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