"Truth" is the keyword. If any Substack author pushes lies consistently they're not an asset. You'll need to sift through the pieces as well as the comments to determine who goes and who stays, and you yourself will need to be honest and unbiased.
It's a big job but it's essential if you're really going to be fair. I have no problem with differing points of view but I do have a problem with lies--especially if they're meant to damage reputations. After so many years of having to deal with them, anyone paying attention will know them when they see them. If not, reliable sources are out there checking on them.
I'd like to use truth versus lies as a dividing line, especially if the lies could harm. But separating truth from lies (and from a gray area in between) is, as you say, a big job.
Even the most controversial authors (especially those authors?) have their defenders. Reliable sources, as you indicate, would help.
If critics point to evidence of harmful lies, and defenders have nothing of substance in support, then it would appear the publisher has crossed the line. I don't know how often the situation might occur; but at least I could allow for the possibility.
In that situation I wouldn't promote the publisher or newsletter. I'd forward what I've learned to Substack, on the view that the content might potentially be defamatory, fraudulent, or something similarly unlawful/harmful.
Yes, I agree. It would be to your advantage to set those guidelines up front, so there's no question about the lines you'll draw. Doesn't have to be mean, just strong.
I would hope so (that it's for all Substackers). I believe that SS has defined their terms of usage for publishing and they are solid.
"Truth" is the keyword. If any Substack author pushes lies consistently they're not an asset. You'll need to sift through the pieces as well as the comments to determine who goes and who stays, and you yourself will need to be honest and unbiased.
It's a big job but it's essential if you're really going to be fair. I have no problem with differing points of view but I do have a problem with lies--especially if they're meant to damage reputations. After so many years of having to deal with them, anyone paying attention will know them when they see them. If not, reliable sources are out there checking on them.
You can't go wrong using integrity as a gauge.
I'd like to use truth versus lies as a dividing line, especially if the lies could harm. But separating truth from lies (and from a gray area in between) is, as you say, a big job.
Even the most controversial authors (especially those authors?) have their defenders. Reliable sources, as you indicate, would help.
If critics point to evidence of harmful lies, and defenders have nothing of substance in support, then it would appear the publisher has crossed the line. I don't know how often the situation might occur; but at least I could allow for the possibility.
In that situation I wouldn't promote the publisher or newsletter. I'd forward what I've learned to Substack, on the view that the content might potentially be defamatory, fraudulent, or something similarly unlawful/harmful.
Yes, I agree. It would be to your advantage to set those guidelines up front, so there's no question about the lines you'll draw. Doesn't have to be mean, just strong.