Overview
Post News tried to join two businesses: a social network for civil discussion and a marketplace for individual news articles. Launched in 2022 by former Waze CEO Noam Bardin, it attracted investor backing and a large waiting list. Readers could support writers through tips and pay to read publisher articles.[1][2]
Bardin announced a shutdown in April 2024 because consumer adoption was too slow. The useful distinction is between proving that some readers will pay and building a network large enough to support the platform. Post's evidence supported the former more clearly than the latter.[3]
Image 1 / 1
Founding Story
Bardin brought experience running a consumer service at Waze and inside Google. Post emerged publicly during the upheaval following Elon Musk's Twitter purchase. The timing provided attention, but Bardin's stated interest extended beyond replacing Twitter. In a July 2023 Under the Radar interview, he said, “There will never be another Twitter.” He identified “compensation is one big problem” when explaining his interest in news and creators.[4]
Noel Baron co-founded Post with Bardin.[5] The reviewed evidence does not establish how they first met or the exact legal incorporation date. A 2022 founding year describes this venture, rather than Waze or another publication with Post in its name.
The initial backers included Andreessen Horowitz and Scott Galloway; Kara Swisher advised the company. Their participation gave the launch visibility. The reviewed sources do not disclose a reliable funding total, valuation, or ownership allocation, so none is inferred.[6]
Timeline
- November 2022: Post's closed beta attracted a reported 335,000-person waiting list, with about 65,000 approved users.[1]
- April 2023: Post announced its public beta.[5]
- November 2023: Bardin described roughly 500,000 users, about 100 publishers supplying content, and a business that was still unprofitable.[2]
- April 19, 2024: Bardin announced that Post would close in the following weeks. CTech reproduced the statement the next day.[3][7]
What They Built
Post combined a feed, conversation, and payments. Readers could tip participants or buy individual articles. Publishers set prices, with purchased content readable inside the application.[2]
At launch, Post used points for purchases and gave users a small starting balance. Nieman Lab observed Reuters content available through that system while the same stories remained free on Reuters' website. The comparison exposed a difficult pricing question. A cleaner reading experience had to be valuable enough to justify a separate payment and a new routine.[6]
Moderation was another part of the product. Bardin described removing harassment and personal attacks while allowing disagreement about ideas. This required people, tools, and continuing operational judgment. His July interview acknowledged abusive behavior on Post; the company described continuing removal efforts.[4]
Market Position
Target Customers
Post addressed readers frustrated by multiple subscriptions and people seeking news discussion outside established social networks. Publishers were a second customer group, supplying content in exchange for another route to readers and revenue. The service therefore needed enough of both groups in the same place.
Market Size
Waiting lists, admitted accounts, frequent use, and purchases measure different behavior. The November 2023 user figure described an earlier count, without a monthly-active-user definition. Publisher participation did not establish publisher revenue.[1][2]
Competition
The feed competed with existing social habits, while paid articles competed with free links and publication subscriptions. These are different obstacles. Better discussion could attract users who never purchased an article; useful paid journalism could still fail to persuade readers to move their social activity.
Nieman Lab also found placeholder publisher profiles created to encourage organizations to join. Those profiles should not be counted as signed publishing partnerships. The distinction matters because recognizable brands can make a marketplace appear more complete than its available inventory.[6]
Business Model
Post sought to connect reading and payments within the same feed. Tips and article purchases represented different transactions: appreciation for a participant versus payment for access. Neither automatically produced enough money to operate the platform.
In November 2023, Bardin described attractive transaction economics but an unprofitable company needing more scale. Purchases can contribute money without covering total operating costs. No audited margins, payment volume, retention, or acquisition costs were disclosed to quantify that gap.[2]
The launch also faced a sequencing problem. Publisher supply made a new reader account useful, while a useful reader base made publisher integration worthwhile. Opening a social network and a paid-content marketplace together increased the amount of adoption needed before either side became dependable. That is an interpretation of the product design, rather than a disclosed internal diagnosis.
Outcome and evolution
Bardin's April announcement credited the community, publisher engagement, micropayments, and tipping. He nevertheless said growth was insufficient to create a sustainable business. His positive account of reader willingness to pay was a founder assessment, not published proof that the marketplace had reached durable economics.[3]
The strongest counterargument is that a promising service needed more time. The public evidence cannot show whether another year of funding would have changed adoption. It also cannot establish that micropayments fail in every setting. Post's narrower result is that this combination of a new feed, paid articles, and moderated discussion did not grow enough for its founders to continue.
The verified milestone is the April 2024 wind-down announcement. This review did not establish an exact final server date, legal dissolution, buyer, or continuing successor service. A failed retrieval of the historical domain in October 2026 does not settle those questions.
Key Lessons
- Separate interest, activity, and payment. A waiting list cannot measure a recurring reading business.
- A better transaction needs distribution. Reducing subscription friction does not create a daily audience by itself.
- Include moderation in the operating model. Civility requires continuing work after launch.
- Count contracted supply accurately. Placeholder profiles and publishing partners are different assets.