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.
That would be great. To be honest, I have no idea what the major platforms do other than wp.com and that's only because I used to work on the TOS squad there. But I think it would be an interesting examination of content moderation/censorship/whatever you want to call it on the Internet. What would be even more interesting (but would require enlisting the wayback machine) is if these companies changed their TOS dramatically in the past couple of years.
I agree, the Wayback Machine would be the way to do this. They have a tool for comparing changes on a page over time – but I haven't gotten it to work for Substack's content guidelines. Fortunately, the guidelines are short enough that I could just compare archived versions in side-by-side tabs and notice the differences. Or there are sites which will compare two inputted texts. Maybe I'll try that for Substack, and potentially other sites such as WordPress and Twitter, and see if anything notable comes up.
Again, I would urge you to compare apples to apples. I think Substack is far more like Medium and WordPress.com than Twitter or FB. Content platforms tend to be much more hands-off than social media, for lots of reasons.
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.
I had thought of noting, at the outset, that no one reads the TOS of any site. But then I wondered whether, if I started with that observation, anyone would read my post. 🤔😉
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.
A good idea. I may make some comparisons in an upcoming post.
That would be great. To be honest, I have no idea what the major platforms do other than wp.com and that's only because I used to work on the TOS squad there. But I think it would be an interesting examination of content moderation/censorship/whatever you want to call it on the Internet. What would be even more interesting (but would require enlisting the wayback machine) is if these companies changed their TOS dramatically in the past couple of years.
I agree, the Wayback Machine would be the way to do this. They have a tool for comparing changes on a page over time – but I haven't gotten it to work for Substack's content guidelines. Fortunately, the guidelines are short enough that I could just compare archived versions in side-by-side tabs and notice the differences. Or there are sites which will compare two inputted texts. Maybe I'll try that for Substack, and potentially other sites such as WordPress and Twitter, and see if anything notable comes up.
Again, I would urge you to compare apples to apples. I think Substack is far more like Medium and WordPress.com than Twitter or FB. Content platforms tend to be much more hands-off than social media, for lots of reasons.
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
I had thought of noting, at the outset, that no one reads the TOS of any site. But then I wondered whether, if I started with that observation, anyone would read my post. 🤔😉
Matt Taibbi got Substack to delete Gene Frenkle’s Substack and all of his comments. Substack is a fraud!