"How can you not root for Substack?" asks @austin_rief.

Well. I have some (spontaneous) thoughts... https://twitter.com/austin_rief/status/1327706934561136640

I guess the best place to start is by acknowledging what Substack has (uniquely) achieved...

They've made paying for gated, independent, written content mainstream.

Journalists and experts from all walks of life are now realising it's possible to 'go it alone'.

So there's definitely a reason to be *grateful* to Substack for playing a significant role in that.

But should we actively *root* for Substack going forward?

To answer that, you have to look at what difference Substack is likely to make *in the future*...

... and that's where things become less clear.

Let's start by looking at what Substack *wants* to achieve.

From their mission statement...

Now don't get me wrong. That mission statement is something we can all get behind (with the exception of newspaper owners).

Except that begs one crucial question...

Where does Substack - the VC-backed, needs-to-achieve-a-massive-exit, closed-source platform - see its role in this bright, democratised future?

Unfortunately, that's less clear.

What's best for Substack's publishers isn't always what's best for Substack's investors.

And - in previous situations where the two haven't been aligned - Substack has consistently chosen to prioritise building their own moat.

You see it in the draconian terms and conditions, which fully protect them in case at some point in the future they decide that your audience is actually *their* audience.

You see it in the prominent Substack branding.

In the functionality they *have* built and - more importantly - haven't built despite the obvious wishes of their publishers.

In isolation, none of these warning signs are particularly worrying.

Add them all together though, and it's very difficult not to conclude that Substack's *real* long term vision - the one they only share with their investors - isn't to democratise publishing... but *to own it*.