Banning meta stories would be the fourth major misstep if they go through with it. I outlined the third one earlier today.
In 2023, when we joined the Boost Program, we deliberately excluded Medium meta articles from Illumination and Illumination-Curated. However, the program failed to deliver. Only about 1% of Medium’s favored writers benefited, while the remaining 99% saw no impact.
In my view, this is not just about saving money—it is about censorship. Authentic writers highlight blind spots and speak uncomfortable truths, and suppressing these voices appears to be a deliberate move.
Medium already does not distribute meta stories; most are found through publications or direct links. I do not regularly write about Medium. In fact, until June 2024, I had not written about it at all—until I was cloned countless times. That forced me to speak up and inform the writing community.
I also wrote several submission guidelines for my publications, yet they barely received a handful of views. Ironically, I had to use Substack and my own website to share submission guidelines and editor bulletins to help writers contribute to Medium publications.
Subtle censorship is already happening. But outright banning meta stories would be the final straw.
As you pointed out, proper distribution leads to reasonable readership. Yesterday, I reviewed the stats of a publication. Out of 300 stories, only one received around 3,000 views, while the other 299 had fewer than 10. This dichotomy is disturbing and unfair. Many of the undistributed stories were objectively stronger than the one that was promoted.
This exposes a deeply flawed distribution system. Until Medium addresses this core issue, any patchwork solution will only make matters worse.
Thanks for writing this valuable piece, Susie. I like your journalistic style and informative content. You inspired me to turn this into a community bulletin as John Pearce did earlier today.
