I understand but lament the choice so many thoughtful people have made to publish their newsletters on the odious Substack. Surely they recognize that they are, at least indirectly, helping some of the worst people in the world spread and monetize malignant views.
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:vaba7tf7ylt2kaavf4t2kotp/post/3mjfo4h6u7s2f
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?
I keep hearing people say this. Possibly it's true. But why do I keep hearing these assertions without backup? Like, you could have said "look here at what they are doing." But you didn't. Why didn't you?
If they are indeed promoting nazis, how are they doing that? Do you mean because they have a best seller chart and Tate is on top? Or something else? If it's something else, please point me to a clear analysis of this—I haven't been able to find one.
Dan Gillmor
Ted Lemon
Steven Op de beeck