What’s with the hostility towards personal publishing?

CJ Chilvers wrote a good reminder about personal publishing on the Open Web in a world of AI writers.

Imagine if Stephen King decided to title his website, newsletter, podcast, and YouTube channel, “IT.” Then, imagine he tried to sell the rest of his books and movies through that brand, rather than his name.

That’s what we’re doing as creators online. That’s what content platforms are engineered for by default. It’s short-sighted.

The personal website and the personal newsletter have always been more interesting to me. They’re also more trustworthy over time. I see personal publishing as only increasing in value to the consumer the further we get into the AI era.

You should probably establish that connection with an audience now, under your name. Soon, it may be impossible to tell if the person behind your favorite content is a person at all. That’s when what’s cheap and easy about establishing trust now becomes expensive and difficult through in-person publishing (speaking and performing may take off again).

We all know personal publishing is swimming against the current. But it always has. Our strength is in our flexibility and authenticity. I don’t see that changing. This post remains under my name.

CJ Chilvers

I don’t think he’s completely right here. Plenty of authors, speakers, and creatives have created “brands” around their name that they license out to ghostwriters. And their audience is fine with it. It’s as old as art itself.

But not everyone does.

I don’t think either route is “better” or “worse” – they are different approaches that seem to be the same…but are different. It’s the same difference as your Mom’s cooking vs. a restaurant. They are both food. They are both great. But they both have different meanings.

The main difference between AI ghostwriters and ghostwriters is cost and speed. And since it’s so cheap and fast, more creators may accidentally go one route. The goal should be active, informed choice.