[tedjdziuba]

It's only a matter of time before Substack gets enough pressure from its employees or its payments provider and starts censoring "inappropriate" content.

(The definition of "inappropriate" being "whatever people on Twitter dislike today".)

[vslira]

Considering that Substack's model is designed to attract independent thinkers with a following, I assume they are taking a very close look at their talent pipeline to avoid this issue. That would actually be a competitive advantage for them.

[kurthr]

It seems like they let anything on, if it generates income. When you have Dana Loesch, I'm not sure you can be described as attracting independent thinkers, unless that's new code for outrage warrior. Looks to me like another platform (e.g. not Patreon/FansOnly) for influencers to monetize their more affluent (e.g. have $3/mo to spend) clientele.

Substack still likes drama, "In November, an anonymous Substack account published a newsletter titled “vote_pattern_analysis,” with a single, elaborate post claiming election fraud. On Twitter, the link was tagged with a fact-check label. For a time in December, the newsletter became one of the top free publications on Substack.", but I doubt it will descend into reddit territory.

[geodel]

>.. independent thinkers, unless that's new code for outrage warrior.

Good one. Kinda similar to third rate marketers become thought leaders when they are on linkedin.

[tootie]

Letting SV entrepreneurs set the standard for editorial ethics is guaranteed to suck. They'll either cash in on conspiracy nonsense or censor arbitrarily.