I appreciate the context you provided about what makes Substack appealing and how it may mitigate some of the threat. However, I believe the main point of the article is that Substack represents yet another example of money being poured into disrupting existing channels. When the funding dries up and the music stops, we may lose more than just Substack. We may witness a diversity of providers going out of business because they couldn’t compete with deep-pocketed investors throwing money around. In the end, we could be left with a spam-riddled Substack struggling to make any money at all, while the old services are gone because they couldn’t survive the onslaught of VC wealth. It’s a bad bet that could leave us with nothing but craters and scorched earth where a thriving newsletter community used to be.