4 ms·

It's pro free speech, which is the opposite of almost every other platform in 2022.

throwmeariver1 5y ago
You mean because it's mostly gated communities they can be a bit more leisure with the ban hammer. :P
mbesto 5y ago
So this is an interesting distinction. Isn't "free speech" much easier to support if your platform is zero/minimal discovery to it? I.e. if you actively are searching for <insert taboo topic> and subscribe to it, you're actively signaling your choice. Whereas, YT, Twitter, etc. content gets throw at you whether you like it or not.
- misiti3780 5y ago
  i think it is much easier for substack because of this.
- naoqj 5y ago
  Twitter wasn't like that. In the beginning you only received content you subscribed to. But they decided to change that.
  - dasil003 5y ago
    Wait, what? Twitter is still primarily (other than ads) content from people you follow, the main change is screwing around with non-chronological order. Unless you are talking about the Trending sidebar or something?
    - naoqj 5y ago
      When I use it I get in my timeline popular tweets from accounts that I don't follow and likes given by people who I follow (these are not retweets). I shouldn't see either.
blantonl 5y ago
The second Nazi's, militant cop-killer proponents, and child porn enthusiasts start publishing on Substack, we'll see how "pro free speech" they are.
- mschuster91 5y ago
  CSAM isn't covered by "free speech" in any major developed country, and there are international treaties to combat its spread [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_child_pornography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_child_pornography
- TremendousJudge 5y ago
  Yeah going through their "Content Guidelines" there's a lot of stuff that's clearly up to the moderators to decide according to their ideology. For an easy example: >We don’t allow content that promotes harmful or illegal activities, including material that advocates, threatens, or shows you causing harm to yourself, other people, or animals. I have seen plenty of substacks talking about the war in Ukraine (for example [0]). This is _clearly_ advocating harm to other people -- you're talking about soldiers and weapons in war after all. Is this breaking the guidelines? Taken literally yes, but of course not in practice. Eventually, somebody's idea of what is acceptable will clash with the moderation, and we will see the same cries of censorship and deplatforming we see everywhere else. [0] https://patrickfox.substack.com/p/lets-fck-with-vlad-part3 https://patrickfox.substack.com/p/lets-fck-with-vlad-part3

You mean because it's mostly gated communities they can be a bit more leisure with the ban hammer. :P

So this is an interesting distinction. Isn't "free speech" much easier to support if your platform is zero/minimal discovery to it? I.e. if you actively are searching for <insert taboo topic> and subscribe to it, you're actively signaling your choice. Whereas, YT, Twitter, etc. content gets throw at you whether you like it or not.

misiti3780 5y ago
i think it is much easier for substack because of this.
naoqj 5y ago
Twitter wasn't like that. In the beginning you only received content you subscribed to. But they decided to change that.
- dasil003 5y ago
  Wait, what? Twitter is still primarily (other than ads) content from people you follow, the main change is screwing around with non-chronological order. Unless you are talking about the Trending sidebar or something?
  - naoqj 5y ago
    When I use it I get in my timeline popular tweets from accounts that I don't follow and likes given by people who I follow (these are not retweets). I shouldn't see either.

blantonl 5y ago

The second Nazi's, militant cop-killer proponents, and child porn enthusiasts start publishing on Substack, we'll see how "pro free speech" they are.

mschuster91 5y ago
CSAM isn't covered by "free speech" in any major developed country, and there are international treaties to combat its spread [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_child_pornography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_child_pornography
TremendousJudge 5y ago
Yeah going through their "Content Guidelines" there's a lot of stuff that's clearly up to the moderators to decide according to their ideology. For an easy example: >We don’t allow content that promotes harmful or illegal activities, including material that advocates, threatens, or shows you causing harm to yourself, other people, or animals. I have seen plenty of substacks talking about the war in Ukraine (for example [0]). This is _clearly_ advocating harm to other people -- you're talking about soldiers and weapons in war after all. Is this breaking the guidelines? Taken literally yes, but of course not in practice. Eventually, somebody's idea of what is acceptable will clash with the moderation, and we will see the same cries of censorship and deplatforming we see everywhere else. [0] https://patrickfox.substack.com/p/lets-fck-with-vlad-part3 https://patrickfox.substack.com/p/lets-fck-with-vlad-part3