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'm asking specifically what they are doing to platform assholes. Every so often I go look to try to figure out if they are actually doing anything other than not censoring them, and I have yet to succeed in finding out what they are doing other than that.
This is literally all I am asking. If they are supporting them, that's bad, and a reason to not use their service. If they are just not censoring them, I don't love that, but I don't take it the same way.
Dan Gillmor
Ted Lemon
Molly in Missouri