The author reflects on their decision to publish on Substack, acknowledging the value of direct communication with readers while expressing concerns about potential financial motivations. They explain that writing serves both intellectual clarity and personal commitment, and that they maintain a connection with their audience despite anonymity. The author addresses criticisms regarding monetization, clarifying that they have never worked in private practice and rely on speaking engagements and academic incentives for income. They also consider the impact of implementing a partial paywall, indicating ongoing contemplation of this strategy.
Bias read (Center): The article discusses the author's personal reflections on publishing decisions and financial considerations, rather than taking a clear ideological stance. While it touches on issues related to academic compensation and digital content monetization, it does not present a strong partisan perspective
Why factuality (85): The article discusses the author's personal reflections on using Substack for content delivery, including motivations for writing and interactions with readers. While it does not provide specific factual claims about the event itself, it aligns with common experiences of writers using platforms like
Why objectivity (70): The tone is personal and reflective, with the author expressing feelings and intentions. There is a degree of self-promotion and personal narrative, which introduces a subjective perspective. The article frames the decision to use Substack as a personal choice influenced by both professional and per




