I don't think partnering with a sociopathic multibillionaire who is profits from the MIC is the way for Substack to go. Musk isn't stable, which means TWITTER isn't stable. He's also too subject to influence from the US government to censor certain things.
I'm glad Substack created Notes. At least here, I know it is being sustained by subscribers on the old subscription news or magazine model, not from advertisers with vested interests very much antithetical to my own.
It's very odd to say "Substack is not totally without fault here - they’ve been going after Twitter for 6 months. "
Uhm. So are you saying that Substack should avoid saying anything that might anger the leaders of another company? So they should self-censor.
Or ought we to place the blame on the person who is so sensitive to criticism that he would take pot shots at much smaller companies just because they challenge him?
We also read this piece during 4/9 edition of How Did We Miss That
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3F8tRcx_J8
I don't think partnering with a sociopathic multibillionaire who is profits from the MIC is the way for Substack to go. Musk isn't stable, which means TWITTER isn't stable. He's also too subject to influence from the US government to censor certain things.
I'm glad Substack created Notes. At least here, I know it is being sustained by subscribers on the old subscription news or magazine model, not from advertisers with vested interests very much antithetical to my own.
And the First Amendment lives here.
It's very odd to say "Substack is not totally without fault here - they’ve been going after Twitter for 6 months. "
Uhm. So are you saying that Substack should avoid saying anything that might anger the leaders of another company? So they should self-censor.
Or ought we to place the blame on the person who is so sensitive to criticism that he would take pot shots at much smaller companies just because they challenge him?