Does Stoop Inbox help or exploit newsletters?

I think there is too much controlling emotion with this,
Like do you want to limit your used if they use a web based email, a tablet or a phone, or what browser they use?...
The user decided he wants to use this 3rd party.
Does this 3rd party actually damage your content? if you were to put a paid endorsement would he still see it? if your promoting other things with links would that break? Do they remove / rewrite your branding/ownership in a way your are no longer the owner of the content?
So like end affect, is there any for you at the moment besides losing reading count on that separate platform? (do they make that available for you to consume?)

They as a middle man also have a balance to strike, if they want to punish publishers (like charging), they would also affect the readers, so they can't just do whatever, they have to find a balance.
What will probably happen is they will over time gather marketing strength and be able to sell more views/attention.
But as for them just being a firewall and de-listing you unless you pay, is not helping their users.
And if you weren't there in the 1st place or later on, is the same for the user, either he cares about your content or he doesn't... it's not like he doesn't have tons of options today..
I think it's better to be in the know than forcefully object change. If the platform gains traction for your users, lets say it becomes 10% of your crowd learn to optimise for it, otherwise ignore it. You might for example go to an extent of putting a different version for them that has more marketing back to your main platforms and/or reduced content...

Thanks all for the feedback.

To summarize my thoughts, aggregators.

The bottom line, as @anilkilic noted, is newsletter aggreagators like Stoop Inbox are here to stay and there's not much we can do anyway. I grudgingly tolerate them. And besides, newsletters are already a casualty of the filtering traditional email clients like Gmail do, for example for sorting messages into different mailboxes, detecting spam, or preventing malware.

@pauldmet made a good point about unsubscribing a Stoop Inbox user being rude. Therefore, I've re-subscribed that user and they won't miss any issues or have other service disruptions.

In a way, as far as publisher control is concerned, having users who read a newsletter via Stoop Inbox is not much different from having them read it by visiting the archive website without subscribing.

Still, the erosion of publisher control is concerning, especially for channels regarded as the safest from algorithmic filtering such as email.

If the fraction of my subscribers using aggregators grows to 10-20%, I'll consider blocking them.

And to add - I’d be pretty hacked off as a subscriber if you unsubbed me because you didn’t like the email address I used.

Newsletter reading apps exploit the direct relationship. But it makes easy for readers to read newsletters while keeping their inbox clean.

This comfort will definitely increase their user base but publisher have to pay its price in 2 ways.

1. Less revenue as sponsorships prices are based on number of subscribers.
2. Losing direct relationship

I had the same concerns a while ago. I unsubscribed people too 😂
But then I realized it’s just an email address used exclusively for newsletters, and probably those subscribers really care about their reading experience, so now I’m fine with them.

I use Stoop for a lot of my subscriptions. Keeps them out of my inbox and somewhere I can dip in and out without stressing about the unread count going up on my mail app.

I can use the Stoop email address on any sign up form. It’s just an email address. The newsletter doesn’t have to be part of their “catalog”. In fact their email discovery aspect isn’t that good - it’s just the usual big newsletters listed there.

Could Stoop change the newsletter / subscriber relationship? Sure. So can gmail (and it does). But the user can also abandon the app and sign up with another email address.