I mean, I'd quibble with the idea that Substack "champions" them. I did quit Twitter explicitly because Musk geared his platform to serve the worst people. I think that's a pretty important distinction: Is the platform trying to encourage and entice its worst users, or is it merely tolerating them?
I mean, I'd quibble with the idea that Substack "champions" them. I did quit Twitter explicitly because Musk geared his platform to serve the worst people. I think that's a pretty important distinction: Is the platform trying to encourage and entice its worst users, or is it merely tolerating them?
In a hypothetical where there are two identical Substacks, where one has Nazis and the other doesn't? Yeah, I'll go with the Nazi-free one.
And, yeah, I think a ban on Nazi symbols/icons/worship/etc is easy, clear, and doable. But considering we're talking about a small handful of publications, I'm not sure there needs to be mass action.
I think there is, however, a risk in trying to capture other, harder to define stuff. It becomes a constant game that requires more and more moderators, and leads to more and more wrong calls, and provokes more fracturing of the media/social media ecosystem. I think that's fine for a platform that's designed to be more apolitical, and for more social interactions (Instagram, e.g.) but I think it's ineffective and counter-productive on sites geared for news and politics.
But, also, reasonable people can disagree on this, I think.
I mean, I'd quibble with the idea that Substack "champions" them. I did quit Twitter explicitly because Musk geared his platform to serve the worst people. I think that's a pretty important distinction: Is the platform trying to encourage and entice its worst users, or is it merely tolerating them?
In a hypothetical where there are two identical Substacks, where one has Nazis and the other doesn't? Yeah, I'll go with the Nazi-free one.
And, yeah, I think a ban on Nazi symbols/icons/worship/etc is easy, clear, and doable. But considering we're talking about a small handful of publications, I'm not sure there needs to be mass action.
I think there is, however, a risk in trying to capture other, harder to define stuff. It becomes a constant game that requires more and more moderators, and leads to more and more wrong calls, and provokes more fracturing of the media/social media ecosystem. I think that's fine for a platform that's designed to be more apolitical, and for more social interactions (Instagram, e.g.) but I think it's ineffective and counter-productive on sites geared for news and politics.
But, also, reasonable people can disagree on this, I think.