Having read the transcript, I have to disagree with your conclusion. The CEO did answer that the terms of service were purposely broad, but binding, what he refused to answer was whether a hypothetical the author came up with was or wasn't against the terms of service. The author clearly set up the question as a 'right' or 'left' political question, and expressed disbelief that the CEO refused to confirm that anyone the author didn't agree with would be censored.

Not true.

He asked a very concrete question :

  Wow. I mean, I just want to be clear, if somebody shows up on Substack and says
  “all brown people are animals and they shouldn’t be allowed in America,” you’re 
  going to censor that. That’s just flatly against your terms of service.

And Chris Best squirmed with non answers.

Interesting how in hindsight, this interview basically foreshadowed this exact thing happening. At one point, the CEO says this:

> And we made that decision very early on in Substack — that you’re going to be able to leave at any time, you take your relationships, you take your payment relationships even, and that put us under a lot of pressure.

Later on, this exchange happens:

> [Reporter]: You can leave and you take your set of subscribers and you get all their emails. Is that why you can’t follow someone? When I asked my team what questions they have, the feature requests came in fast and furious, and one of them was, “Can I just follow someone without subscribing to the newsletter?” And you’ve consciously connected those two things.

> [CEO] I think Casey [Newton] put this as, “I wish I could flirt with people before I had to make a commitment.”

> [Reporter]: Casey Newton.

> [CEO]: Yes. Casey’s substack is Platformer.news. It’s a good Substack. You should subscribe.

Casey's quote is linked from the article. Clicking it now, it shows up saying "this note is not available": https://substack.com/profile/241262-casey-newton/note/c-1446...