▲ 596 ▼ Revealed: How Substack makes money from hosting Nazi newsletters— Site takes a cut of subscriptions to content that promotes far-right ideology, white supremacy and antisemitism (www.theguardian.com) submitted 8 months ago by Beep@lemmus.org to c/technology@lemmy.world 66 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Artisian@lemmy.world 28 points 8 months ago (5 children) ... Don't they take a cut of most subs? permalink fedilink source hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Fmstrat@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago (2 children) Yes, and that's exactly why the article is important. They can either hide behind a "we are just a vehicle for posters" or they can refuse to host the content. They are choosing the former. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com -4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child) Yes, and that’s exactly why the article is important. Explaining to us how subscriptions work like we're idiots is important? Or was that common knowledge a revelation for you? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Artisian@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago It does seem like the headline + mechanics are entirely uninteresting and unsurprising. I guess the 'newsworthy' thing here is that substack platforms the neo-natzis? It also platforms a bunch of ex-guardian journalists, who will say plenty about the harm being done by corporate buyouts and influence in traditional media. So I have a hard time taking this article, from this venue, very seriously. For example: fox news, every podcast service, the opinion pages (and some news sections) of most major newspapers, and (I assume) more have all been profiting off of amplifying fringe right-wing folks. Is substack substantially worse? Are they doing anything policy wise that we should advocate for? Regulators who aren't doing something they should? permalink fedilink source parent [–] ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works 9 points 8 months ago Most subs aren't comprised of almost exclusively hate speech. permalink fedilink source parent [–] deathbird@mander.xyz 2 points 8 months ago They take a cut of all paid subs. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Fmstrat@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago (2 children) Yes, and that's exactly why the article is important. They can either hide behind a "we are just a vehicle for posters" or they can refuse to host the content. They are choosing the former. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com -4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child) Yes, and that’s exactly why the article is important. Explaining to us how subscriptions work like we're idiots is important? Or was that common knowledge a revelation for you? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Artisian@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago It does seem like the headline + mechanics are entirely uninteresting and unsurprising. I guess the 'newsworthy' thing here is that substack platforms the neo-natzis? It also platforms a bunch of ex-guardian journalists, who will say plenty about the harm being done by corporate buyouts and influence in traditional media. So I have a hard time taking this article, from this venue, very seriously. For example: fox news, every podcast service, the opinion pages (and some news sections) of most major newspapers, and (I assume) more have all been profiting off of amplifying fringe right-wing folks. Is substack substantially worse? Are they doing anything policy wise that we should advocate for? Regulators who aren't doing something they should? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com -4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 child) Yes, and that’s exactly why the article is important. Explaining to us how subscriptions work like we're idiots is important? Or was that common knowledge a revelation for you? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Artisian@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago It does seem like the headline + mechanics are entirely uninteresting and unsurprising. I guess the 'newsworthy' thing here is that substack platforms the neo-natzis? It also platforms a bunch of ex-guardian journalists, who will say plenty about the harm being done by corporate buyouts and influence in traditional media. So I have a hard time taking this article, from this venue, very seriously. For example: fox news, every podcast service, the opinion pages (and some news sections) of most major newspapers, and (I assume) more have all been profiting off of amplifying fringe right-wing folks. Is substack substantially worse? Are they doing anything policy wise that we should advocate for? Regulators who aren't doing something they should? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Artisian@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago It does seem like the headline + mechanics are entirely uninteresting and unsurprising. I guess the 'newsworthy' thing here is that substack platforms the neo-natzis? It also platforms a bunch of ex-guardian journalists, who will say plenty about the harm being done by corporate buyouts and influence in traditional media. So I have a hard time taking this article, from this venue, very seriously. For example: fox news, every podcast service, the opinion pages (and some news sections) of most major newspapers, and (I assume) more have all been profiting off of amplifying fringe right-wing folks. Is substack substantially worse? Are they doing anything policy wise that we should advocate for? Regulators who aren't doing something they should? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works 9 points 8 months ago Most subs aren't comprised of almost exclusively hate speech. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] deathbird@mander.xyz 2 points 8 months ago They take a cut of all paid subs. permalink fedilink source parent