Anti-vaxxers making ‘at least $2.5m’ a year from publishing on Substack

Re:Anti-vaxxers making ‘at least $2.5m’ a year from publishi... by Comevius on Thursday January 27, 2022 @11:56AM (#30102905)

Substack should decide, and ultimately laws do. European laws are already in favor platform responsibility. It's an ongoing research of course, we are figuring it out, but Substack's approach of shrugging responsibility is not tenable.

In a democracy what is harmful and what is not is decided by the public, and ideally that public should be well-informed and educated, if not, you have a different problem you must fix. For example the United States is far from an ideal democracy, it is a flawed democracy. When a few people are allowed to manipulate a lot of people to get rich or powerful you have a flawed system. That's what Substack allows as well. And it's not right. Never will be.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Anti-vaxxers making ‘at least $2.5m’ a year from publishi... by brigandish on Thursday January 27, 2022 @07:37PM (#30109192)

I’m “the public” and you are “the public” so again, I ask you, how would it be decided what is harmful and who exactly would do the deciding?

If you mean that the public decide by making their own decisions on whether to read something or not then that sounds like a good system to me, as I’m happy to make my own decisions. I’m also an adult who respects the right for other adults to make their own decisions, especially about what they read.

[ Parent | on HN ]