Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.
Indie Creator Community

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Articles

Our website articles
Show all categories

When Promising Platforms Fall: Saying Goodbye to Moonbeam

Another creator-focused platform closes its doors, leaving us to reflect on what it takes to challenge the streaming giants
---
It's always tough to watch a promising platform shut down, especially one that felt different from the start. Moonbeam wasn't just another streaming service. It was built with a vision that actually put creators first, offering fair monetization not just for streamers but for moderators and community builders too.
The news of its closure hit differently because Moonbeam represented something many of us have been hoping for: a genuine alternative to the status quo.
The Uphill Battle of Live Streaming
Breaking into live streaming is brutal. When you're going up against Twitch and YouTube, you're not just competing with platforms. You're fighting entire ecosystems backed by massive resources and years of market dominance.
These giants have something new platforms struggle to replicate: established creator networks, massive audiences, and the infrastructure to handle millions of concurrent viewers. They've built moats around their businesses that are incredibly difficult to cross.
Sure, there's a hungry audience of creators looking for alternatives. People who are tired of giving up 50% of their earnings. Creators who want to be treated as partners, not just content machines feeding someone else's ad revenue. But wanting change and making it happen are two very different things.
The harsh reality is that even the most creator-friendly platform in the world means nothing if there's no audience to watch the content.
The Creator's Dilemma
This leaves us in a familiar spot. Do we stick with the platforms we know, even when they don't serve us well? Or do we take risks on smaller platforms that might disappear tomorrow?
It's exhausting, honestly. The amount of energy it takes to build an audience from scratch on a new platform is immense. Most creators simply can't afford to start over every time a promising alternative folds. We have bills to pay, families to feed, and communities that depend on consistency.
Yet staying put feels like accepting defeat. We complain about unfair revenue splits and algorithm changes that tank our reach overnight, but we keep creating content for the same platforms that frustrate us.
This cycle repeats with every platform closure. We mourn what could have been, then go back to our established routines because survival often trumps idealism.
What Moonbeam Got Right
Despite its closure, Moonbeam understood something fundamental that many platforms miss: creators are human beings, not just content generators.
Their monetization model recognized that successful streams involve entire teams. Moderators, editors, community managers, and other contributors rarely see a dime from traditional platforms, even though they're essential to creating quality content.
Moonbeam also understood that trust matters. When creators feel like genuine partners rather than exploitable resources, they create better content and build stronger communities. It's a simple concept that somehow gets lost in boardrooms focused on quarterly profits.
The Bigger Picture
Moonbeam's closure isn't just about one platform failing. It's a reminder of how difficult it is to challenge entrenched systems, even when those systems clearly aren't serving their users well.
The streaming industry suffers from the same consolidation issues we see across tech. A handful of massive companies control the vast majority of online video consumption, giving them outsized power over creators' livelihoods.
This concentration of power stifles innovation and keeps creator compensation artificially low. Why offer better terms when creators have nowhere else to go?
Looking Forward
To everyone who worked on Moonbeam, thank you for trying. The platform may be gone, but the conversations it started about fair creator treatment and community-first design matter. Those ideas don't disappear just because one company couldn't make it work.
The streaming landscape needs more attempts like Moonbeam. More teams willing to challenge how things are done. Even if individual platforms fail, each effort moves the needle forward and shows bigger companies what creators actually want.
Maybe the answer isn't finding one perfect alternative platform. Maybe it's about supporting multiple smaller platforms, spreading risk, and slowly building a more diverse creator economy.
Or maybe it's about pushing existing platforms to do better. Every failed alternative is also evidence that change is possible if enough people demand it.
Final Thoughts
Change in the creator economy happens slowly, then all at once. Platforms like Moonbeam plant seeds that might not bloom immediately but contribute to a larger shift in how we think about creator-platform relationships.
The next time a platform promises to put creators first, I'll still give it a chance. Not because I expect it to single-handedly overthrow the giants, but because each attempt teaches us something valuable about what's possible.
To the Moonbeam community that believed in something better: your advocacy mattered. Keep pushing for platforms that respect creators as partners, not products.
The conversation continues.
---
What are your thoughts on the challenges facing creator-focused platforms? Have you tried building an audience on alternative streaming services? Share your experiences in the comments below.
Including the video Anthony Joyce-Rivera posted on the Moonbeam YouTube channel
JoshB

Beyond the Screen: Expanding Our Coverage and My Personal Journey into Making

Breaking Out of Digital Boundaries
For too long, I've found myself trapped behind the familiar glow of multiple monitors, covering the ever-evolving landscape of live streaming platforms and alternative digital spaces. While this niche has been rewarding and necessary as creators seek alternatives to mainstream platforms, I've realized something profound: I've been limiting not just my coverage, but my own personal journey as a creator and maker.
The Seeds of Something Bigger
The truth is, this awakening didn't happen overnight. A few years ago, necessity drove me to pick up tools for the first time when I needed a Murphy bed for my small office space. What started as a practical solution turned into something unexpected. The satisfaction of measuring twice, cutting once, and watching raw lumber transform into a functional piece of furniture was unlike anything I'd experienced in my digital work.
That Murphy bed led to building the very desk I'm writing from today. Each project taught me something new about patience, precision, and the deep satisfaction that comes from creating something tangible. But at the time, I treated these as isolated incidents, separate from my "real work" of covering digital platforms and streaming culture.
Reconnecting the Dots
What I've come to understand is that my woodworking journey and my coverage of alternative platforms aren't separate paths but parallel evolutions of the same fundamental human drive: the need to create, to build, to make something meaningful in a world that often feels ephemeral.
The maker movement and the alternative platform space share more DNA than I initially realized. Both represent a rejection of corporate gatekeeping. Both celebrate authentic skill over manufactured virality. Both build communities around shared learning and genuine connection rather than algorithmic optimization.
The Physical-Digital Bridge
This realization has sparked a broader vision for our coverage. While alternative platforms will always remain a core focus, we're expanding our scope to embrace the full spectrum of the modern maker movement, particularly where it intersects with digital spaces.
The makers I'm discovering aren't abandoning technology but leveraging it differently. They're using streaming platforms to teach traditional skills, building communities around craftsmanship, and documenting their processes in ways that inspire others to step away from pure consumption and into creation.
What you can expect to see more of:
Profiles of creators successfully bridging digital and physical creation
Analysis of how makers utilize streaming and social platforms to build authentic communities
Coverage of tools and platforms enabling the maker renaissance
Spotlights on spaces where digital natives are learning hands-on skills
Exploration of how alternative platforms serve the maker community differently than mainstream options
Beyond the Algorithm
My personal journey back to making has illuminated something crucial about the current creator economy. While we celebrate the democratization of content creation, there's a growing hunger for substance over style, for skill over spectacle, for things that exist beyond the lifespan of a trending hashtag.
The communities forming around traditional crafts on alternative platforms represent something powerful: creators and audiences seeking depth over disposability. These aren't just hobbyists filming their workshops; they're building sustainable creative practices that can't be demonetized by algorithm changes or platform policy shifts.
The Grass-Touching Reality
Yes, I'm literally touching grass now, along with wood grain, metal surfaces, and the tactile reality of creation. This isn't just about personal fulfillment, though the mental health benefits of working with your hands are undeniable. It's about understanding the complete ecosystem of modern creation.
Every time I return to my woodworking projects after hours of screen time, I'm reminded that creation exists on a spectrum. The focus required to cut a clean joint mirrors the attention needed to craft compelling copy. The patience demanded by hand-sanding parallels the persistence required to build an audience on emerging platforms.
Covering the Convergence
This expansion represents our recognition that the future of creation is hybrid. The most interesting developments are happening at the intersection of digital tools and physical making, where traditional craftspeople discover streaming platforms and where digital natives pick up hand tools for the first time.
We'll continue advocating for creator independence and platform diversity, but through a broader lens that includes the growing community of makers who view their craft as both personal practice and digital content. These creators are building something that transcends platform limitations because their primary output exists in the physical world.
Building for the Long Term
As I write this, sawdust from my latest project still decorates my keyboard, a perfect reminder of where we're headed, or perhaps I should've washed my hands a bit better. We're not choosing between digital and physical creation; we're exploring how they enhance each other. We're not limiting ourselves to platform coverage; we're examining the entire ecosystem where technology serves authentic making rather than replacing it.
The Murphy bed that started my maker journey still folds seamlessly into the wall of my workspace. The desk supporting my monitors was shaped by my own hands. These aren't just furniture pieces; they're proof that the digital and physical worlds of creation can coexist and strengthen each other.
Welcome to the Expanded Vision
This evolution reflects our commitment to covering creation in all its forms. Whether you're a streamer exploring hands-on skills, a traditional maker discovering digital platforms, or someone feeling the pull to build something that will outlast any social media trend, we'll be documenting this convergence.
Welcome to a space where pixels meet wood grain, where algorithms intersect with ancient techniques, and where the future of creation is being built by people unafraid to work with their hands while leveraging the best of what digital platforms offer.
The screen will always be here for platform coverage, but now it's part of a larger workshop where real transformation happens one project, one skill, one carefully crafted piece at a time.
JoshB

The Rise and Fall of Guilded: How Roblox Squandered $90 Million on a Communication Platform That Never Had a Chance

When Roblox announced the sunset of Guilded in late September 2025, the gaming community wasn't exactly shocked, but they should have been outraged. Here was a company that spent $90 million acquiring a promising Discord competitor in August 2021, only to unceremoniously pull the plug just three years later with barely more than a forum post as explanation.
A Quiet Death for a $90 Million Investment
What's perhaps most insulting about this entire debacle is how Roblox chose to handle the announcement. No press release. No executive statement. No acknowledgment of the massive financial investment or the communities that had built their homes on the platform. Instead, users discovered Guilded's fate through a developer forum post that read more like an internal memo than a public announcement for a service that cost nearly $100 million to acquire.
The message was clinical and corporate: "Today we're announcing that the Guilded product will sunset at the end of 2025." That's it. No apology. No explanation for what went wrong. No acknowledgment that they were essentially admitting that their $90 million investment was a complete failure.
The Promise That Never Materialized
When Roblox acquired Guilded, they painted a picture of innovation and community empowerment. The company promised that Guilded would continue to thrive as an independent platform, yet here we are, three years later, watching that "independence" crumble as Roblox consolidates everything into their existing Communities feature, a pale imitation of what Guilded offered.
The company claims they're "focused on improving Roblox Communities (formerly known as Roblox Groups), rather than investing in two separate products." Translation: they bought a competitor to eliminate it, not to nurture it.
A Pattern of Corporate Mismanagement
The most damning aspect of this entire situation is how predictable it was. Roblox forced Guilded users to link their accounts to Roblox in 2024, driving away much of the existing user base who had no interest in the broader Roblox ecosystem. Then, after sufficiently damaging the platform's independence and user experience, they point to lack of engagement as justification for shutting it down.
This is classic corporate acquisition behavior: buy a potential threat, slowly strangle it with integration requirements and resource starvation, then claim it "didn't work out" when you finally decide to kill it.
The Real Cost of Corporate Gaming
What makes this particularly galling is the timing. In an era where gaming communication platforms are more valuable than ever, Roblox managed to take a service that was competing directly with Discord and run it into the ground. Guilded had unique features tailored for competitive gaming communities including scheduling tools, integrated calendars, and tournament organization features that Discord was lacking at the time.
Instead of building on these strengths, Roblox appears to have treated Guilded as nothing more than an opportunity to acquire talent and technology they could harvest for their own platforms. The $90 million price tag now looks less like an investment in community building and more like an expensive way to eliminate competition.
Where's the Accountability?
The most frustrating part of this entire saga is the complete lack of accountability from Roblox leadership. They've provided no explanation for how they managed to waste $90 million in just three years. No admission that their integration strategy failed. No acknowledgment that they broke their promise to keep Guilded independent.
Community reactions in the developer forum tell the story: users are calling it "the WORST possible decision ever" and pointing out the obvious pattern of acquiring, forcing integration, partnering with competitors like Discord, and then shutting down. One user perfectly captured the absurdity: "Great job Roblox. Buys guilded. Integrates it into Roblox. Announces ending support."
Another community member noted the irony: "What even was the point in buying it then?" It's a question that Roblox executives seem unwilling or unable to answer.
The Technical Failures
Even supporters of the shutdown acknowledge that Guilded had serious technical issues. As one developer noted, "Guilded was slow and took literal minutes to open." But this raises an important question: if Roblox knew the platform had performance problems, why didn't they invest in fixing them instead of letting the service deteriorate?
The fact that basic functionality was broken suggests either massive technical debt that Roblox was unwilling to address, or a deliberate strategy of neglect designed to justify an eventual shutdown.
The Broader Implications
This isn't just about Guilded. It's about what happens when large corporations treat innovative platforms as strategic acquisitions rather than valuable products worthy of investment and growth. Roblox had the resources to make Guilded a legitimate Discord competitor. They chose not to.
Instead, they're funneling users toward their inferior "Communities" feature, promising vague improvements like "polls, upvoting, leaderboards" that sound like features from 2010. It's a step backward disguised as progress, and it's exactly what you'd expect from a company that views community platforms as strategic assets rather than living ecosystems.
A Lesson in Corporate Responsibility
The Guilded shutdown should serve as a wake-up call about corporate responsibility in the gaming space. When companies acquire beloved platforms, they're not just buying technology. They're buying communities, relationships, and trust. Roblox has systematically violated all three.
The announcement mentions that "Guilded will remain available through the end of 2025," as if giving users more than a year's notice somehow makes up for the fundamental betrayal of the acquisition's original promises. It doesn't.
The Developer Community Speaks Out
The response from Roblox's own developer community has been overwhelmingly negative. Comments range from nostalgic ("Rest in peace Guilded, you had potential before getting screwed over by Roblox") to cynical ("It's what big companies do nowadays, buy a smaller company, extract what they need from it, then kill it").
Perhaps most telling is the observation that this announcement came on the same day as several other unpopular Roblox decisions, leading one developer to ask: "what is going on with roblox today, can we please spread the bad changes out?"
What This Means for the Future
The Guilded shutdown sets a dangerous precedent. It tells other potential acquisition targets that Roblox's promises of independence and continued development cannot be trusted. It tells communities that their investment in a platform means nothing if it doesn't align with corporate strategy.
Most importantly, it tells investors that Roblox is willing to write off $90 million without any meaningful explanation or accountability. In any other industry, this kind of value destruction would trigger serious questions about management competence.
The Final Verdict
Roblox's handling of Guilded represents everything wrong with modern tech acquisitions. They bought a competitor, strangled it with forced integration, ignored its technical problems, and then quietly announced its death in a forum post.
The fact that they couldn't even be bothered to make a proper announcement about shutting down a $90 million acquisition speaks volumes about how little they value the communities that relied on their platform. It's corporate arrogance at its worst, and it sets a dangerous precedent for future acquisitions in the gaming space.
Guilded deserved better. Its users deserved better. And shareholders should be demanding answers about how $90 million evaporated with so little to show for it.
The gaming industry needs platforms that serve communities, not corporate strategies. Guilded could have been that platform. Instead, it became another casualty of acquisition culture, where innovation goes to die in the name of market consolidation.
Rest in peace, Guilded. You had potential before getting screwed over by corporate mismanagement.
JoshB

YouTube's Recent Drama and Major Updates: What Creators Need to Know

You may have heard a lot of different things going on in the past week or two about what's been happening with YouTube. Some things are myth, some things are true. We're going to talk about the huge updates, so let's actually get into it.
The View Drop Mystery: Separating Fact from Fiction
There's been somewhat of a myth floating around that a lot of the bigger YouTube channels like Linus Tech Tips and Markiplier have claimed they've noticed a significant drop-off in viewers. This led to an outcry that YouTube was shadow banning creators or changing the algorithm without letting creators know beforehand.
This brought a lot of people to speculate about a feature called "restricted mode" in your YouTube settings. Now this has actually been disproven since this feature has been in place since around 2010. It's been available for many years, but this kind of set the ball rolling with creators saying their views had disappeared or been cut by 50% because of this feature. Many creators instantly jumped on this myth without actually doing any research. Yes, if you turn restricted mode on, most of your videos disappear, but that wasn't the actual cause of the issue.
The Real Culprit: Ad Blockers
It came out probably a week later (though in the creator space, several days feels like an eternity) that the issue was actually ad blockers like uBlock Origin and others. These were causing problems where YouTube wasn't recording views for people using ad blockers. This goes back to the ongoing cat and mouse game between YouTube and ad blocker companies.
In my personal opinion, I say use ad blockers because even the FBI has posted recommendations for the public to use ad blockers when browsing the internet. A lot of times you can get your computer infected with malware from malicious ads that get posted in website feeds or while watching ads on YouTube.
YouTube has been playing this back and forth game for the past couple years, punishing viewers for using ad blockers because it's against their terms of service. The problem is that the number of ads and their length have only increased over the years, creating a more user-hostile environment.
I know a lot of other creators are completely against ad blockers, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. My view is that you shouldn't really rely on ad revenue on YouTube, but if you do, that's your choice.
The Numbers Don't Lie
Linus Tech Tips showed actual numbers from their WAN show displaying how their views were down, but interestingly, their likes and ad revenue were actually up. Josh Strife Plays posted a video showing that when this YouTube fiasco with ad blockers happened on August 10th, his numbers revealed that mobile and PC viewing were pretty much in line before that date. But on August 10th and afterward, desktop views were way below mobile views.
This makes sense because people watching on mobile typically won't have an ad blocker running on their phone, but if you use an ad blocker, it's usually on your PC or computer. The numbers got skewed with desktop views being low while mobile views remained at normal or higher rates.
YouTube came back and pretty much confirmed this was because of ad blockers, though they haven't directly stated it. An article from 9to5Google noted that over the past month, many YouTubers reported major drops in video view counts, and theories ran wild, but the ad blocker explanation makes the most sense.
This was big drama on YouTube for a good week or two. Everyone was making videos saying their viewers were down, all caused by various theories. It's something where a lot of people jump the gun. They see another creator posting a video saying "this is the reason why X causes Y" and then they jump to create a video as well. We'll see if people retract those videos or make corrected statements.
Major YouTube Updates You Should Know About
What I actually wanted to talk about are the updates YouTube has made. They've introduced some major changes for live streaming and the general platform.
Live Streaming Improvements
YouTube has been kind of pushing live streaming aside to give their "little brother" Shorts some time in the limelight for a couple years. But now they've made several important updates:
Practice Before Going Live: You can now test your setup with no risk before going live. Other platforms like Twitch have had this capability where you can run a test stream to see if your internet is up to snuff or if anything is going wrong before actually going live.
Playables on Live: These were introduced last year as fun interactive experiences with lightweight games like Angry Birds Showdown and Cutthroat that you can play during your live stream.
Streaming Across Formats: This is one of the big things I'm really excited about. You can have horizontal and vertical streams in one studio window, and the chat from both live streams is integrated into one chat window. This isn't out yet, but it's coming within weeks or months. Previously, you would need two streaming encoders going at the same time and two chat windows to keep up with both sides. Thank you YouTube for integrating this into one studio window.
The only thing I didn't see is if they made changes to how chat defaults to "top chat," which is stupid. It should automatically be live chat as the only option because if you're in top chat, there might be occasions where you'll never see someone's chat message. That person might think you're ignoring them and just leave.
AI-Powered Features
AI Highlights: This feature finds the most compelling moments from your live stream and automatically creates ready-to-share Shorts. After your live stream ends, AI will go through your content (if you allow it) and create highlights or clips. You can edit them and then publish them on YouTube.
This is similar to what Riverside FM, Descript, Opus Clips, CapCut, and other services offer, but this will be baked into YouTube itself using their Gemini AI system.
Monetization Updates
Side-by-Side Ads: YouTube knows creators are often hesitant to run ads that interrupt key moments during streams because they're very disruptive. The new side-by-side ads are supposedly less intrusive while helping creators get paid without pulling their audience away.
I'm wondering how this will actually work. On Twitch, when ads run during a stream, the ad takes over and the streamer is put into a small box above chat, muted, while the ad plays. With YouTube's side-by-side format, I'm assuming the ad plays with audio while the stream is muted, which doesn't really change much since the stream is still being interrupted. We'll have to see how this works out.
Seamless Member Transitions: There's a new feature that allows creators to easily transition from a public stream to a members-only live stream without disruption. Previously, you'd have to cut off the stream and start a separate members-only stream. Now it will be more seamless, moving your audience from public to members-only within the same stream.
Feeling Overwhelmed? There Are Alternatives
With all these changes involving AI, increasing ads, and years of focus on Shorts, you might be feeling overwhelmed or done with YouTube. I've talked about alternatives in the past, and there are options:
PeerTube is a free, open-source system where you can self-host or join an instance that has openings for people to upload videos.
Makerspace is designed for makers, artists, woodworkers, craftspeople, and similar creators.
TILvids focuses on edutainment content, and you can find our content from the indie creator community there as well.
I do have to mention that if you use an alternative, you won't have the same results because these alternatives are extremely small compared to YouTube's potential audience. You'll need to weigh the pros and cons of what you're looking for and take your time to figure out what you want to do.
Wrapping Up
These YouTube updates represent significant changes to the platform, especially for live streaming. While some improvements are welcome, the ongoing issues with ad blockers, increasing ads, and AI integration may leave some creators looking for alternatives.
If you're interested in joining our community of independent creators, check out indiecreator.community. It's a forum open to all independent artists, creators, and anybody looking for alternative platforms. We share blogs, podcast episodes, videos, and connect like-minded people.
Thanks for reading, and I'll see you next time. Later taters.
JoshB

Why RSS Feeds Might Be the Answer to Your Newsletter Fatigue

Remember when your inbox wasn't a battlefield? When opening your email didn't feel like preparing for digital combat against an army of newsletters you somehow signed up for but can't quite remember subscribing to? If you're nodding along, you're not alone. The newsletter boom has turned our inboxes into overcrowded digital spaces where important messages get buried under promotional content we may or may not actually want.
But what if I told you there's an older, quieter technology that might solve this problem? One that's been around since the early 2000s, requires no email address, tracks nothing about your behavior, and puts you completely in control of what you read and when? Enter RSS feeds, the unsung hero of content consumption that deserves a serious comeback.
The Newsletter Problem We All Pretend Isn't There
Let's be honest about newsletters for a moment. They started with good intentions. Publishers wanted a direct line to their audience, and readers wanted updates from their favorite creators. It seemed like a perfect match. But somewhere along the way, things got complicated.
First, there's the subscription creep. You sign up for one newsletter about productivity tips, and suddenly you're getting daily emails about everything from kitchen gadgets to cryptocurrency. Each newsletter seems to multiply, spawning sister publications and partner recommendations until your inbox becomes an ecosystem you never intended to create.
Then there's the tracking. Most newsletters don't just deliver content; they're data collection machines. They know when you open them, which links you click, how long you spend reading, and often much more. This information gets packaged, analyzed, and sometimes sold. What started as a simple content delivery method has become a surveillance system disguised as a service.
And let's talk about the pressure. Newsletters create artificial urgency. They arrive on the publisher's schedule, not yours. Miss a few days of checking email, and you're drowning in unread messages. The little red notification badge becomes a source of stress rather than helpful information.
What Exactly Are RSS Feeds?
RSS stands for Really Simple Syndication, and the name isn't misleading. At its core, RSS is a standardized format that websites use to publish updates about their content. Think of it as a menu that gets updated whenever there's something new to offer, except instead of today's specials, it's today's articles, podcasts, or videos.
When a website publishes new content, it updates its RSS feed with information about that content: the title, a brief description, publication date, and a link to the full piece. RSS readers, which are apps or web services designed to collect and display these feeds, check your subscribed websites regularly and present all the new content in one organized place.
The beauty lies in its simplicity. There's no complex algorithm deciding what you see. No artificial intelligence trying to predict what you might want to read. No tracking pixels recording your behavior. Just a straightforward list of new content from sources you've chosen to follow.
The Sustainability Factor
When we talk about RSS feeds being more sustainable, we're looking at sustainability from multiple angles. First, there's the environmental consideration. RSS feeds require significantly less server resources than newsletter systems. There's no need for massive email delivery infrastructure, no databases storing detailed user behavior, and no complex tracking systems running in the background.
Newsletter platforms like Mailchimp, ConvertKit, or Substack maintain enormous server farms to handle email delivery, track opens and clicks, manage subscriber lists, and provide analytics dashboards. RSS feeds, by contrast, are simple XML files that get updated when new content is published. The computational overhead is minimal.
From a privacy perspective, RSS is inherently sustainable because it doesn't create the privacy debt that newsletters do. Every newsletter subscription creates a data relationship. The publisher knows your email address, can track your reading habits, and often shares this information with third parties. Over time, this creates a complex web of data relationships that become increasingly difficult to manage or escape.
RSS feeds flip this dynamic entirely. You can subscribe to an RSS feed without the publisher knowing anything about you. They don't have your email address, can't track whether you read their content, and have no way to follow your behavior across other websites. It's content consumption without the surveillance overhead.
The User Experience Revolution
Using RSS feeds feels radically different from managing newsletter subscriptions. Instead of content arriving on someone else's schedule, you check your RSS reader when it's convenient for you. There's no inbox pressure, no feeling of falling behind, and no artificial urgency.
Most RSS readers allow you to organize feeds into folders or categories. You might have folders for news, technology, personal development, and entertainment. When you want to catch up on tech news, you check that folder. When you're in the mood for long-form journalism, you browse your news folder. The content waits patiently for your attention rather than demanding it.
The reading experience itself is often superior. RSS readers typically present content in clean, consistent formats without the visual clutter of promotional sidebars, popup advertisements, or tracking scripts. Many readers offer offline sync, meaning you can download articles when you have good internet connectivity and read them later without any connection at all.
There's also something refreshing about the chronological nature of RSS feeds. Content appears in the order it was published, without algorithmic interference. You see everything from your subscribed sources, not just what some system thinks you'll engage with. This creates a more complete picture of what's happening in your areas of interest.
The Publisher Perspective
For content creators and publishers, RSS feeds offer a different kind of relationship with their audience. While they lose the ability to track individual reader behavior, they gain something potentially more valuable: an audience that's genuinely interested in their content rather than accidentally subscribed or manipulated into engagement.
RSS subscribers tend to be more intentional readers. They've made a conscious choice to follow your content and have taken the extra step of adding your feed to their reader. This often translates to higher quality engagement, even if the overall numbers might be smaller than newsletter subscriber counts.
There's also the matter of delivery reliability. Email deliverability is a constant concern for newsletter publishers. Emails get caught in spam filters, blocked by overzealous security systems, or simply lost in crowded inboxes. RSS feeds don't have these problems. If you publish content and update your RSS feed, subscribers will see it in their readers.
From a cost perspective, RSS feeds are remarkably efficient. There are no per-subscriber costs, no delivery fees, and no need for expensive email marketing platforms. The RSS feed is just another file on your website, no different from your CSS or JavaScript files in terms of hosting requirements.
Making the Switch
If you're intrigued by the idea of replacing some or all of your newsletter subscriptions with RSS feeds, the transition is straightforward. Popular RSS readers like Feedly, Inoreader, or NetNewsWire make it easy to discover and subscribe to feeds from your favorite websites.
Many websites display RSS feed icons, but even if they don't, you can usually find the feed by adding "/rss" or "/feed" to the website's URL. Most modern content management systems generate RSS feeds automatically.
The key is starting small. Pick a few websites or newsletters you currently follow and see if they offer RSS feeds. Subscribe to those feeds in your RSS reader and compare the experience to receiving newsletters. You might find that the lack of email pressure and the ability to read on your own schedule makes the content more enjoyable.
The Broader Implications
The choice between newsletters and RSS feeds reflects a larger conversation about how we want to interact with digital content. Newsletters represent the current paradigm of surveillance capitalism, where free content is supported by data collection and behavioral tracking. RSS feeds represent an older model where content is simply content, without the layer of data extraction.
As privacy concerns grow and people become more aware of how their digital behavior is tracked and monetized, RSS feeds offer a way to stay informed without participating in these systems. It's a small act of digital independence that can reduce both your privacy footprint and your cognitive load.
There's also something to be said for supporting technologies that prioritize user agency over engagement metrics. RSS feeds put you in control of your content consumption in a way that's becoming increasingly rare in our algorithm-driven digital landscape.
The Path Forward
RSS feeds aren't a perfect solution for everyone or every type of content. Some newsletters offer exclusive content that isn't available through RSS. Others provide community features or interactive elements that RSS feeds can't replicate. But for the majority of content consumption, RSS offers a cleaner, more private, and more sustainable alternative.
The technology exists today. The infrastructure is already in place. What's needed is a shift in mindset from passive email recipients to active content curators. RSS feeds require a bit more intention than newsletters, but they offer significantly more control and privacy in return.
If you're tired of inbox overwhelm, concerned about privacy, or simply want a more peaceful way to stay informed, RSS feeds deserve serious consideration. They represent a different way of thinking about content consumption, one that prioritizes your time, attention, and privacy over engagement metrics and data collection.
In a world where our digital experiences are increasingly designed to capture and monetize our attention, RSS feeds offer something refreshingly different: content consumption on your own terms, without the overhead of surveillance or the pressure of artificial urgency. Sometimes the most innovative solution is actually the oldest one we forgot we had.
Featured image Photo by Brett Jordan on Unsplash
JoshB

Breaking Down the Mix It Up Town Hall - A Streaming Bot's Honest Moment

Just finished watching the Mix It Up community town hall, and this is required viewing for anyone in the streaming space.
Tim, the lead developer still standing behind one of streaming's most popular bots, just delivered what might be the most transparent community update I've ever seen from a tech project. We're talking full financial disclosure, honest assessment of challenges, and a realistic roadmap that doesn't rely on corporate buzzwords.
The numbers behind the curtain
Mix It Up has quietly become streaming infrastructure. Tim dropped some statistics that put their growth into perspective: 60,000 monthly active streamers using the bot, with roughly 14,000 daily users processing millions of commands and tens of millions of events.
Compare that to their humble beginnings where Tim noted they "peaked at maybe a hundred users" in their entire first year. That kind of exponential growth explains both their success and their current challenges.
Leadership changes and what they really mean
The elephant in the room got addressed directly. Co-founders Savior XTaran and Tyron have stepped back from active development. Tim was clear about the circumstances: "Both for personal reasons and, you know, both very amicable. We are still, we still talk to one another. Sometimes daily, mostly weekly."
No drama, no falling out. Just life happening to people who've already contributed thousands of hours to a project. But it does leave Tim carrying the entire development burden solo, which explains the six-month update drought.
His honesty about the workload was refreshing: "I just didn't have time. And that's very literal did not have hours in the day."
The financial reality nobody talks about
Here's where things got really interesting. Most software projects guard their financials like state secrets, but Tim laid out exactly what it costs to keep Mix It Up running: approximately $10,000 annually.
The funding model has been essentially subsidized charity. Tim explained that "the company that Mix It Up runs under also does many other things... a lot of times all of those would just go towards subsidizing Mix It Up."
But here's the remarkable part: the community response to transparency was immediate and overwhelming. Patreon supporters jumped from 16 members contributing about $60 monthly to 88 supporters providing over $400 monthly. All within a week of honest communication about their situation.
The free commitment stands firm
Tim repeatedly emphasized their core principle: "Mix it up is going to be free to use. We are not going to pay wall it. We are not going to feature limit you."
His reasoning felt genuine rather than calculated: "I could not sleep at night knowing that that level of greed had kind of overtaken me." This wasn't marketing speak but someone articulating values that have guided eight years of development.
Why Kick support remains elusive
The community has been requesting Kick integration for years, and Tim finally provided a technical explanation that makes sense. Unlike platforms using persistent connections, Kick's webhook architecture requires "exclusive dedicated infrastructure on our part because we then have to maintain a connection to the people that are using that service."
Translation: they'd need significantly more expensive servers just to handle Kick's design choices. Tim was direct about the economics: "Long story short it was going to be a very expensive service for us to implement."
However, he offered realistic hope: "once we get mix it up to a place of sustainability on the financial side, those are going to be things that we look at adding in."
Development priorities that actually make sense
Instead of promising revolutionary features, Tim outlined a practical restoration approach:
Immediate fixes: "Trovo connectivity, responsive voice, getting that back up and going. The issues we've been having with Twitch reconnection... getting those resolved is going to be top of my list."
Infrastructure improvements: streamlining updates so "if something's broken, I want to be able to fix it immediately and I want to be able to get that out to you guys within a matter of minutes."
Future expansion: cross-platform support and potential "Mix It Up 2.0" architecture, contingent on team growth.
Support system getting much-needed overhaul
The current Discord support structure has clearly reached its breaking point. Tim admitted the tracking situation had become untenable: "it took me the better part of five minutes just to get a handle on what requests were still open, who was working them, and what hadn't even been touched yet."
The solution involves implementing a proper ticketing system alongside community-driven support channels. Initial rollout targets Patreon supporters for testing before broader availability.
Community response reveals project value
What struck me most was Tim's surprise at the overwhelmingly positive response to their transparency. He noted that the announcement generated "all positivity and support" across social media, which he called "a rare thing" in today's online environment.
That community response indicates Mix It Up has built something genuinely valuable rather than just convenient. When people step up financially after honest communication about challenges, that suggests real attachment to the platform.
Infrastructure awareness for content creators
This situation highlights how little most streamers understand about the tools they depend on daily. Mix It Up has become critical infrastructure for thousands of content creators who've invested hundreds of hours in customization and workflow integration.
Tim clearly grasps this responsibility: "for a lot of you the bot you choose and the time you spend and invest in setting up that bot... that is the beating heart and soul of your stream."
Sustainability model worth studying
Tim's approach of maintaining free core functionality while being transparent about premium service costs feels like a template other developers should examine. Rather than hidden costs or sudden feature restrictions, they're building sustainable funding around services that genuinely require ongoing infrastructure investment.
The Patreon model focuses on voluntary support rather than mandatory subscriptions, respecting both the community's diverse financial situations and their commitment to accessibility.
Lessons for the broader ecosystem
This town hall demonstrates the power of honest communication with user communities. Instead of corporate messaging about "exciting new directions," Tim provided specific numbers, acknowledged real challenges, and set realistic expectations.
The community response suggests that transparency, even about difficulties, builds stronger relationships than polished marketing materials. People appreciate being treated as stakeholders rather than just users.
Looking forward
Mix It Up's situation reflects broader challenges in maintaining community-focused tools at scale. Growth brings both opportunities and financial pressures that passion projects aren't always equipped to handle.
However, Tim's commitment to transparency and community-first development, combined with the user base's demonstrated willingness to provide support, creates a foundation for sustainable growth. The focus on fixing existing functionality before adding new features shows maturity in prioritization.
Final thoughts
This town hall should be required viewing for anyone building tools for content creators. It demonstrates how honest communication, realistic planning, and community respect can turn potential crisis into collaborative problem-solving.
Tim's handling of a difficult transition period with transparency and genuine care for his user base provides a model for how these conversations should happen. Sometimes the best strategy is simply telling the truth and trusting your community to respond appropriately.
In Mix It Up's case, that trust appears well-founded. The combination of honest leadership and responsive community support suggests this platform has the foundation to thrive for another eight years.
JoshB

YouTube's Hype Feature: A Case Study in Platform Inequality

YouTube recently launched "Hype," a community-driven promotional tool that perfectly illustrates how major platforms continue to widen the gap between established creators and newcomers. While the feature itself shows promise, its implementation reveals deeper issues about who gets access to growth opportunities in the creator economy.
How Hype Actually Works
The mechanics of Hype are straightforward and potentially powerful. Viewers can promote their favorite creators' new long-form videos by adding them to country-specific leaderboards. Each viewer gets three free hypes per week to distribute among different creators, creating a community-driven discovery system that could genuinely help quality content rise above the algorithmic noise.
The leaderboard approach is particularly interesting because it introduces a competitive element while maintaining viewer agency. Instead of relying solely on YouTube's recommendation algorithms, creators can now benefit from direct audience advocacy. Higher-ranking videos on these leaderboards gain increased visibility and potential for organic growth.
The Documentation Disaster
YouTube's rollout of Hype demonstrates a masterclass in confusing communication. Their official documentation simultaneously states that creators need "YouTube Partner Program" membership while describing the feature as serving "creators with 500-500,000 subscribers." Google Support
This contradiction creates genuine uncertainty for creators sitting between 500-1,000 subscribers. Traditional Partner Program requirements demand 1,000 subscribers plus specific watch time metrics, but Hype's documentation suggests a lower threshold. Whether this represents a new Partner Program tier or simply poor documentation remains unclear.
Such ambiguity isn't just inconvenient; it's harmful to creators trying to plan their growth strategies. When platforms can't clearly communicate basic eligibility requirements, they're failing their most vulnerable users.
The Sub-500 Desert
Regardless of whether the threshold is 500 or 1,000 subscribers, Hype's requirements create another exclusion zone for beginning creators. Those grinding through their first few hundred subscribers face the same catch-22 that defines much of the creator economy: you need success to access tools that help create success.
This is particularly frustrating for long-form content creators. Unlike short-form content that can occasionally go viral through pure chance, long-form videos typically require more substantial time investments and production resources. New creators putting everything into well-researched, carefully edited videos could benefit enormously from community-driven promotion, yet they're systematically excluded.
The irony is thick. YouTube positions Hype as supporting "up-and-coming creators," but truly up-and-coming creators can't access it. Google Support The feature serves creators who've already overcome the initial growth plateau, not those still struggling to reach it.
Global Rollout Done Right
Credit where it's due: YouTube's geographic implementation of Hype is actually impressive. The feature launched across major markets including the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, France, Japan, Korea, Australia, India, Indonesia, and Mexico, among many others. This broad availability contrasts sharply with YouTube's historically slow international feature rollouts.
The company is also testing paid hype options in Brazil and Turkey, suggesting potential monetization models that could benefit both creators and the platform. This geographic scope means location-based exclusion isn't the primary barrier for most creators.
Platform Power and Creator Hierarchies
Hype exemplifies how platform design choices create and reinforce creator hierarchies. By limiting access to established creators, YouTube ensures that growth tools primarily serve those who've already proven their ability to build audiences. This approach makes business sense for YouTube but perpetuates systemic disadvantages for newcomers.
The pattern extends beyond individual features. From monetization thresholds to algorithm preferences for consistent uploaders, platform policies consistently favor creators with existing momentum over those trying to build it. Each new tool that requires pre-existing success makes the initial growth phase more challenging.
The Broader Creator Economy Context
YouTube's approach to Hype reflects broader tensions in the creator economy. Platforms face genuine challenges in preventing spam and maintaining quality while supporting legitimate creators. Setting eligibility thresholds serves these goals but inevitably excludes deserving creators who haven't yet reached arbitrary metrics.
The challenge lies in designing systems that can distinguish between promising new creators and low-effort content without relying solely on success metrics. Current approaches essentially outsource this judgment to audience growth, which introduces its own biases and barriers.
What Actually Needs to Change
Rather than criticizing Hype itself, the focus should be on YouTube's systematic approach to creator support. The platform needs tools specifically designed for creators below current eligibility thresholds. These might include mentorship programs, educational resources, or limited-access promotional tools for verified new creators.
More immediately, YouTube must fix its documentation and communication. Clear, consistent information about feature eligibility shouldn't be controversial. When creators can't understand basic requirements, the platform is failing its fundamental responsibility to its users.
The creator economy's future depends on platforms finding better ways to support creators throughout their entire journey, not just after they've already succeeded. YouTube's Hype feature works well for its intended audience, but that audience represents creators who've already overcome the platform's biggest challenges.
True innovation would involve building tools that help creators reach that first threshold, not just rewarding those who've already crossed it.
JoshB

Moonbeam's Town Hall Vision: Building the Future of Streaming Communities (And Maybe Discussing Aliens)

Hey everyone, Josh here from Indie Creator Space, and uh, so I just finished watching Moonbeam's latest town hall stream with Anthony and Pat, and honestly? It got me thinking about a lot of stuff that's been bouncing around in my head lately about where streaming platforms are headed and what community actually means in 2025.
The Thing That Actually Matters
So here's the deal, and I'm just gonna be real with you because that's what we do here. Watching Anthony and Pat talk through their latest updates felt different than most platform announcements. They weren't just rattling off feature lists or trying to hype up some revolutionary breakthrough. They were having actual conversations about the messy, human side of building something new.
Like when Anthony talked about not wanting to stream sometimes because he's tired after work? That hit different. Because that's the reality for most of us, right? We're not all grinding sixteen hours a day for content. Sometimes you want to connect with your community without committing to a whole production.
What Moonbeam Gets Right (And Why It Matters)
One thing that stood out during their stream was the image posting feature they just launched. Now look, adding images to posts isn't exactly revolutionary technology. But the way Pat talked about it, how they want creators to have ways to engage their communities without always being "on" for live streams, that's thinking about the actual human experience.
And honestly? That's what's missing from a lot of platform discussions. We get so caught up in monetization strategies and algorithm optimization that we forget streaming is supposed to be about connection, not just content production.
The sustainability problem Anthony mentioned is real too. When platforms push creators toward constant output just to stay relevant, everyone burns out. Creators, communities, even the platforms themselves eventually.
The Bigger Picture Nobody Talks About
But here's what really got me thinking during their conversation, and this might sound obvious but bear with me. We're at this weird inflection point where new platforms like Moonbeam have the opportunity to do things differently from the ground up.
Like, when Anthony talked about their moderation approach, making sure safety comes first, referencing that tragic incident on Kick, that's not just policy talk. That's someone recognizing that platforms have actual responsibility for creator wellbeing.
And when they discussed their growth (over 1,500 new users since the last town hall), they weren't just celebrating numbers. They were talking about welcoming new people and building something sustainable.
The Technical Stuff That Actually Matters
Pat's discussion of their API development was interesting too. The fact that they're acknowledging their APIs are still iterating, that they're not ready to lock developers into unchanging contracts yet, that's honest. Most platforms would just ship something half-baked and deal with the consequences later.
Their approach to bot integration, overlay systems, mobile streaming capabilities. It's all about giving creators more tools without overwhelming them. Which, again, shows they're thinking about actual use cases rather than just feature checklists.
Community Building in Real Time
What struck me most was watching them interact with their chat during the stream. People asking questions about tournaments, suggesting features, reporting issues. And Anthony and Pat responding like they actually cared about the answers. Not performatively, but genuinely.
When they talked about welcoming new streamers, especially the esports community growth they're seeing, it felt like they understood that healthy platforms grow organically through word of mouth, not just marketing campaigns.
The Uncomfortable Truth About Platform Competition
Here's something that might make some people uncomfortable. The beauty of having multiple streaming platforms isn't that they all serve identical purposes. It's that different approaches can coexist and learn from each other.
Moonbeam's focus on community-first features, their emphasis on creator wellbeing, their willingness to iterate publicly. These approaches could influence how larger platforms think about creator relationships.
But, and this is important, that only works if we stop treating platform choice like some kind of zero-sum loyalty test.
What This Means for Independent Creators
So here's what I took away from their stream, and I'm including myself in this because I definitely get caught up in platform drama sometimes:
First, platforms that prioritize creator sustainability over engagement metrics might actually be onto something. When Anthony talked about posting vacation photos instead of forcing himself to stream when tired, that's a healthier relationship with content creation.
Second, transparency in development builds trust. Pat walking through their technical roadmap, acknowledging limitations, asking for specific feedback. That's how you build a community around a platform instead of just on top of it.
Third, safety isn't just about content moderation. It's about creating environments where creators can take risks, try new things, build genuine connections without constantly worrying about algorithm punishment or platform policy changes.
Moving Forward
Look, I don't know if Moonbeam will be the next big thing or just another experiment that fades away. Honestly, that's not even the right question. What matters is whether they're contributing ideas that make the entire ecosystem better.
And based on their latest town hall stream, the honesty about challenges, the thoughtful approach to community building, the recognition that creators are humans with lives outside of content production, I think they are.
Your Turn
So here's what I want to know, and seriously, call me out in the comments if you think I'm reading too much into a single stream. What do you think platforms should prioritize when they're building creator tools? Is it better to have more features or more thoughtful implementation? How do we balance creator freedom with community safety?
Because the future of independent content creation depends not just on the tools we have access to, but on the communities and relationships those tools enable.
Oh, and if you made it this far, you also got to hear Anthony and Pat's theories about aliens and time travel, which honestly was worth the price of admission alone. Sometimes the best conversations happen when you're not trying so hard to be impressive.
If you made it this far, thanks for sticking with me through all my rambling. Become a free member if this resonated with you, and let me know your thoughts in the comments. I read every single one, even the ones that tell me I'm completely wrong about everything.
Until next time, later taters.
JoshB

The Creator's Political Dilemma: Why We're All Walking on Eggshells (And What We Can Do About It)

Hey everyone, Josh here from Indie Creator Space, and uh, this is gonna be one of those posts where I probably ramble a bit but bear with me because I think this is important.
So I've been thinking about something that's been bugging me about the creator space lately, and I wanted to just put myself out there and talk about it honestly. Because that's what we do here, right?
The Thing Nobody Wants to Say Out Loud
Here's the deal - and I'm just gonna be real with you because beating around the bush doesn't help anyone - creators are terrified to talk about anything that matters. And I'm not talking about being scared to share your breakfast or whatever. I'm talking about this underlying fear that if you say literally anything about politics or human rights or basically any topic that actually affects people's lives, you're gambling with your ability to pay rent.
You know what I mean? It's like we all got into this creator thing because we wanted to connect with people and maybe make a difference. But now it feels like we're all walking on eggshells, calculating every single post through this lens of "Will this destroy my career?"
And look, I get it. I really do.
What's Actually Happening Here
So you've got creators like Tefi Pessoa calling out other LGBTQ+ creators for not talking about marriage equality. Then you've got people like Zay Dante questioning why everyone's so quiet about Gaza. And then you've got creators like Jenny Solares who break from their usual content to talk about ICE raids and call it "word vomit" because it felt so unnatural to mix politics with their normal stuff.
But here's the thing that really gets me - these aren't just moral choices anymore. They're economic decisions. Every time a creator speaks up about something they believe in, they're literally risking their livelihood. And that's not normal. That's not how any other workplace functions.
Like, imagine if your boss could just cut your salary in half because you posted about voting on your personal Facebook page. That's basically what happens to creators every day, except we don't have HR departments or unions or any of the protections that other workers take for granted.

The Tools Are There, We're Just Not Using Them Right
One thing I've been experimenting with - and I'll probably do a whole video about this later - is how we can better support creators who want to use their platforms for good without destroying themselves financially.
But here's the thing - and this is gonna sound obvious but bear with me - the problem isn't that creators don't care about important issues. The problem is that we've built a system where caring about important issues is a luxury that only the most financially secure creators can afford.
Back to Basics: What Actually Works
So what do we do about it? Well, first thing is we need to stop pretending this is just about individual moral choices. This is a labor rights issue, and we need to treat it like one.
That creator who seems afraid to speak up about human rights? Maybe they're just trying to keep their health insurance. That brand that drops a creator for being "too political"? Maybe they need to understand that authentic engagement includes having opinions about the world.
I'm passionate about independent content creation because that's what I am, and one thing I've learned from building this community is that authenticity and financial survival shouldn't be mutually exclusive. But right now, for too many creators, they are.
The Sustainability Problem Nobody Talks About
And here's something that really gets me - we all benefit when creators can speak authentically about things that matter to them. Whether you're a viewer who wants genuine connection or a brand that wants to partner with authentic voices, we all lose when creators have to choose between their conscience and their rent money.
But sustainability isn't just about throwing money at the problem. Though honestly, more financial security for creators wouldn't hurt. It's about creating systems where people can actually use their platforms for good without fear of arbitrary punishment from algorithms or brands or platforms.
Building Better Systems
You know what we need more of? Industry standards. Labor protections. Some kind of collective bargaining power so creators aren't navigating this stuff alone.
Like, I've been branching out my content to cover not just indie platforms but also mainstream stuff, and you know why? Because that's where the conversations about creator rights need to happen. That's where the power to change things actually exists.
We need to meet the problem where it is, not where we think it should be.
The Uncomfortable Truth
Here's the thing that might make some people uncomfortable - expecting creators to risk their livelihoods to speak up about politics isn't fair to anyone. It's not fair to creators, and it's not fair to audiences who deserve authentic engagement with issues that matter.
But - and this is important - the solution isn't to tell creators to shut up about politics. The solution is to build systems that let them speak up safely.
When platforms punish political content, when brands ghost creators for having opinions, when algorithms suppress anything remotely controversial - that's when authentic political engagement becomes a privilege instead of a right.
What We Can Actually Do
So here's my challenge to everyone reading this, and I'm including myself in this because I definitely don't have all the answers:
Support creators who speak up, even when you don't agree with them. Financial support, engagement, whatever you can do to show that authentic voices have value.
Push for better platform policies. Algorithms that suppress political content hurt everyone. Brands need to understand that authentic creators sometimes have opinions.
Recognize that this is a labor issue. Creators are workers, and they deserve the same protections that other workers have when it comes to freedom of expression.
Moving Forward
Look, I don't have all the answers. Heck, I barely understand half the economic forces at play here. But I do know that when creators are afraid to speak authentically about things that matter, we all lose something important.
It's going to require conscious effort from all of us though. Platforms, brands, audiences, and creators themselves. We need to choose systems that support authentic engagement over systems that punish it.
And honestly? We need to get better at recognizing that behind every creator's political post is a human being who's probably scared about the potential consequences but felt like they had to say something anyway.
Your Turn
So here's what I want to know - and seriously, call me out in the comments if you think I'm completely off base here - what's one thing you think we could do to make it safer for creators to speak authentically about issues that matter to them?
Because the future of authentic content creation depends not just on the stuff we post, but on the systems we build to support the people creating it. And I want to make sure we're building ones that value human connection over sanitized brand safety.
If you made it this far, thanks for sticking with me through all my rambling. Subscribe if this resonated with you, and let me know your thoughts in the comments. I read every single one, even the ones that tell me I'm completely wrong about everything.
Until next time, later taters.
JoshB

Configure browser push notifications
Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.