And I stand by it. Would you agree that a “total commitment to free speech” means something slightly different in practice for Substack than say, Pornhub?
And I stand by it. Would you agree that a “total commitment to free speech” means something slightly different in practice for Substack than say, Pornhub?
Pornhub has a defined theme, and basically their guidelines are "anything goes if it's not illegal". Which does sound like a total commitment to free speech.
I agree that Substack guidelines being "anything goes of it's not illegal, and also not porn" can be understood : even if I don't agree that all porn is exploitative, some is, and it could be too difficult to differentiate, and hence moderate. So it's a stance that can be understood.
(Although they do compare themselves with Patreon and OnlyFans, so...)
But that's not what's happening : Substack is clearly stating that nudity is ok for journalistic or artistic purposes, BUT they can limit its reach (basically it's a shadowban clause). This is not, by any mean, a total commitment to free speech.
Why would, say, a sex education newsletter using explicit content (for obvious reasons) should be limited ? What's the reason behind it except considering it shocking, and how is that a total commitment to free speech ?
And I stand by it. Would you agree that a “total commitment to free speech” means something slightly different in practice for Substack than say, Pornhub?
Pornhub has a defined theme, and basically their guidelines are "anything goes if it's not illegal". Which does sound like a total commitment to free speech.
I agree that Substack guidelines being "anything goes of it's not illegal, and also not porn" can be understood : even if I don't agree that all porn is exploitative, some is, and it could be too difficult to differentiate, and hence moderate. So it's a stance that can be understood.
(Although they do compare themselves with Patreon and OnlyFans, so...)
But that's not what's happening : Substack is clearly stating that nudity is ok for journalistic or artistic purposes, BUT they can limit its reach (basically it's a shadowban clause). This is not, by any mean, a total commitment to free speech.
Why would, say, a sex education newsletter using explicit content (for obvious reasons) should be limited ? What's the reason behind it except considering it shocking, and how is that a total commitment to free speech ?