But shouldn't there be other points to be taken into consideration, such as how much of a percentage the site or app receives from the creator's earnings (I don't believe that these are really free posts, after all the author/developer makes money from this, but I don't know because I don't know them and I don't even have an account there.) and of course visibility is important, but I believe that rules that make your work difficult should also be taken into consideration.
Reach as in patreon is way more widely used by many more users. Its a lot more common for people to already have a patreon account or be famillar with the platform through their favorite content creators. In addition Subscribestar has had multiple smear campaigns against it because it doesn't ban certain content or creators. Subscribestar also has no paypal support while patreon does. These two last points can make the site seem sketchy to some users or outright make them refuse to use it.What does "reach" even mean for a site like patreon? It's not like people are going to patreon to search for people to back. Patreon itself has no presence or reach, it's just a site that people link to to get paid. The creator is what drives traffic to the pay site, not the other way around. It doesn't actually matter what site the creator is sending people to, it could be patreon, subscribestar, some completely new alternative, anyone who's willing to pay money to support the project is gonna do so regardless. I genuinely never understood why people had the perception that the specific site you used mattered from any sort of "brand recognition" standpoint, creators should NOT be giving patreon the kind of power they do by assuming people care (obviously if the contracts are better that's a different story, but if people are constantly getting kicked off anyways that's kind of a moot point).
I'm not saying patreon is a good platform I'm just stating why it is most likely easier to get followers to support you on one rather than the other.