the attention economy's role in the 'Substack-if-ication' of the internet
what a potential TikTok ban and Zuck's changes at Meta mean in the information age
in the spirit of wanting to make this essay more widely available, today’s post is free!
let’s get something out of the way…I’m chronically online.
and I would never, ever—under any circumstance—show you my screen time. it’s not that I feel bad about how much time I spend scrolling and consuming content, but you probably would. and admittedly, up until today, a fair bit of those scrolling hours were spent on TikTok.
when I got home from being out last night (nothing like disassociating from reality by being in a New York City basement bar with your girlfriends that’s burning palo santo for an energetic reset!!!), we’d officially crossed into January 19th—the day the TikTok ban was supposed to go into effect. when I opened up TT to see that my scroll had officially stopped working and got the below popup message, I knew we were due for a different kind of sunday series today. which is how we got here—to an essay that veers from my usual format here on Substack but feels pressing to work through this very strange cultural moment.
the tentative nature of the TikTok ban, combined with Zuckerberg’s announcement that Meta is rolling back its fact-checking program on the heels of Trump being sworn [back] into office tomorrow, calls for us to pause and think about what this all means for media and how we’ll be consuming content from the publications, brands, and creators who fuel the attention economy. it’s worth noting that in the time between drafting this and proofreading, my TikTok app is working again, which is further evidence of the shaky ground the ban stands on. and with that in mind, let’s get into it…
the attention economy is defined as “the idea that human attention is a limited resource that can be captured and sold. it's a way of describing how people manage information overload in a world where content is abundant, but attention is scarce.”
and no matter where you live or what line of work you find yourself in, where the general population’s attention lies is relevant. just ask Donald J. Trump—in part due to his adept understanding of how to win attention from the American public (for better or worse, depending on who you ask), he was able to win another presidential election even with so many of the headlines about him being overwhelmingly negative.
which brings me to one of the most interesting conversations I’ve listened to in weeks: New York Times columnist Ezra Klein sat down with MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes to discuss why attention has become more valuable than money in politics. I found their chat riveting and am sharing a gifted New York Times link that includes the video and transcript of their conversation below, in addition to including a podcast format if you prefer to listen on the go!
Democrats Are Losing the War for Attention. Badly.
I couldn’t recommend making the time to listen to this entire chat more, but in case you prefer the cliff notes version, this exchange was one of the most powerful moments that gets to the crux of the conversation…
Ezra Klein: I think there’s another distinction between Democrats and Republicans here. Which is that I think Democrats still believe that the type of attention you get is the most important thing.
If your choice is between a lot of negative attention and no attention, go for no attention. And at least the Trump side of the Republican Party believes that the volume, the sum total of attention, is the most important thing. And a lot of negative attention: not only fine — maybe great, right? Because there’s so much attentional energy and conflict.
Kamala Harris and Tim Walz and before them, Joe Biden — before the changeover, they were just terrified of an interview going badly. And Trump and Vance — they were all over the place, including in places very hostile to them.
Chris Hayes: Vance had a ton of interviews that went badly.
Ezra Klein: But they were everywhere. Because they cared about the volume of attention and were completely fine with the energy that negative attention could unlock.
I found this slight oversimplification of attention helpful in my continued pursuit to understand how we got here—to another Trump presidency. Klein and Hayes went on to talk about the two parties’ differing approaches to “making news.” at one point, they say, “And the goal of a lot of Democrats in their communication is to ‘not make news.’ And Donald Trump’s goal is always to ‘make news.’”
where does that leave us in a time when attention is malleable and the platforms on which public figures can capitalize on attention equally so?
it depends on who you ask. the growing MAGA-fication of Silicon Valley is not to be overlooked in its role in how we consume information and communicate online. in recent days, I’ve listened to two really fascinating conversations (embedded below) that explain how we got to a place where Meta is pulling back on fact-checking in a very clear move to align with the incoming administration. these changes are evidence of what feels like the cultural tipping point that the election represented as big tech tries to get in good with regulators and push back on regulations that they think will hinder their growth.
full transparency, this was my first time EVER listening to Rogan…unless you’re new around here, you know that’s not really the side of the internet I typically find myself on. and after nearly three full hours of hearing Zuckerberg be pushed and prodded by Rogan to sound as conservative as possible, I was left unsurprised that the sizzler clips you saw circulating your feeds about how “the corporate world is pretty culturally neutered” were indeed a part of their chat, but felt very far from the actual heart of the conversation.
the two men spent an exorbitant amount of time talking about jiu-jitsu, their mutual adoration of Dana White (CEO of UFC, Trump supporter, and one of the newest members of the Meta board), and, oddly enough…hunting?? all of that macho energy aside, what I took away from their chat—aside from the fact that the only thing the three of us have in common is that we’ve all torn our ACLs—was that we’re in a place where fact-checking is being rolled back because the Biden administration created an adversarial relationship with Meta as they strongarmed (according to Zuck) Meta to control the narrative on vaccination in the wake of COVID.
Zuckerberg didn’t hold back from expressing his vehement frustration over how he feels he’s been treated unfairly by the media and politicians. to me, it’s clear that the pendulum is swinging in the other direction as we’re ushered into this Trump presidency while Meta plays to what they hope will be more sympathetic ears in a conservative White House and Congress. but it’s not just Meta. if you’re flagging tech billionaire Marc Andereeseen’s evolution from being a top-tier democratic donor to a Trump adviser, one can surmise that this trend will be prevalent across AI and other technologies being developed out of Silicon Valley for the next four years.
okay, but what now?
that context for the current temperature on the attention economy, changes at Meta, the evolution of what campaigns tech companies are backing, and an uncertain future for TikTok all feel relevant to me as we look to what happens next.
I named this edition of the Sunday series the “the Substack-if-ication of the internet” not only because of Substack’s overt aim at bringing TikTokers to the platform but because I think Substack has done something few other platforms have managed to by letting creators have more ownership of their data.
Substack CEO shared, “We want to help creators save their audiences, and build a sustainable livelihood of subscribers, before they lose what they've built.” Substack announced the access of live video features for all publishers, showing that even if video isn’t the primary usage of the platform right now, they’re aiming to afford creators the chance to transition to using it. ’s ever timely dedicated a recent newsletter to what Substack aims to do for creators. I’d highly recommend giving it a read!
in sum, if I wanted to get off Substack today, I could download my email list and move it to another platform. but that’s not the case if I had a massive TikTok or Instagram following. none of us ‘own’ user data on these platforms, and the ban—even if it does get fully reversed—is a reminder of that.
my prediction is that we’re going to see a lot of creators scramble in the coming weeks and months to restore control over how they share their content. they’ll ask you to Subscribe to their YouTube, many more will launch Substacks, and yes, an increased number of podcasts will be coming to a Spotify scroll near you.
no one knows what’s next, but if you’re paying attention, I think the answer is an even greater shift to long-form content, more language around ‘subscribe’ versus ‘follow,’ increased paywalls to protect creators’ time, and people bringing online communities offline whenever possible.
I feel lucky to have you in my corner as we navigate what’s next. I’m actually flying out on a work trip in an hour and not back until about midnight next Sunday, so you can expect to have me back in your inbox on February 2nd, which just so happens to be Groundhog Day…
would love to hear from you in the comments about how you’re feeling with all of the cultural tipping point we find ourselves in. thanks again, friends! xKD
looking forward to future sunday series editions? upgrade today! paid subscribers unlock an exclusive section of paywalled content in each send, access to the full archives (including Your Ulimate Paris Guide, 100 Hotels I’m Dying to Check Into, My Holy Grail Rules for an Overnight Flight, and 31 Ideas for Your Next Birthday Trip), the commenting feature on each post, and more. plus, your support directly helps ensure this newsletter can continue to grow! subscriptions are $8/month or less than $7/month if paid annually—also known as less than one fancy Starb*cks order. but don’t let me be the one to tell you why you should upgrade! I’ll leave that to a fellow reader…
"I decided to become a paid subscriber because I appreciate how much info you still give to free subscribers *before* they get to the paywalled part of your email. Counter-intuitive? Maybe! So often a writer turns on paid subs and EVERYTHING is behind the paywall. That's how I thought yours would be too, but I've been pleasantly surprised. It made me make the jump to converting to paid!" – Alison Z., paid sunday series subscriber
brilliant 🫶🏻