Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Lawson's Fevered Brain's avatar

I haven't seen any problematic posts myself. Won't banning problematic posts make the posters and their content more popular? I'm wondering if it would be better to let them post their garbage and voice our opinions in their comment sections—just my opinion.

Expand full comment
Caitlin Burke's avatar

The problem with this is that you are, fundamentally, in those spaces, in that Substack benefits more from network effects than you do. Anil Dash suggests people unpack this las year in his essay Don't Call It a Substack https://www.anildash.com/2024/11/19/dont_call_it_a_substack/

When people use specific kinds of features, like monetizing or community features, it's easy to believe that the benefit of being on a particular platform outweighs any concerns you may have about its content policies. Then occasionally, flagrant hate speech is exposed ( https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/11/substack-extremism-nazi-white-supremacy-newsletters/676156/?gift=j9r7avb6p-KY8zdjhsiSZ1RLcOPmvywfPzJWyac8ltI ), or Substack sends a push message recommending an expressly Nazi newsletter ( https://www.usermag.co/p/substack-sent-a-push-alert-promoting-nazi-white-supremacist-blog ). As long as people shrug and say "content moderation is a slippery slope," this will keep happening.

People do move their newsletters off Substack and sometimes find that they save money in the process. In the meantime, Substack is eager to social-media-fy its site as much as it can, so you think the network effects are good to pass up.

I am not castigating anyone who stays. There are lots of reasons to do things one way or another. It's just important to be thoughtful about whose pockets we help line.

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts