I suppose there is someone out there who actually browses the Substack front page, but this is very far from being the dominant mode for substack content.

I wasn't even aware there was such a thing, all substack content I consume I found organically. I'm sure it's much the same for the majority of their readers.

I don't think we should be too harsh about that sort of thing. It's hard for people to learn how to have deep insights or how to communicate them if we are hyper critical of everything that isn't a perfectly formed nugget of transcendental genius. People need a bit of license to be over-excited about their own insights or over-optimistic or slightly prententious as they work out their voice. Sure, it's annoying, and taken too far it can be very unpleasant, but it's also probably a necessary part of learning to do and share anything creative.

What do you think the linked “I don’t like Medium” blog post is?

(I am the author of the blogpost.)

And I suspect the format of the platform encouraged that. Who is most likely to post on a platform where selling your writing for money was your foremost concern? Who would post their work on a platform where you have to sign in to view most articles?

Usually people who want to 'build a brand', or start a career in blogging/public speaking/whatever. The folks who just want to share their knowledge will pick a far less annoying service.

I am wondering what other “medium” is worth paying attention to? Do twitter threads have the same issue? One difference might be that you could post wrong stuff on medium with impunity, but on twitter there is a sort of implicit crowd sourced review so you have to be thoughtful.