Thank you for this informative article. I have a Gannet paper where I live. They are struggling to continue to exist but they provide wonderful investigative journalism against a corrupt sheriff and more here in Flori-duh. Probably only read by us libs.
I’m a Banter subscriber. Been one for a few years. Will faithfully continue. I was thinking of subscribing to Substack. Now I’m not interested. To me, it’s a trust issue. I trust the Banter journalists. Substack’s answers to Ben’s questions are irresponsible. I don’t trust Substack.
We really appreciate the support Larry! It's a tricky one with Substack. They've been a great partner for us and have never tried to interfere with our work. That being said, I can see why a lot of people object given some of the publications on their platform. As mentioned in the article, as long as they draw a clear line between being a publishing platform vs a social media company, I have no objection.
Fair points. As with the Banters themselves, I only have so much time in my day. Even though there’s a lot of great authors worth relishing on Substack, and a good platform for you guys, when it comes down to it I’d rather choose Banter. If someone is going to Captain the boat, I’d like to have faith and confidence they’re not steering us into an iceberg.
Jan 18, 2023·edited Jan 18, 2023Liked by Ben Cohen
I get what Substack is saying, and there are reasonable concerns about having a corporation decide what's true or not. That their model doesn't, at least, have an algorithm that decides for you what you see and thereby amplify misinformation is a good thing,
Those noted, however, there is still a very important role that companies SHOULD play in monitoring and regulating the information presented on their sites. Fair lines can be drawn that would allow them to be the free speech supporters that they are without providing a means for lies to be spread. It's not that hard, for example, to tell the difference between people clamoring "Don't provide that person a platform because they are clearly lying." and "Don't provide that person a platform because they keep telling the truth."
Saying "We're even handed and fair. We hold the door open for both the victim and the victimizer equally." shouldn't acceptable to a responsible company. But, clearly, they prefer to deny the responsibilities they have.
"Elon Musk handing over Twitter files on the company’s vaccine content policies to rabid anti-vax conspiracy theorist Alex Berenson is a public health disaster."
I understand what you're saying. And those who do follow the science, get vaccinated, wear masks are put at risk and can get infected because of the fact many out there don't.
But.
The consequences of the public health disaster are largely (overwhelmingly?) hitting the anti-vax/MAGA crowd. They are the ones far more likely to die. And I'm leaning toward the view that the culling that results is overall a good thing for the rest of us.
"He is currently the 7th highest paid writer on the platform with “tens of thousands of paid subscribers”, just behind the man regarded as the leading source of Covid conspiracy theories, Dr. Joseph Mercola."
Also listed there just ahead of Berenson: Such reliable sources of accuracy as "TK News by Matt Taibbi" at #2 (appropriate number) and "Glenn Greenwald" at #6 (Mercola having bumped up a spot to #5).
Yeah, substack is highly profitable for a lot of grifters. That being said, it's a very good publishing system that also supports a lot of good publications. As long as they don't start using algorithms to show people anti-vaxx crap I think their position is defendable.
Thank you for this informative article. I have a Gannet paper where I live. They are struggling to continue to exist but they provide wonderful investigative journalism against a corrupt sheriff and more here in Flori-duh. Probably only read by us libs.
Thank you Barbara! People like you make what we and the Gannet paper do possible :)
I’m a Banter subscriber. Been one for a few years. Will faithfully continue. I was thinking of subscribing to Substack. Now I’m not interested. To me, it’s a trust issue. I trust the Banter journalists. Substack’s answers to Ben’s questions are irresponsible. I don’t trust Substack.
We really appreciate the support Larry! It's a tricky one with Substack. They've been a great partner for us and have never tried to interfere with our work. That being said, I can see why a lot of people object given some of the publications on their platform. As mentioned in the article, as long as they draw a clear line between being a publishing platform vs a social media company, I have no objection.
Fair points. As with the Banters themselves, I only have so much time in my day. Even though there’s a lot of great authors worth relishing on Substack, and a good platform for you guys, when it comes down to it I’d rather choose Banter. If someone is going to Captain the boat, I’d like to have faith and confidence they’re not steering us into an iceberg.
I get what Substack is saying, and there are reasonable concerns about having a corporation decide what's true or not. That their model doesn't, at least, have an algorithm that decides for you what you see and thereby amplify misinformation is a good thing,
Those noted, however, there is still a very important role that companies SHOULD play in monitoring and regulating the information presented on their sites. Fair lines can be drawn that would allow them to be the free speech supporters that they are without providing a means for lies to be spread. It's not that hard, for example, to tell the difference between people clamoring "Don't provide that person a platform because they are clearly lying." and "Don't provide that person a platform because they keep telling the truth."
Saying "We're even handed and fair. We hold the door open for both the victim and the victimizer equally." shouldn't acceptable to a responsible company. But, clearly, they prefer to deny the responsibilities they have.
"Elon Musk handing over Twitter files on the company’s vaccine content policies to rabid anti-vax conspiracy theorist Alex Berenson is a public health disaster."
I understand what you're saying. And those who do follow the science, get vaccinated, wear masks are put at risk and can get infected because of the fact many out there don't.
But.
The consequences of the public health disaster are largely (overwhelmingly?) hitting the anti-vax/MAGA crowd. They are the ones far more likely to die. And I'm leaning toward the view that the culling that results is overall a good thing for the rest of us.
"He is currently the 7th highest paid writer on the platform with “tens of thousands of paid subscribers”, just behind the man regarded as the leading source of Covid conspiracy theories, Dr. Joseph Mercola."
Also listed there just ahead of Berenson: Such reliable sources of accuracy as "TK News by Matt Taibbi" at #2 (appropriate number) and "Glenn Greenwald" at #6 (Mercola having bumped up a spot to #5).
Yeah, substack is highly profitable for a lot of grifters. That being said, it's a very good publishing system that also supports a lot of good publications. As long as they don't start using algorithms to show people anti-vaxx crap I think their position is defendable.
Agreed. There is definite virtue in not being a platform that supports the creation of echo chambers.