There are probably principles behind where they draw the line rather than arbitrarily allowing things they like and banning things they don’t like. I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong to pick criteria that requires you to allow Nazis on your platform if you seek to be consistent.
They probably want to pretend they’re some sort of intellectual marketplace and see porn as an off-topic distraction that takes away from what they want to focus on.
It still seems strange that they’re tossing out a lot of potential business and missing a chance to eat some of OnlyFans’ lunch.
It’s not strange at all. They see themselves as highbrow intellectuals. Getting in the porn business doesn’t fit their self-image.
To me it seems strange that these businessbros care more about their credibility than in making money, but maybe I underestimate them.
The money comes when they cash out with an IPO. They think they probably get less if they get into porn, but don’t think platforming Nazis will hurt them.
I think it is categorically different though, in that porn is not discourse. Like Vogue publishes fashion, Top Gear does cars, Substack is for political discourse. I think it’s totally reasonable to be like “we ban porn because porn isn’t discourse, that’s not what we do”. Like I think it’s consistent with an uber-tolerant approach to ideas to do that. I also don’t think they should publish Nazis, but it’s a separate question.
By that logic, if someone on Substack did something that was clearly not political discourse
(like if someone published instructions on how to install a new dishwasher), would they ban it? I highly doubt it.
Not sure why you need to do any sort of mental gymnastics to say no porn no nazis on my social media website.
In the end he made a choice that it was better for him to look like scum than to invite boundary pushing and associated media coverage (and probably death threats!) When he’s just trying to cash out on a subscription based livejournal or medium.
Innovation!
But this is almost always a morality issue and not “porn is too popular” issue.
Again though they said it’s because porn would be too popular.
Substack covers much more than politics. Only Substack I see are for sports.
Popular with the wrong customer base.
Right. A lot of people see porn as more offensive than National Socialism.
Right, the main reason Vogue doesn’t publish stories about cars and Car and Driver doesn’t publish about fashion is that they don’t have the subject matter expertise. But Substack doesn’t make the content. This is like if a newsstand decided to stop selling Car and Driver even though there’s a big demand for auto news.
As someone that supports walkable living spaces and 15-minute cities, I support this newsstand’s right to ban offensive material and do what they can to make the world a better place.
Like parents of young children when those children are nearby.
I just imagine Chait with a snooty upturned voice: “Umm sir, you did you not read the rest of my article. It plainly states…”
Meanwhile I’m like “you fucking moron”
