I have been thinking about why writing has become harder in recent years. I blame what I call the ‘Substack effect’. In short–the sudden, huge success of the Substack blogging platform has raised the bar for online, short-form non-fiction writing. The popularity of Substack has both raised the quality of online writing in the aggregate, and increased readers’ expectations of other’s writing. Consequently, this means more work in the writing process and stiffer competition.
Many of the most popular Substack bloggers are also professional writers, such as academics or top journalists, who enticed by Substack’s large contracts and ease of use, have migrated to the new platform, along with their large readerships. The one advantage of bloggers–unscripted spontaneity–is now copied by professionals who can do it much better. It would be like going up against G-League or retired NBA players during a pick-up basketball game; of course you’re going to lose, badly.
‘Medium or long-form non-fiction internet writing’ was a relatively small niche, until Substack come along, and introduced much more competition, but also such content proved very successful in terms of generating virality and readers. Top authors easily make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. This has had secondary bandwaggon effects, such as mainstream publications and brands copying the writing style and content of viral Substack articles, in particular The Atlantic and The New York Times, both in recent years have appropriated the distinctive writing style and the type of content that is common of Substack in their writings.
This includes:
-A more conversational tone
-More varied language
-A contrarian angle or bend that is intended to elicit curiosity
-Lots of footnotes, or links interspersed in the text
-Less emphasis on partisan politics (although there are still plenty of those)
-Much more personal, yet detachment from being seen as too personally invested in the subject
-Academic-style writing, such as defensive language and equivocation
-Less in-group favoritism (e.g. articles by the NYTs or The Atlantic that criticized Biden’s handling of inflation)
-Recurring cluster of themes or topics (e.g. criticisms of technology, kids and screen time, etc.)
Some of these seem contradictory, such as a more academic style of writing combined with being more conversational.
As I observed earlier, the typical Substack article–today–is more intelligently written and ‘smarter’ than even op-eds by top publications from a decade ago. There is much more research and effort overall. An average Susbtack post reads more like an academic paper/thesis and less like a blog post. But those publications have caught up. This could explain why Paul Krugman left the NYTs, because of the sudden heavy-handed editorial control to bring his articles up to this new standard. Ironically, Krugman would migrate to–you guessed it–Substack, where he has arguably found more success.
If you compare the style of 2013 The Atlantic articles to today, there are noticeable differences. The older articles are shorter, more matter-of-fact, less personal, and far fewer sources/links. The difference is even greater if you go farther back. Also noticeable is much more defensive writing. For example, in a 2025 article about how ADHD may lower life expectancy, the author writes, “The calculations aren’t definitive. The top-line life-expectancy numbers are part of a range that incorporates a margin of error: 4.5 to 9.11 years lost for males, and 6.55 to 10.91 years lost for females.”
No kidding they are not definitive. Is anything in the social sciences ever definitive? The author also leads with his personal ADHD story, “When I was unexpectedly diagnosed with ADHD last year, it turned my entire identity upside down. At 37, I’d tamed my restlessness and fiery temper, my obsessive reorganization of my mental to-do list, and my tendency to write and rewrite the same sentence for hours.” By comparison, in a 2013 article about Facebook and happiness, the author shoehorns his personal experience in the penultimate paragraph, and the article is much shorter and the writing is more plain. A 2012 article about breastfeeding, although personal, has only a single link.
Same for differences of rhetorical styles. The average opinion piece from the early 2010s is typified by preaching to the choir or driving home a singular argument. There is much less introspection, self-awareness, or attempts at substantiating the arguments with lots of evidence or to ‘steelman’ the opposing side. Although this can make for better writing, the downside is much more work for writers. Having to write for a skeptical audience is more difficult than just shooting off my mind; and moreover, this has affected reader tastes, because now readers expect everyone’s articles to meet this new standard.