Every so often I will get a comment that goes something like:
“Locking writing behind a paywall is morally bad. It makes me uncomfortable.”
Or:
“You are enticing people to become paid subscribers. I am angry that I read some part of it, and then couldn’t read the rest, that was unfair.”
(I’m not actually using real anonymized quotes because most of these comments, which are actually quite rare, are made from a place of respect and honest concern.)
But to answer these amalgamated questions: I too think that there is an exclusivity to paywalls that, in a Panglossian ideal world, wouldn't exist. Personally, I try to keep the more researched or more broadly-relevant pieces of my writing outside the paywall.
With that said, I grew up selling books in a bookstore. I find books to be beautiful objects, almost sacred. Definitely not crass or material. And yet every book is paywall. In fact, that’s what a bookstore is—a bunch of physical paywalls laid out on the shelf for you. You have to judge if it’s worth unlocking the content based on the vibes of the cover, your knowledge of the author, a bookseller’s recommendation, or whatever strange alchemy makes a reader think this is the one.
And the vast majority of people everywhere don’t think bookstores are morally bad. No one protests them, no one sends the owners irate notes. Personally, I think bookstores are morally good, almost a miracle—people are willing to pay for beauty, for information. Therefore, for the exact same reason everyone seems to just accept the existence of bookstores, I think it’s totally fine for Substacks to paywall their content. While the perception is that by paywalling Substack authors get their hands dirtied by capitalism, it’s more like if an author gave away half their books for free and then sold the other half. This setup, as ungainly and frustrating as it occasionally is, equates to a reduction of paywalling by writers! The only real difference is that traditionally published authors get to have the illusion of clean hands.