@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

I realize you are "just asking questions" but if Comcast was paying Tate to spread his poison with the money I sent them for their services, then yes, I would support dropping Comcast.

But it is well past reductio ad absurdum to claim that I should boycott anything that Tate favours.

Substack is using the fees paid to them to literally pay Nazis for Nazi content.

@RaePatterson @dangillmor

Okay, that is literally my question. I do not see evidence of this. I'm not saying it's not happening. But you seem to know that it is happening. That means you've seen evidence. Please share a link.

I follow several people on substack and pay for their newsletters. As far as I know I'm paying for _them_. If that's not the case I'd like to know.

@abhayakara @dangillmor

I don't think there's any evidence that Substack is paying kickbacks to Tate and his ilk, not that I've seen anyway, but they are definitely enabling him for profit, likely more than they are profiting from the writers you are reading.

I do boycott Amazon and Nestle and Florida orange juice (still), because I do not want my money to go toward supporting them no matter the quality of their products.

Of course everyone draws that line in a different place.