> They don't suggest even implicitly that their readers should avoid Substack Which part of "Substack Is Now a Playground for the Deplatformed" did you miss?

> They don't suggest even implicitly that their readers should avoid Substack Which part of "Substack Is Now a Playground for the Deplatformed" did you miss? > They seem to be contrasting the models of NYT and Substack, not comparing them NYT has also become very polarizing since going subscriber-only, this was another point curiously missing. > so, that was only a single counter-example, not presented as evidence that Substack's model is bad If not, then what would even be the point bringing it up? The whole argument is that substack's model is inherently polarizing thus bad. That argument does not hold up to scrutiny btw: there are in fact many small, polarized, ad-supported media, what you don't see is mainstream ones, because due to their nature and massive size the mainstream ones have to cater to the average. Substack could equally be the same if they were as big as mainstream news, and no evidence is presented to the contrary. > verybody I know who likes Greenwald They believe he was fired/displaced. Deplatformed means banished (evidently, he has a platform), and he could probably easily grow an audience anywhere I think your own reading of this hastily written hit piece is ... very charitable. That said, i hope substack fails. There shouldn't be a need for such intermediaries between writers and their audience. I hope substack proves to have been a temporary solution to a temporary problem.