• Fmstrat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Yes, and that’s exactly why the article is important. They can either hide behind a “we are just a vehicle for posters” or they can refuse to host the content. They are choosing the former.

      • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 hours ago

        Yes, and that’s exactly why the article is important.

        Explaining to us how subscriptions work like we’re idiots is important? Or was that common knowledge a revelation for you?

        • Artisian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          It does seem like the headline + mechanics are entirely uninteresting and unsurprising. I guess the ‘newsworthy’ thing here is that substack platforms the neo-natzis?

          It also platforms a bunch of ex-guardian journalists, who will say plenty about the harm being done by corporate buyouts and influence in traditional media. So I have a hard time taking this article, from this venue, very seriously.

          For example: fox news, every podcast service, the opinion pages (and some news sections) of most major newspapers, and (I assume) more have all been profiting off of amplifying fringe right-wing folks. Is substack substantially worse? Are they doing anything policy wise that we should advocate for? Regulators who aren’t doing something they should?