@dangillmor

I guess this is the Nazi bar analogy, and I sort of get that. But I have a few questions.

First, and I know this is a bit reductio ad absurdum, but bear with me, should we boycott comcast because they let Andrew Tate use their wires? If not, where is the dividing line?

Second, I guess the argument here is that they are platforming an asshole, and using their non-asshole bloggers as leverage. Why doesn't this work in both directions? Can't I plunder Andrew Tate's followers?

@abhayakara @dangillmor

It is both reductionist and a category error.

Comcast functions at a utility level, giving bad people access to things, but does not give the masses access to them. If Comcast were to shut off access, bad people could make do with a free library connection.

Substack is promoting Andrew Tate, suggesting that people who already read email newsletters should also read his. This platforming extends his reach, and serves as an endorsement, lending credibility to him.

If substack is inviting him up onto stage to speak to the assembled crowd, then Comcast is the bouncer who lets him in to the crowd. Most ideally, he wouldn’t be a bad man. Beyond that, sure, he should be kept away from other people even in a crowd. But inviting him up onto stage to speak is a different category, and that’s where many many people draw the line and react.