Substack's VP of Communications took issue with the article, and responded with a Twitter thread, started off with this Tweet:
Today the NYTimes wrote an article about Substack. While it's a compliment to remain top of mind for the paper of record, the piece contains a lot of hearsay, cherrypicking, and personal opinion presented as fact.
Here, I offer an alternate framing and excavate the buried lede:
And for the complete Twitter thread, unrolled: