Et Tu, Lector?

A Ides of March appeal: help push AQL into the algorithm’s top tier

And now for something completely direct: This is a drive to increase the number of paid subscribers to AQL. Not mainly for revenue, but mainly for ranking, which truly matters on this platform.

Right now AQL sits in the global top 20s of Substack’s international category, after peaking several months ago at #17. That is quite strong, but there is an important threshold just above us: Once a publication breaks into the top 10, Substack’s algorithm begins recommending it far more aggressively. That recommendation loop drives an entirely new phase of growth. And what moves that needle most? Paid subscribers.

Paid subscribers are the primary driver of the rankings. It’s basically the only way. This is why you sometimes see publications ranked above us with fewer total readers than our roughly 6,000 free subscribers. The audience is clearly there. AQL now generates well over 100,000 page views a month, and the readership continues to grow. But the algorithm rewards publications where a larger share of readers become paying supporters. When that happens, everything else accelerates as well. So with the Ides of March approaching, we are doing something simple. For this week, up through the ominous date, fateful in legend and letters as it is, we are offering a massive discount.

By the way, if you’re already a paid subscriber and would like to take advantage of the discount, feel free to unsubscribe and then resubscribe at the lower rate. We truly don’t mind. This drive is about increasing the number of paid supporters attached to the publication. If that goes up, revenue aside, the algorithm notices.

And if you have been reading AQL for a while without subscribing, this would be a particularly helpful moment to do so.

We care deeply about the community that has grown here. Before starting AQL I spent long years at The Associated Press, including serving as the news agency’s regional editor driving coverage of many regions around the world: Europe, Africa, the Middle East and the Caribbean (with parts of south and central America). I’m proud of some extraordinary journalism that I was part of, with a tremendous institution. But like most large news organizations, it came with limits. At a wire service you report what happens, and I did what I could to amplify the increasingly critical connect-the-dots function – but you rarely get to connect the dots in ways that might offend someone.

Independent publishing is different. Here we try to say what we think is actually going on. Sometimes that means challenging conventional wisdom. Sometimes it means irritating people. We can have a political debate. But that is part of the point of a space like this: open argument, open commentary, and readers who push back. The comments, the messages, the kibitzing, the suggestions — they are a joy, and much of what makes this worthwhile. The goal is not simply to publish content but to build a conversation that cuts through the noise of mainstream media and social media alike.

In the past week alone, that conversation has focused heavily on the Iran war and its wider implications. We have explored how the conflict is reshaping regional alignments, what are the true reasons and possible justifications, what stretgies are developing below the radar, what it means for smaller states caught between major powers, and how narratives about the war differ depending on where you are in the world. Some ofthe content has been behind the paywall and some has not, but all of it automatically is paywalled after two weeks.

We have explored the fundamental paradox at hand: the iranian regime is a totally illegitimate criminal operation detested by its victims, the majority of the Iranian people. Yet the protagonists behind the attack are two of the most flawed players in the democratic world — Trump and Netanyahu — whose web of interests and very limited credibility (to be charitable) are not helping the operation’s legitimacy and populatity in the United States itself. We’ll examine this tomorrow.

One of the striking things about covering this moment has been seeing how the same events are interpreted across different media ecosystems. I have discussed the war on NewsNation, Newsmax, MS Now, Al Jazeera, and outlets in Israel, india and even Romania. Some of the videos have been included in the stories.

Claire Berlinski and I have discussed the war in our Critical Conditions podcast, which normally publishes on Mondays and Thursdays. I also appeared on Marc Schulman’s Tel Aviv Diary as a guest.

Each audience asks slightly different questions. Each reflects a different geopolitical vantage point. Those differences are fascinating—and they are exactly the kind of thing we try to bring back into AQL’s analysis.

My view is to be somewhat careful of the Big Story Paradigm, though. There’s always room for other content, and many reades will overdose on the one massive story. So even this week we offered an update on the latest wrinkle in the march of AI — synthetic audiences and focus groups. Indeed, for an overview of the breadth of our report, with content by me and our excellent partners and contributors, see out roundups from January and February.

The ambition is to build a serious, global-minded publication that combines reporting experience with independent analysis, and that grows because readers believe it is worth supporting. If you have already been part of this community, thank you. If you have been meaning to become a paid subscriber, this week’s Ides of March discount is the moment.

And if you are one of the thousands reading for free, we hope you will consider stepping across that line.

After all, when we ask Et tu, lector – the answer is that it’s basically Solus tu, lector.

It is all up to the reader.