It's no secret that much social media has "community standards," just censorship in so many words, often to dubious ends (e.g. gags on even legtimate speech, as "The Twitter Files" has shown). It's no secret that many professional journalists were banished from other media set up shop here. As such, Substack offers a rare degree of freed…
It's no secret that much social media has "community standards," just censorship in so many words, often to dubious ends (e.g. gags on even legtimate speech, as "The Twitter Files" has shown). It's no secret that many professional journalists were banished from other media set up shop here. As such, Substack offers a rare degree of freedom of speech for content creators.
Now, for all I know, perhaps there already is an official policy to this effect. Is it possible for Substack to offer some iron-clad guarantee to not muzzle the 1st Amendment right of content creators? I realize that some limitations will exist, but those should only be the ones required (note I didn't say "allowed") by existing laws. To cite some incendiary examples, I'd be curious to know if there will be (or for the matter, already is) any muzzle placed upon those who (say) advocate antisemitism, or so-called "hate speech", espouse unpopular political, religous or soical views (again, with certain exceptions, like advocating violence which is usually already illegal activity) In other words, are there, or will there be any limitation upon what would be permissible free speech if it was being said on the soap box on a street corner? I f a strong protection of personal expression can be placed in writing, can it be binding upon future management or owners? Not easilyh modified or revoked jsut because the whims of the owners change? If the answer to any of those is "no," then I suspect that Substack's future is rather grim, as it's subject to being no different than any other major gagged platform. In that case, I doubt I'll want to invest in it.
As an existing reader and writer on Substack, I would be interested in becoming an investor, even on a small scale.
It's no secret that much social media has "community standards," just censorship in so many words, often to dubious ends (e.g. gags on even legtimate speech, as "The Twitter Files" has shown). It's no secret that many professional journalists were banished from other media set up shop here. As such, Substack offers a rare degree of freedom of speech for content creators.
Now, for all I know, perhaps there already is an official policy to this effect. Is it possible for Substack to offer some iron-clad guarantee to not muzzle the 1st Amendment right of content creators? I realize that some limitations will exist, but those should only be the ones required (note I didn't say "allowed") by existing laws. To cite some incendiary examples, I'd be curious to know if there will be (or for the matter, already is) any muzzle placed upon those who (say) advocate antisemitism, or so-called "hate speech", espouse unpopular political, religous or soical views (again, with certain exceptions, like advocating violence which is usually already illegal activity) In other words, are there, or will there be any limitation upon what would be permissible free speech if it was being said on the soap box on a street corner? I f a strong protection of personal expression can be placed in writing, can it be binding upon future management or owners? Not easilyh modified or revoked jsut because the whims of the owners change? If the answer to any of those is "no," then I suspect that Substack's future is rather grim, as it's subject to being no different than any other major gagged platform. In that case, I doubt I'll want to invest in it.
As an existing reader and writer on Substack, I would be interested in becoming an investor, even on a small scale.