This whole story is about the fact that the articles you want censored are allowed under Substack's content policy, so I don't think Substack's content policy i

This whole story is about the fact that the articles you want censored are allowed under Substack's content policy, so I don't think Substack's content policy is a good example for what you're after, no? Like I pointed out at the very beginning, efforts to censor always seem to break down, and one reason for that is that it's hard to come up with coherent policies. It's easy to speak at a super high level about how things ought to be, but once you try to distill those ideas into something that has any practical value - i.e. something that can be actually used and applied - it all starts to fall apart. The result is that platform providers end up in one of 2 main camps: 1) The content does not represent us at all. We set some very broad limits, but for the most part, people can say what they say and we're just providing the platform. 2) Content has to conform to our standards, and application of those standards can and will appear to be completely arbitrary. Neither approach is without its problems, and both approaches anger a lot of people. In general, though, if you're in the business of trying to attract creators and help them build audiences on your platform, #1 is much less bad than #2 - the latter will either limit your ability to get off the ground or will become a millstone when you do.