3 ms·

The whole point of a free speech oriented platform is that you don’t make exceptions for controversial issues. If you do it for one thing, then you do it for an

The whole point of a free speech oriented platform is that you don’t make exceptions for controversial issues. If you do it for one thing, then you do it for another, and pretty soon you’ve turned into a user-hostile echo-chamber like Medium. I think Substack’s policy of just following the law is completely reasonable. If one disagrees with a particular writer, don’t read them. Expecting the entire world to agree with your individual viewpoint is frankly immature and shows a real lack of self awareness.

twaitt 6y ago
I don't think the author's bone is with Substack having controversial people on their platform, but that Substack is actively seeking and rewarding a certain type of content. So Substack isn't being a neutral player.
- disgu 6y ago
  Are they actively seeking and rewarding only those types of content? That isn't being answered anywhere as far as I can tell. "Actively seeking and rewarding" could be anything. Is offering a platform actively seeking and rewarding? I don't know much about Substack or the people on there so genuinely curious.
  - twaitt 6y ago
    Yah, good question. Some example in this bit would have been good: > While annoying, I wasn’t particularly concerned about these developments because I thought that this was an open platform with plenty of writers I disagreed with. However, it’s become clear that Substack is specifically seeking out these big named writers. In some cases they’ve paid them large six figure advances to move to Substack. It doesn’t take much effort or intellect to spend your time denouncing movements for justice, and now there is big money to be made doing it.
    - D13Fd 6y ago
      I thought the Andrew Sullivan example was pretty enlightening. He is a person who has interesting views on many, many issues. Yes, I definitely find some of his views on trans and race issues repugnant or downright disgusting. But he raises them with an open mind, airs dissenting views, and often (especially on his podcast) provides a platform for alternatives. For example, he recently hosted a respectful discussion with Mara Keisling, a trans rights activist, about trans issues. She definitely came out on top on most of the points, and hearing the back-and-forth really helped to improve my understanding of the issues. Is Sullivan the kind of person who deserves to be de-platformed? Was it wrong for Substack to invite him to its platform? No, in my opinion. He's not pushing an ideology or trying to silence others. He's just a persuasive writer with some very wrong-headed and gross views on some things. We're never going to advance as a society if everyone who holds a diverse opinion is silenced.
philistine 6y ago
Their policy is not only to simply follow the law: they are also actively paying (with advances) writers with a specific agenda denying trans people rights. This is not about what you think this is.
- refurb 6y ago
  Any source on this. I mean, not hiring writers who happen to write about denying trans people rights, but actively seeking out those views for their platform
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  The story doesn’t offer any evidence that these individuals are being funded directly. Even if they were, it’s my impression that the majority of the popular Substack contributors are on the opposite side of the issue. So the current outrage seems more like people being mad that those with different viewpoints are allowed to speak.
  - xenophonf 6y ago
    This is the most current and up-to-date list of Substack Pros that I'm aware of: https://domstack.substack.com/p/who-are-the-substack-pros https://domstack.substack.com/p/who-are-the-substack-pros
- mansion7 6y ago
  "writers with a specific agenda denying trans people rights" Interesting phrasing. They would probably define their 'agenda' as: "kids can't decide to get sex changes" or "people who are in the midst of, or recovering from, gender reassignment are perhaps not the best choice for soldiers" or "hey whatever but I'm not paying for it" And aren't the haters you and Tankus portray them to be. Substack may disagree and ban them, as is the trend in big tech, but their positions are way more in line with US (and world) opinion than Tankus and company.

twaitt 6y ago

I don't think the author's bone is with Substack having controversial people on their platform, but that Substack is actively seeking and rewarding a certain type of content. So Substack isn't being a neutral player.

disgu 6y ago
Are they actively seeking and rewarding only those types of content? That isn't being answered anywhere as far as I can tell. "Actively seeking and rewarding" could be anything. Is offering a platform actively seeking and rewarding? I don't know much about Substack or the people on there so genuinely curious.
- twaitt 6y ago
  Yah, good question. Some example in this bit would have been good: > While annoying, I wasn’t particularly concerned about these developments because I thought that this was an open platform with plenty of writers I disagreed with. However, it’s become clear that Substack is specifically seeking out these big named writers. In some cases they’ve paid them large six figure advances to move to Substack. It doesn’t take much effort or intellect to spend your time denouncing movements for justice, and now there is big money to be made doing it.
  - D13Fd 6y ago
    I thought the Andrew Sullivan example was pretty enlightening. He is a person who has interesting views on many, many issues. Yes, I definitely find some of his views on trans and race issues repugnant or downright disgusting. But he raises them with an open mind, airs dissenting views, and often (especially on his podcast) provides a platform for alternatives. For example, he recently hosted a respectful discussion with Mara Keisling, a trans rights activist, about trans issues. She definitely came out on top on most of the points, and hearing the back-and-forth really helped to improve my understanding of the issues. Is Sullivan the kind of person who deserves to be de-platformed? Was it wrong for Substack to invite him to its platform? No, in my opinion. He's not pushing an ideology or trying to silence others. He's just a persuasive writer with some very wrong-headed and gross views on some things. We're never going to advance as a society if everyone who holds a diverse opinion is silenced.

philistine 6y ago

Their policy is not only to simply follow the law: they are also actively paying (with advances) writers with a specific agenda denying trans people rights. This is not about what you think this is.

refurb 6y ago
Any source on this. I mean, not hiring writers who happen to write about denying trans people rights, but actively seeking out those views for their platform
ceilingcorner 6y ago
The story doesn’t offer any evidence that these individuals are being funded directly. Even if they were, it’s my impression that the majority of the popular Substack contributors are on the opposite side of the issue. So the current outrage seems more like people being mad that those with different viewpoints are allowed to speak.
- xenophonf 6y ago
  This is the most current and up-to-date list of Substack Pros that I'm aware of: https://domstack.substack.com/p/who-are-the-substack-pros https://domstack.substack.com/p/who-are-the-substack-pros
mansion7 6y ago
"writers with a specific agenda denying trans people rights" Interesting phrasing. They would probably define their 'agenda' as: "kids can't decide to get sex changes" or "people who are in the midst of, or recovering from, gender reassignment are perhaps not the best choice for soldiers" or "hey whatever but I'm not paying for it" And aren't the haters you and Tankus portray them to be. Substack may disagree and ban them, as is the trend in big tech, but their positions are way more in line with US (and world) opinion than Tankus and company.