As I’ve noted elsewhere, I think it would be worth comparing Substack’s TOS/content rules with other platforms. You’re examining Substack in a vacuum, or with an implied comparison to social media, which is a different kind of platform. I think it would be interesting to check out the rules on blogging and website platforms such as WordPress.com, Blogger, Wix, Medium, etc. and see what they say. I know WordPress in particular is very hands-off when censoring their users, with more or less the same exceptions that Substack has.
We always have these conversations when there are particularly controversial figures on a platform. They have continued to defend themselves against censorship of content from and support of these figures. With democratization of content, it means that conservative and liberal people end up in the same spaces. I can see why they wouldn’t want to get involved, I wouldn’t either.
What I worry about is despite all of the hands-off, no censorship, free speech talk, we have seen with other platforms that certain marginalized people’s voices get silenced. There are shadow bans or disabled functions. The Tucker Carlsons of the world actually have little if anything to worry about. It’s queer, trans, indigenous, and femme voices that see the same community guideline violations, account deactivation and… censoring. It’s not a comfort to me. I hope they do keep their word.
“Let the people decide!” Well, I hope they’re ready to deal with what those things are.
As I’ve noted elsewhere, I think it would be worth comparing Substack’s TOS/content rules with other platforms. You’re examining Substack in a vacuum, or with an implied comparison to social media, which is a different kind of platform. I think it would be interesting to check out the rules on blogging and website platforms such as WordPress.com, Blogger, Wix, Medium, etc. and see what they say. I know WordPress in particular is very hands-off when censoring their users, with more or less the same exceptions that Substack has.
We always have these conversations when there are particularly controversial figures on a platform. They have continued to defend themselves against censorship of content from and support of these figures. With democratization of content, it means that conservative and liberal people end up in the same spaces. I can see why they wouldn’t want to get involved, I wouldn’t either.
What I worry about is despite all of the hands-off, no censorship, free speech talk, we have seen with other platforms that certain marginalized people’s voices get silenced. There are shadow bans or disabled functions. The Tucker Carlsons of the world actually have little if anything to worry about. It’s queer, trans, indigenous, and femme voices that see the same community guideline violations, account deactivation and… censoring. It’s not a comfort to me. I hope they do keep their word.
“Let the people decide!” Well, I hope they’re ready to deal with what those things are.
Thanks for laying this out so clearly, Scott! I hadn't actually read the TOS. Eeeek! haha
Matt Taibbi got Substack to delete Gene Frenkle’s Substack and all of his comments. Substack is a fraud!