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.
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/
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.
I don't think banning certain types of content is the way. Like anything else that promotes free speech, contrary opinions need to be seen/heard. If you don't like it hide it from your feed. Now, if it is promoting active harm to people that's different and needs to be reported. But choosing who can and can't speak on subjects is subjective to everyone; what one person finds offensive another might not. And I doubt the Substack administrators want (or need) to go down the rabbit holes of "acceptability" for every complaint on content.
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.
The Streisand Effect
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.
Thanks so much for the feature. I am happy and humbled!
I haven't actually seen any problematic posts myself, but if I did, I would just choose not to engage.
I don't think banning certain types of content is the way. Like anything else that promotes free speech, contrary opinions need to be seen/heard. If you don't like it hide it from your feed. Now, if it is promoting active harm to people that's different and needs to be reported. But choosing who can and can't speak on subjects is subjective to everyone; what one person finds offensive another might not. And I doubt the Substack administrators want (or need) to go down the rabbit holes of "acceptability" for every complaint on content.