data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/64727/64727419b3c912e172d8949314d9b37d9feeeca2" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fd89d/fd89d60f281bc5b809b177d43f1fc4e389d2c82a" alt=""
If you think my problem with Substack is “Nazis are there right now,” then you didn’t get it. I must’ve not explained myself well, and that’s on me, but you’re missing the point regardless.
Nazis are part of my explanation because it ought to be clear to any reasonable reader how they should be dealt with, but one can still be horrible without being an outright Nazi. Those people should be dealt with similarly. Substack will see something horrible and first ask, “but how would our handling of this affect free speech?” which is a disgrace and a red flag.
I’m commenting on a larger issue related to the topic. At no point do I say people shouldn’t listen to good journalists because of their platform of choice. At no point do I claim there are Nazis there. To reiterate: bad is not specifically and exclusively Nazis.
Substack may not be Nazi-central, but it’s surely a product of broligarchy.
You’re answering something else, man.
I literally linked an example.
Follow the links.
Link.
I had a feeling, and maybe this reply isn’t outright confirmation, but it’s enough. I think you tunnel visioned so hard on defending poor Substack and free speech that you’re not even properly reading what you’re replying to. You’re going up and down this thread, finger on the trigger, and the moment you see the word Nazi you just fire.
You’re right, we probably wouldn’t agree, and if my read on you is any good, I’d rather not risk wasting time on that conversion.