Dan GillmorApr 14

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

Show threadTed LemonApr 14

@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?

Show threadliquidlampApr 14

@abhayakara @dangillmor If Comcast promoted their service by paying Andrew Tate to list him as a "prominent user" I think it would make sense to try to move off of them, yes.

Comcast is a poor analogy though, as its often the single provider for a core service in an area. This is more like if CBS news hired Tate as a show host. Would you still watch CBS, or opt to find your news elsewhere?

Show threadTed LemonApr 15

@liquidlamp @dangillmor

Are they doing that? Can you point me at the evidence? This is what I'm asking for. I think that just saying they platform bad people is bad communication. The picture is not them platforming anyone. It's someone we don't like landing on the bestseller list. Would we castigate the NYT for reporting that his book sold well?

If they are in fact incentivizing him in some way, can you please point me at the evidence of that?

Show threadliquidlamp
@abhayakara @dangillmor promotion is incentivising someone, because it generates money for them. Both Substacks and NYT best seller lists are marketing. The latter isn't some neutral statement on book sales, its a list that NYT currates with specific and secret criteria. The fact that you think it's neutral is part of that marketing.
Apr 15 at 3:45pmWeb
Show threadTed LemonApr 15

@liquidlamp @dangillmor

I didn't say that it was neutral. But this is all inside baseball, not useful analysis.

E.g., I am pretty disgusted with HarperCollins for publishing Vance's latest, and my respect for them has gone from high (possibly naively) to in the toilet. But if I have a book to publish, and they'll publish it, do you think I should say no because of this?

I think that's the analogy, and I would be surprised to find a serious writer who would refuse a contract with them.