Own your domain: why Substack shouldn't be a writer's digital home

Independent writer Elizabeth Tai argues that Substack is a distribution channel, not a home. Treating a subdomain like xx.substack.com as your primary web presence makes you a tenant on land you don’t control — subject to rule changes, algorithmic biases, and corporate decisions made to satisfy investors. She traces the pattern across Facebook, Tumblr, Medium, and now Substack: each platform promises audience and easy monetization, then eventually shifts its terms. Buying a domain and pointing it at Substack is better than nothing, but the platform remains a weak CMS with limited SEO and customization control that could change without warning.

Her recommended fix is the IndieWeb POSSE model — Publish on your Own Site, Syndicate Elsewhere — where an owned domain is the canonical source of truth and platforms like Substack, X, or Bluesky are just pipes that funnel readers back home. She points to novelist John Scalzi, who has run a single independent blog for 28 years and treats social channels purely as amplification, as proof the approach endures where platforms don’t. Tai also flags that algorithmic feeds tend to favor US-centric, western narratives, making it harder for localized or minority voices to be seen unless they conform to platform norms.

The piece is less a security story than a digital-sovereignty and resilience argument: the antidote to platform churn isn’t chasing the next app but anchoring your work on infrastructure you own, with open distribution like RSS. When a platform collapses or turns hostile, only your syndication strategy needs to change — your home stays put.