If Substack wanted to shoot its value proposition in the ass, introducing mass censorship so as not to offend the delicate sensitivities of The People Who Matter is the way to do it, right there.
тАЬGoebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If youтАЩre really in favor of free speech, then youтАЩre in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, youтАЩre not in favor of free speech.тАЭ
Consider Robert Reich's presence a test. Principally a test for him, not for those of us who have adopted it as a base for preserving freedom of speech and reasoned dissent.
Much censorship is coming to substack where Reich, (spits) is held out as a big catch and some kind of soothsayer.
Next up? "Obama is coming! Wow! So happy!"
If Substack wanted to shoot its value proposition in the ass, introducing mass censorship so as not to offend the delicate sensitivities of The People Who Matter is the way to do it, right there.
тАЬGoebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If youтАЩre really in favor of free speech, then youтАЩre in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, youтАЩre not in favor of free speech.тАЭ
тАХ Noam Chomsky
I agree. Liberals though, are not like us.
Consider Robert Reich's presence a test. Principally a test for him, not for those of us who have adopted it as a base for preserving freedom of speech and reasoned dissent.