What if Trump Gets a Substack?
Some Twitter users have recently suggested – kiddingly or seriously – that Substack could be Donald Trump's next platform.
Recently, Substack’s co-founders described their view of content moderation. They noted that Substack hosts newsletters with a wide range of political views. They welcomed this breadth, within the limits of its content guidelines.
But is Substack tilting to the right? Discontents, a collective on the left, expressed concern about the recent arrivals of Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Greenwald, and Dana Loesch. Of course, Discontents itself is a counter-example.
It’s conceivable that Substack is attracting — perhaps even recruiting — more writers (and accordingly a larger audience) on the right than the left. A Trump newsletter would surely pull in more people on the right, and could cause some in the left (as well as the “never Trump” center and right) to leave.
On the other hand, if Substack ended up banning Trump like Twitter did, an exodus on the right and an influx on the left would likely follow.
I doubt Trump would personally post on Substack. Twitter is suited to quick, short posts. Substack is a very different platform, with no app, no limit to post length, and no public indication of number of followers (except “hundreds,” “thousands,” or “tens of thousands” of subscribers).
Still, it’s easy to imagine a Substack newsletter with updates published on Trump’s behalf.
If there were a Trump newsletter, I wouldn’t envy the job of the content moderators (i.e., Substack’s co-founders or any moderators they hire). Twitter banned Trump for statements that looked relatively innocuous on the surface but could inspire violence in context. Should Substack moderators engage in a similarly close reading of every statement in a Trump newsletter?
If they did such careful moderation for a Trump newsletter, should they do that for the newsletters of every Trump supporter or opponent? Is a Trump newsletter different because its context is different?
Or would Substack take a largely hands-off policy, only stepping in if a Trump newsletter (or other political newsletter) committed an obvious violation of content guidelines?
The right might consider strict moderation to be cancel culture.
The left might consider relaxed moderation to be Parler.
Is there a middle path? How would it work?
I feel that Substack can steer a course between Scylla and Charydbis. They could say that Trump is as entitled as anyone to publish a newsletter, free or paid, as long as he follows the terms of use.
But I can’t be sure what would happen. The context is changing. How does the US seem now compared to January 5?
I think there’s much more to say on this topic. I intend to say more in future posts.
In the meantime, if you agree or disagree with anything I’ve said, or want to add anything, I hope you’ll post a comment.
Hadn't thought of it...but yep, could happen unfortunately.