This is an excellent summation, thank you for putting it together. Unfortunately, it outlines a problem that, at the moment, seems to lack any workable solution. I suspect that the approach currently being taken by Spotify with Joe Rogan is the new way forward - removing only problematic posts (podcasts, newsletters, tweets, whatever) and leaving the creator/author alone and un-deplatformed (is that a word?). But there are two issues with that approach that I'm not sure SubStack is able to handle:
1. Spotify's approach stands in contrast not just to Twitter's deplatforming of people, but also to services like Facebook, Tik Tok, and Tumblr who make blanket decisions about what content is and is not acceptable. SubStack is trying to avoid the latter, but sooner or later, something will come up and SubStack will have to choose one path or another (or be a lot more inventive than anyone else has been).
2. How much money is SubStack going to be willing to throw at the problem when it does arise? Hiring teams to find, analyze, and decide what to do with problematic content doesn't come cheap.
People spout half truth to willing and trusting audiences everyday. Charlatans can b me very charismatic with all the gloss and official looking copy or design as legit outlets. I don’t think they should be surprised that people will throw their hard-earned money at a creator for “the cause”, whichever they think is worth it.
I’m not sure there is anything they can do accept wait. If extremists think they’ll be able to hang a shingle here, they’ll try it. And they will likely succeed. They can only stand back, tout themselves as, ironically, a safe space and hope that audiences make a favorable choice.
This is an excellent summation, thank you for putting it together. Unfortunately, it outlines a problem that, at the moment, seems to lack any workable solution. I suspect that the approach currently being taken by Spotify with Joe Rogan is the new way forward - removing only problematic posts (podcasts, newsletters, tweets, whatever) and leaving the creator/author alone and un-deplatformed (is that a word?). But there are two issues with that approach that I'm not sure SubStack is able to handle:
1. Spotify's approach stands in contrast not just to Twitter's deplatforming of people, but also to services like Facebook, Tik Tok, and Tumblr who make blanket decisions about what content is and is not acceptable. SubStack is trying to avoid the latter, but sooner or later, something will come up and SubStack will have to choose one path or another (or be a lot more inventive than anyone else has been).
2. How much money is SubStack going to be willing to throw at the problem when it does arise? Hiring teams to find, analyze, and decide what to do with problematic content doesn't come cheap.
People spout half truth to willing and trusting audiences everyday. Charlatans can b me very charismatic with all the gloss and official looking copy or design as legit outlets. I don’t think they should be surprised that people will throw their hard-earned money at a creator for “the cause”, whichever they think is worth it.
I’m not sure there is anything they can do accept wait. If extremists think they’ll be able to hang a shingle here, they’ll try it. And they will likely succeed. They can only stand back, tout themselves as, ironically, a safe space and hope that audiences make a favorable choice.