Not only is Substack right-wing broligarchy garbage, it's way more expensive than Ghost
-
The real problem is that there are crazy people who define anybody right of them as a Nazi.
But, we're not ready to have that conversation yet
Found the Nazi lol
-
A lot of us know by now that Substack has a Nazi problem. It not only profits from fascist voices, it actively promotes their work and recruits them. And it's funded by Silicon Valley anti-democracy billionaires like Marc Andreesen — the same type of people who are, right now, raiding the US government to basically cut funding for social services and scientific research, and to steal money for themselves.
Still, a lot of talented writers — including some that I subscribe to — publish on Substack. But others have moved to Ghost, an open source and non-shitty-tech-bro newsletter service. These include Casey Newton's publication Platformer, Molly White's newsletter Citation Needed, and plenty of others. From the beginning, 404 Media decided to publish on Ghost because, as I understand it, Substack sucks.
. . .
If you already have a Substack, Ghost has written documentation explaining how to migrate your subscribers (including paid ones) to a new Ghost newsletter. Since both Substack and Ghost use Stripe as a payment processor, your paid subscribers don't have to do anything to continue paying you.
It's hard to give up because some of the musicians I really like post there, and indie musicians are often struggling financially and Substack is simply a bigger platform.
-
Found the Nazi lol
A great example of what I'm talking about.
"Disagree? You're a Nazi"
You're cheapening the word and helping them become normalized.
-
I’ve seen people defend Substack saying it’s not so bad
Surely "there are not actually any Nazis on Substack" is a fair counterargument to "Substack has a Nazi problem and no one should listen to all of these good journalists who are on it now that even the tiny minority of Nazis have been ejected" is different from "not so bad."
, or the bad is a necessary evil to protect free speech.
Surely "there are excellent journalists saying excellent things on Substack, and no Nazis" is different from "necessary evil to protect free speech."
You're living in opposite world, man.
If you think my problem with Substack is "Nazis are there right now," then you didn't get it. I must've not explained myself well, and that's on me, but you're missing the point regardless.
Nazis are part of my explanation because it ought to be clear to any reasonable reader how they should be dealt with, but one can still be horrible without being an outright Nazi. Those people should be dealt with similarly. Substack will see something horrible and first ask, "but how would our handling of this affect free speech?" which is a disgrace and a red flag.
I'm commenting on a larger issue related to the topic. At no point do I say people shouldn't listen to good journalists because of their platform of choice. At no point do I claim there are Nazis there. To reiterate: bad is not specifically and exclusively Nazis.
Substack may not be Nazi-central, but it's surely a product of broligarchy.
You're answering something else, man.
-
If you think my problem with Substack is "Nazis are there right now," then you didn't get it. I must've not explained myself well, and that's on me, but you're missing the point regardless.
Nazis are part of my explanation because it ought to be clear to any reasonable reader how they should be dealt with, but one can still be horrible without being an outright Nazi. Those people should be dealt with similarly. Substack will see something horrible and first ask, "but how would our handling of this affect free speech?" which is a disgrace and a red flag.
I'm commenting on a larger issue related to the topic. At no point do I say people shouldn't listen to good journalists because of their platform of choice. At no point do I claim there are Nazis there. To reiterate: bad is not specifically and exclusively Nazis.
Substack may not be Nazi-central, but it's surely a product of broligarchy.
You're answering something else, man.
A lot of us know by now that Substack has a Nazi problem.
It is moral and correct to censor Nazis.
Nazis love that argument, and they’re a threat to much more than just free speech. They shouldn’t get to block attempts at censoring them, and they specially shouldn’t get support to do so, because they’re one of the reasons it’s necessary in the first place.
Got it.
If you think my problem with Substack is “Nazis are there right now,” then you didn’t get it.
At no point do I claim there are Nazis there. To reiterate: bad is not specifically and exclusively Nazis.
Got it.
Anyway, the core of my point is that anyone who's talking about this type of free speech argument on Substack, particular if it's specifically applied in the context of Nazis, is largely living in a fantasy-land.
You are commenting under an article that says "A lot of us know by now that Substack has a Nazi problem," and then saying that you're not talking about Nazis.
You are saying "the bad is a necessary evil to protect free speech," and not at all addressing the fact that the "bad" doesn't appear to exist on modern Substack. If you have seen it, where have you seen it?
Substack may not be Nazi-central, but it’s surely a product of broligarchy.
There's a lot of this type of innuendo in the OP article and in your response. I'm dealing only with your factual arguments, sort of leaving aside things like this "many innocent ideas turn out to be dog-whistles" "it’s always the same shit" and things. If you want me to try to mount some kind of counterargument for the broligarchy claim, I can I guess. How would you define the broligarchy?
If you're upset that I am mischaracterizing your argument as being about Nazis (because in some crazy fashion I got that idea), tell me what ideas you are in favor of removing from Substack. Where are they on Substack, right now?
I actually do agree with Substack's original moderation stance, precisely for reasons of free speech. We can talk about that if you want, although it's a more complex conversation and we probably won't come to agree on it. But that whole side of things is completely moot at this point, because they caved to the pressure and removed all the Nazis, quite a while ago.
So why are you still upset at them? Wasn't that the goal, to mount public pressure, and deplatform the Nazis?
Edit:
At no point do I say people shouldn’t listen to good journalists because of their platform of choice.
I should answer this, also. What are you saying the solution should be, if not to avoid Substack?
I don't agree with your characterization of the "problem" with Substack, in terms of there being Nazi-adjacent content they are not moderating. But if there does turn out to be that content, what should you and I be doing about it?
-
A lot of us know by now that Substack has a Nazi problem.
It is moral and correct to censor Nazis.
Nazis love that argument, and they’re a threat to much more than just free speech. They shouldn’t get to block attempts at censoring them, and they specially shouldn’t get support to do so, because they’re one of the reasons it’s necessary in the first place.
Got it.
If you think my problem with Substack is “Nazis are there right now,” then you didn’t get it.
At no point do I claim there are Nazis there. To reiterate: bad is not specifically and exclusively Nazis.
Got it.
Anyway, the core of my point is that anyone who's talking about this type of free speech argument on Substack, particular if it's specifically applied in the context of Nazis, is largely living in a fantasy-land.
You are commenting under an article that says "A lot of us know by now that Substack has a Nazi problem," and then saying that you're not talking about Nazis.
You are saying "the bad is a necessary evil to protect free speech," and not at all addressing the fact that the "bad" doesn't appear to exist on modern Substack. If you have seen it, where have you seen it?
Substack may not be Nazi-central, but it’s surely a product of broligarchy.
There's a lot of this type of innuendo in the OP article and in your response. I'm dealing only with your factual arguments, sort of leaving aside things like this "many innocent ideas turn out to be dog-whistles" "it’s always the same shit" and things. If you want me to try to mount some kind of counterargument for the broligarchy claim, I can I guess. How would you define the broligarchy?
If you're upset that I am mischaracterizing your argument as being about Nazis (because in some crazy fashion I got that idea), tell me what ideas you are in favor of removing from Substack. Where are they on Substack, right now?
I actually do agree with Substack's original moderation stance, precisely for reasons of free speech. We can talk about that if you want, although it's a more complex conversation and we probably won't come to agree on it. But that whole side of things is completely moot at this point, because they caved to the pressure and removed all the Nazis, quite a while ago.
So why are you still upset at them? Wasn't that the goal, to mount public pressure, and deplatform the Nazis?
Edit:
At no point do I say people shouldn’t listen to good journalists because of their platform of choice.
I should answer this, also. What are you saying the solution should be, if not to avoid Substack?
I don't agree with your characterization of the "problem" with Substack, in terms of there being Nazi-adjacent content they are not moderating. But if there does turn out to be that content, what should you and I be doing about it?
You are saying "the bad is a necessary evil to protect free speech," and not at all addressing the fact that the "bad" doesn't appear to exist on modern Substack. If you have seen it, where have you seen it?
I literally linked an example.
tell me what ideas you are in favor of removing from Substack. Where are they on Substack, right now?
Follow the links.
So why are you still upset at them?
Link.
I actually do agree with Substack's original moderation stance, precisely for reasons of free speech. We can talk about that if you want, although it's a more complex conversation and we probably won't come to agree on it.
I had a feeling, and maybe this reply isn't outright confirmation, but it's enough. I think you tunnel visioned so hard on defending poor Substack and free speech that you're not even properly reading what you're replying to. You're going up and down this thread, finger on the trigger, and the moment you see the word Nazi you just fire.
You're right, we probably wouldn't agree, and if my read on you is any good, I'd rather not risk wasting time on that conversion.
-
You are saying "the bad is a necessary evil to protect free speech," and not at all addressing the fact that the "bad" doesn't appear to exist on modern Substack. If you have seen it, where have you seen it?
I literally linked an example.
tell me what ideas you are in favor of removing from Substack. Where are they on Substack, right now?
Follow the links.
So why are you still upset at them?
Link.
I actually do agree with Substack's original moderation stance, precisely for reasons of free speech. We can talk about that if you want, although it's a more complex conversation and we probably won't come to agree on it.
I had a feeling, and maybe this reply isn't outright confirmation, but it's enough. I think you tunnel visioned so hard on defending poor Substack and free speech that you're not even properly reading what you're replying to. You're going up and down this thread, finger on the trigger, and the moment you see the word Nazi you just fire.
You're right, we probably wouldn't agree, and if my read on you is any good, I'd rather not risk wasting time on that conversion.
You are saying “the bad is a necessary evil to protect free speech,” and not at all addressing the fact that the “bad” doesn’t appear to exist on modern Substack. If you have seen it, where have you seen it?
I literally linked an example.
Okay, so you're in favor of removing any content which is dishonest and anti-gay from Substack. Fair enough, I get it.
I actually do agree with Substack’s original moderation stance, precisely for reasons of free speech. We can talk about that if you want, although it’s a more complex conversation and we probably won’t come to agree on it.
I had a feeling, and maybe this reply isn’t outright confirmation, but it’s enough. I think you tunnel visioned so hard on defending poor Substack and free speech that you’re not even properly reading what you’re replying to. You’re going up and down this thread, finger on the trigger, and the moment you see the word Nazi you just fire.
You’re right, we probably wouldn’t agree, and if my read on you is any good, I’d rather not waste time on that conversion.
Sounds good. What do you think should be done about Substack's hosting of anti-gay content? Do you think it should impact me posting Tim Snyder articles from Substack? Do you think it's accurate to summarize it as "Nazi" content?
-
I wonder who would be interested in ginning up big bad-faith hit jobs against good news outlets
The author of the article. It doesn't take long to uncover their politics and they are absolutely not involved in any right wing conspiracy.
There's nothing really wrong with substack. People just like to shit on anything that doesn't pass whatever purity test they happen to use.
There's nothing really wrong with substack. People just like to shit on anything that doesn't pass whatever purity test they happen to use.
This is big problem in left-wing communities. They just can't get along and demand purity in anything they do - except themselves. Left wingers will happily and harshly defend their use of whatever capitalist product they themselves use with a bunch of excuses that fan make your head spin. Apple users a great example thereof. They will disparage so many other products and companies but somehow Apple is their baby and immune to criticism.
-
System shared this topic on
