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

@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?

@dangillmor

A related question is, given that substack actually appears to work better than its competitors, how much does it cost us to not use it, both in terms of ease of use and in terms of reach.

And how much does it cost us to use it, in terms of the damage that their asshole users cause?

Suppose the answer is that the cost of not using it outweighs the cost of using it. Should we still not use it? If so, why?

@dangillmor

I ask these questions because I know how easy it is to use substack, and also how easy it is to use alternatives like Ghost. I'm actually trying to decide what to do about this—this isn't an idle set of questions.

Right now, it feels a lot like not using substack is similar to not flying to conferences. Airlines are actively harmful in the world, but we don't really have a viable alternative. Should we silence ourselves by not flying?

@dangillmor

A lot of people I admire, e.g. Amanda Litman, Anand Ghiridaradas and Waleed Shahid, use substack. Why are you right and they are wrong?

@abhayakara I always just do the best I can, it's impossible to boycott or move on from everything with shitty people on them or running them.

I don't use any Meta products for example to the point I have a pihole to try and fully block their tracking.  I still use Google though they've proven time and time again to do shitty things.  I have moved from Chrome and experiment with other search engines, but still heavily use their office suite and Gmail.

We quit Target but still use Walmart who is just as bad but the devil you know I guess.

All that to say, for me when a company hits a breaking point where I no longer feel comfortable, that's when I leave. 

It's an imperfect world and we're humans, don't beat yourself up to much about this stuff.

@TheStoneDonkey

The only quibble I would make with this is that if you are doing what makes sense, you shouldn't beat yourself up about it.

I've been a U.S. citizen my whole life, and my country has engaged in many wars I find reprehensible.

Should I have renounced my citizenship? No. It's my country, no more or less than theirs.

Is there no alternative to Walmart? The alternative they closed for me was mine. I want it back, but meanwhile I have to live. It's not wrong to choose to live.

@abhayakara @TheStoneDonkey
Boycotting a company is called "voting with your wallet".

Because it's the option that comes closest to what you should do as a citizen - not renounce your citizenship, but vote.

@leeloo @TheStoneDonkey

If we are voting against assholes with our wallet, then we have to stop driving (which I've pretty much done, but that was hard, and not everyone can do it).

The thing about voting with your wallet is that unless you are a billionaire, you don't have equal levarage, because the billionaires can just outbid you.

So TBH I do not take voting with my wallet very seriously as a way of changing the world. I do it when I can, but it's not a hill to die on.