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?
They could have tried to partner with Twitter, but instead they got mad at who the new owner was and tried to build a competing model before trying to work with them first.
Nobody was saying (especially me) anyone should censor anything - not sure where that idea came from.
Substack's moves had an undertone of hostility toward the new owner, or at least the timing and direction of the enhancements appeared to align. If you were an executive at Twitter (not Elon), how would you perceive the moves made by a company that wasn't even on your radar as a rival, competitor or enemy - but could be a potentially powerful partner & ally?
You are right they could have done what you suggested.
But saying "Substack is not totally without fault" makes it seem like Elon's reaction is something we could have predicted. Yes, if you poke a bear you'll get mauled. But we expect more from human beings. And we certainly should not reduce his moral culpability with that argument.
As far as Substack partnering with Elon.
You partner with people you can trust. I'm not certain the people at Substack trust Elon. I certainly don't. Neither do many of Twitter's former advertisers. Neither do many of Twitter's users. Do you trust him? Would you partner with someone that capricious and vengeful? What if something goes wrong and you end up on his bad side?
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?
They could have tried to partner with Twitter, but instead they got mad at who the new owner was and tried to build a competing model before trying to work with them first.
Nobody was saying (especially me) anyone should censor anything - not sure where that idea came from.
Substack's moves had an undertone of hostility toward the new owner, or at least the timing and direction of the enhancements appeared to align. If you were an executive at Twitter (not Elon), how would you perceive the moves made by a company that wasn't even on your radar as a rival, competitor or enemy - but could be a potentially powerful partner & ally?
You are right they could have done what you suggested.
But saying "Substack is not totally without fault" makes it seem like Elon's reaction is something we could have predicted. Yes, if you poke a bear you'll get mauled. But we expect more from human beings. And we certainly should not reduce his moral culpability with that argument.
As far as Substack partnering with Elon.
You partner with people you can trust. I'm not certain the people at Substack trust Elon. I certainly don't. Neither do many of Twitter's former advertisers. Neither do many of Twitter's users. Do you trust him? Would you partner with someone that capricious and vengeful? What if something goes wrong and you end up on his bad side?