to "stand out" on Substack. This place is so saturated now, we need new eyeballs.
Actually bananas that people still think 100 million from Andreessen & friends is gonna bring "power to the people" have we learned literally nothing (lol). Cue the complete enshittification of substack, it was good while it lasted. RIP.
He literally was just caught in a private chat talking about how much he hates immigration diversity and minorities in the United States I mean this is insane. https://open.substack.com/pub/sharidunn/p/the-wealthy-have-plans-for-the-blacks?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2gyxmw
All these guys have entire manifestos about how eugenics is the future of humanity. Also the idea that what we need to "save media" is more billionaire ownership is just completely laughable.
Excellent news. Just please stay awake, and don’t let the money change you. Sending great gratitude for your good work. 💜
Money changes everyone
Pam you might want to read this. Andreessen is not a good man and the idea that his money is in here means it's likely the beginning of the end for Liberal ideas on this platform https://open.substack.com/pub/sharidunn/p/the-wealthy-have-plans-for-the-blacks?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2gyxmw
Andreessen Horowitz has supported anti-democratic actions and policies in the federal government, so I am not optimistic they will support democracy at Substack. More likely, your investors will soon be pressuring you to deplatform views they dislike while amplifying their preferred forms of bigotry.
Oh I wrote a whole newsletter about it which who knows what will happen soon regarding our ability to write about what he really feels and says. https://open.substack.com/pub/sharidunn/p/the-wealthy-have-plans-for-the-blacks?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2gyxmw
The probability that Andreesen has invested without expectation of heroic returns is non-zero and the only way to make those is to create a monetization engine within/on top of Substack. Do you really expect us to believe that the monetization engine doesn’t at some point implement an AI driven advertising layer? Come on, this is exactly why we thought Substack was different… I fell absolutely lied to. And to top matters off, I now feel a tad gaslit as I’m being asked to “Congratulate “ you in the process.
Exactly he was recently caught in a chat talking about his real aims to limit minorities immigration women from his people getting access. We can only assume his people are only white people https://open.substack.com/pub/sharidunn/p/the-wealthy-have-plans-for-the-blacks?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2gyxmw
Don't DO IT!
Good luck taking money from Andreessen. That guy is not on your side.
Andreessen Horowitz already invested millions in Substack several years ago.
Well he has changed you might want to read The Washington Post article about his secret chats but here's what I wrote about it https://open.substack.com/pub/sharidunn/p/the-wealthy-have-plans-for-the-blacks?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2gyxmw
Yes, and thank you. But how do you plan to PREVENT the conspiracies, liers, and others who do exactly what you say is the problem from infiltrating Substack? And from what ideological viewpoint will the Substack police come from? Just an honest question.
Love your question. I feel this is just another ploy.
If the substatic model is anyone is free to say anything, it will be of limited value. Responsible reporting or journalism is backed by citation to sources. I suggest that is a good place to start. No system is without flaws or secure from deep fakes, because that's the mode of communication we have created. I suggest some system of citation for creators, and let users judge for themselves who to believe.
Oh well... Another one bites the dust with the help of private VC capital, especially Andreessen Horowitz. I had hopes for Substack.
So did I. The money to be made is humongous so they will want to make it! It still pisses me off no end that I've been led down the garden path at my age!
Been with Substack for over 4 years. Recently went paid and, after facing problems with group discounts, I contacted Substack for help. They promised to be in touch, and I never heard a peep. Hopefully, some of this money will go toward making the core platform work well. Not just half arse loads of 'new' tools.
I hear you but now that they've told us who's supporting them I'm limiting my involvement. I've don't have an account with Facebook because in spite of me trying over and over to delete my account, even following their instructions, I can't!? These sites don't just want your money they want your soul.
Am with you!
Freedom of speech, thought and expression.
Freedom to choose.
Like that's ever going to happen. It's money money money that makes the world go around!
"Andreessen Horowitz"
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK
Not sure why, but I'm excited about this.
So much to comment.
I really hope I never need Defender, but the fact that you thought about it is encouraging.
By the way, thanks for all the improvements in video. The RTMP implementation is great and that is just the last of a long list of improvements (love the Chromecast support, the subtitles, the automatic shorts to YouTube...)
Are you serious? Chrome is the internet site at this moment that is the most hackable. Clear you history often!
I said Chromecast suppot in the app. NOTHING to do with chrome the browser.
Sorry! Not a computer techie so I simply react.