> And they have to editorialize to survive I don't understand this part of your argument. Why do they need to editorialize to survive? They can make money off

> And they have to editorialize to survive I don't understand this part of your argument. Why do they need to editorialize to survive? They can make money off readers subscribing to authors. If someone doesn't want to read a certain author's content, they don't have to click it or subscribe to it. That's it. I'm not sure why the thinking these days is that some platform can't survive unless it editorializes. Amazon operated for years without censoring books for instance, rebuffing calls for censorship and committing to a free speech stance. Now they've changed direction (example 1 https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2021/02/when-amazon-erased-my-book https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2021/02/when-amaz... example 2 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/technology/amazon-hitler-mein-kampf.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/technology/amazon-hitler-...) and I am not sure why. They would have no impact to their bottom line if they just stuck to their neutral stance, and I imagine the same is true for Substack.