A lot of us know by now that Substack has a Nazi problem. It not only profits from fascist voices, it actively promotes their work and recruits them. And it's funded by Silicon Valley anti-democracy billionaires like Marc Andreesen — the same type of people who are, right now, raiding the US government to basically cut funding for social services and scientific research, and to steal money for themselves.

Still, a lot of talented writers — including some that I subscribe to — publish on Substack. But others have moved to Ghost, an open source and non-shitty-tech-bro newsletter service. These include Casey Newton's publication Platformer, Molly White's newsletter Citation Needed, and plenty of others. From the beginning, 404 Media decided to publish on Ghost because, as I understand it, Substack sucks.

. . .

If you already have a Substack, Ghost has written documentation explaining how to migrate your subscribers (including paid ones) to a new Ghost newsletter. Since both Substack and Ghost use Stripe as a payment processor, your paid subscribers don't have to do anything to continue paying you.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] mke@programming.dev 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

You are saying "the bad is a necessary evil to protect free speech," and not at all addressing the fact that the "bad" doesn't appear to exist on modern Substack. If you have seen it, where have you seen it?

I literally linked an example.

tell me what ideas you are in favor of removing from Substack. Where are they on Substack, right now?

Follow the links.

So why are you still upset at them?

Link.

I actually do agree with Substack's original moderation stance, precisely for reasons of free speech. We can talk about that if you want, although it's a more complex conversation and we probably won't come to agree on it.

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.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 1 points 9 hours ago

You are saying “the bad is a necessary evil to protect free speech,” and not at all addressing the fact that the “bad” doesn’t appear to exist on modern Substack. If you have seen it, where have you seen it?

I literally linked an example.

Okay, so you're in favor of removing any content which is dishonest and anti-gay from Substack. Fair enough, I get it.

I actually do agree with Substack’s original moderation stance, precisely for reasons of free speech. We can talk about that if you want, although it’s a more complex conversation and we probably won’t come to agree on it.

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 waste time on that conversion.

Sounds good. What do you think should be done about Substack's hosting of anti-gay content? Do you think it should impact me posting Tim Snyder articles from Substack? Do you think it's accurate to summarize it as "Nazi" content?