> Anti-discrimination laws, human rights, and democracy are also historical aberrations. But I think they're kind of worth keeping around. Nazism was also a hi

> Anti-discrimination laws, human rights, and democracy are also historical aberrations. But I think they're kind of worth keeping around. Nazism was also a historical aberration, but that's certainly not worth keeping around. Just because some "good" things were historical aberrations, doesn't mean that all historical aberrations are "good". > Perhaps getting accurate facts about the world is also important? I don't think anybody disagrees with this. The central question is: is journalism the institution that should be responsible for getting accurate facts about the world? That's almost never been the case, and even today, isn't the case in most countries (including Western Europe). We typically use other institutions to suss out facts, including academia and peer-reviewed research. News articles published by mainstream outlets aren't peer-reviewed, and bias has existed in journalism since time immemorial. That was the point of my original response. Substack isn't "good" or "bad" for the future of journalism, it's "neutral", since it doesn't change the status quo all that much.