@somewheresy We must become autistically monastic about maintaining canonical archives of the discourse in navigable well-indexed databases, and annoyingly autistic in bludgeoning them over the head with it.

The purpose of discourse, the society of letters, the thinking in public through writing in a collaborative network, is to refine nascent commentary on contemporaneity into more and more condensed concept-forms in a collective truthseeking process, to think through and make legible all subjects, and provide cognitive scaffolding to deepen legibility, or to affix and rectify understanding where legibility has drifted; the purpose is not to self-promote your personal brand, win status amongst careerist normies and earn you money and sex. When you arrogantly enforce ownership over ideas and participate in that social accreditation apparatus, you prevent their easy traversal, adoption and development, which can only either mean you recognize their actual worthlessness to society or intuitively assign your own petty gains priority over the collective truth process. It’s the combination of both together that defines the paywalled substacker, btw, retreating to their towers, but not without fooling “supporters” kept on the dark pattern subscription hook fed regurgitated thoughtslop endlessly recoined from each other’s gated silos while pointlessly pursuing personal brand-building, no orientation towards any actual external truth. Subtack paywall shilling is not any different than tik tok influencers, except far more unethically dark patterned—extractive, deception, both in surprise paywalls and subscription model relying on forgotten subs—and, perhaps more ethically-dubious, a midwit edutainment trap, since they peddle what’s definitionally a non-discourse. LLM’s will outcompete them, and you won’t even notice.