[atdrummond]

The users Substack doesn’t want are the ones demanding censorship. The moment they succumb to this pressure, they’ll continue to have their content further and further brigaded by people associated with various advocacy causes. They’ll never be able to be an internet publishing platform; they’ll be another anodyne, political newsletter service. That model doesn’t work for vaunted names like The Guardian or The Nation. It won’t end any better for Substack.

[JumpCrisscross]

> moment they succumb to this pressure, they’ll continue to have their content further and further brigaded

There isn’t much evidence for deplatforming Nazis being a slippery slope. They don’t even have to ban them; just turn off monetisation.

Also, given Substack “moderate[s] some content, including spam sites and newsletters written by sex workers,” it would seem the ship has sailed. Drawing the line at Nazis is, at best, naïve.

[bruceb]

How do you define who is a Nazi?

Quick search on Twitter will find many, many people calling many many other people Nazi. Those alleged to be Nazis include the former President, members of congress, and the head of a prominent auto maker.

TOS are open to wide interpretation.

[janalsncm]

I don’t think they want any of the ideological battles. They want people to write friendly little newsletters and don’t rock the boat too much.

[e40]

It is interesting that you didn’t say “that’s not my twitter account” … is it??