51–56 of 56 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, censorship. Which is a bad thing. Ideas, even disagreeable ones, should be permitted. Otherwise you don’t have a real democracy.
Should it be the responsibility of a periodical to publish every random Nazi op-ed? (And then send out push notifications for it?) Assholes can self-publish, as always, IMO.
This post didn't age well – 3 weeks later Substack announced a $100m fundraise at $1.1b valuation. [1] Ana's contention that Substack is "rickety" seems motivated by her conviction that they should adopt a more assertive, aggressive censorship regime, and that "we need a world where a social safety net protects risky writing". There are certainly many interesting questions about the future of media and Substack's bus…
> This post didn't age well – 3 weeks later Substack announced a $100m fundraise at $1.1b valuation. From the article: Newcomer says Substack is “pitching investors on a round between $50M and $100M that would value it above its roughly $700M last round price.” Also: And if Substack does manage to raise that $100M they’re looking for now? Things will get worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This post didn't age well – 3 weeks later Substack announced a $100m fundraise at $1.1b valuation. From the article: Newcomer says Substack is “pitching investors on a round between $50M and $100M that would value it above its roughly $700M last round price.” Also: And if Substack does manage to raise that $100M they’re looking for now? Things will get worse.
The implication of her article is that they’d have a hard time raising that money and/or that they somehow aren’t doing well - I don’t see any evidence of this cited anywhere in her post.
In other words, their current business model does not support their valuation, which necessitates a pivot.
This post didn't age well – 3 weeks later Substack announced a $100m fundraise at $1.1b valuation. [1] Ana's contention that Substack is "rickety" seems motivated by her conviction that they should adopt a more assertive, aggressive censorship regime, and that "we need a world where a social safety net protects risky writing". There are certainly many interesting questions about the future of media and Substack's bus…
It would be lovely to see a platform get big taking a sustainable approach. But that investment money buys marketing and hype.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Yes, censorship. Which is a bad thing. Ideas, even disagreeable ones, should be permitted. Otherwise you don’t have a real democracy.
I don't know how this myth came to be. One would think that the experiences of the Weimar Republic would be enough to learn the lesson.
No, a democracy doesn't have to allow forces that literally want to destroy it an equal voice. Fascists and Nazis don't want to be a part of democratic society, they want to abuse it to get power and then dismantle it. As such, it's the duty of real democracies to protect themselves from such malicious actors. Because if they win, everyone loses. And we're seeing this in one of the supposedly more democratic countries, right now - a coup attempt by wannabe fascists was left without consequences, and now fascists are dismantling checks and balances and democratic institutions.
An extremely good quote from Nazi Minister of Propaganda on the matter:
> “We are an anti-parliamentarian party that for good reasons rejects the Weimar constitution and its republican institutions. We oppose a fake democracy that treats the intelligent and the foolish, the industrious and the lazy, in the same way. We see in the present system of majorities and organized irresponsibility the main cause of our steadily increasing miseries.
> So why do we want to be in the Reichstag?
> We enter the Reichstag to arm ourselves with the weapons of democracy. If democracy is foolish enough to give us free railway passes and salaries, that is its problem. It does not concern us. Any way of bringing about the revolution is fine by us.
> If we succeed in getting sixty or seventy of our party’s agitators and organizers elected to the various parliaments, the state itself will pay for our fighting organization. That is amusing and entertaining enough to be worth trying.
> Will we be corrupted by joining parliament? Not likely. Do you think us such miserable revolutionaries that you fear that the thick red carpets and the well-upholstered sleeping halls will make us forget our historical mission?
> Is our entry into the Reichstag the beginning of a compromise? Do you really think that we who have stood before you a hundred or a thousand times preaching faith in a new Germany, who have smilingly faced death dozens of times from the red mob, who have joined you in battling every form of resistance whether of official or nonofficial nature, who have bent before no command or terror, do you really think that we would lay down our weapons in exchange for a railroad pass?