This is the point that the free speech absolutists seem to missing. There’s lots of “slippery slope” comments, but Substack is already on the allegedly slippery slope of prohibiting some kinds of speech. They say that hate speech isn’t acceptable and give the example of credible threats of harm. I think it’s reasonable to expect some transparency about what’s acceptable and what’s not given what Jonathan Katz’s article says. It’s disappointing that they aren’t willing to give that.
"Slippery slope" is an excuse people make when they don't want to make a decision. Until Substack customers, employees and investors complain loud and often demanding change, it is easier for management to ignore the problem, lay some claims about defending free speech and hope the story goes away.
Substack bans nudes because they would lose access to their payment processor if they hosted it. Their commitment to free speech is one of preference and not absolute as it bows to practical concerns like solvency.
This is the point that the free speech absolutists seem to missing. There’s lots of “slippery slope” comments, but Substack is already on the allegedly slippery slope of prohibiting some kinds of speech. They say that hate speech isn’t acceptable and give the example of credible threats of harm. I think it’s reasonable to expect some transparency about what’s acceptable and what’s not given what Jonathan Katz’s article says. It’s disappointing that they aren’t willing to give that.
"Slippery slope" is an excuse people make when they don't want to make a decision. Until Substack customers, employees and investors complain loud and often demanding change, it is easier for management to ignore the problem, lay some claims about defending free speech and hope the story goes away.
Substack bans nudes because they would lose access to their payment processor if they hosted it. Their commitment to free speech is one of preference and not absolute as it bows to practical concerns like solvency.