Speaker 3
have some questions about the business of substack, but i want t return o some of the kind of questions t we almost got related to the kind of philosophy sub satas an institution, and also the broader, immediate obsession with sub sta when alluded to. There are all these stories that have been written in the new york times recently, but not only to new york times, in the new yorker and in other places. And a consistent, i form a that i'd seen is something along the lines of, is subside good for democracy? Things
Speaker 1
along i subse a media futu we want hes er,
Speaker 3
yes. Anan, i'd find it. I find it incredible interesting. Aisosedis wor taty o e ara, see, much worse were pa, much worse for darters. Ar
Speaker 3
som of the stories, the same stories, will acknowledge the fact that there is this parallel between o the internet, bravo, the printing press, or the radio, and the kind of democratization that happens when you have a platform that that comes into existence that allows a greater number of people to venture out on their own, to have a more independent voice. I into tappin to these different audiences, but we're substack came a or rose to prominence, and is rising to greater prominence, one hopes, for your sake. Anyways, a, that a, onis both cis.
Speaker 1
Yet we've rising. Weregethe
Speaker 2
as i go. L hav, as many. Sharstoewor. But there's
Speaker 3
a sense, iut, there's a sense in which there seems, at the current moment, there's a great deal of concern about misinformation, about the wrong sorts of people having megaphones and being amplified. And a number of the controversies that have surrounded sub sack have had something to do with whether or not there was the appropriate kind of moderation takeing place. Said, subsi, i wonder if you could speak to some of that. I won't make the question any any more pointed than that, but we're one follow up, in a way. Thats w like you a little betty,
Speaker 1
like nine questions the spiri. I thinkt sub stack has a great interest in achieving the same same outcomes as people who want to fight mis information, which is that we want a more trustworthy media ecosystem. We want trustworthy institutions. We want people to havea ability to come together in good faith discussion and make progress together and understand each other and work together, or that kind of stuff. And i think there are people who have good faith and good intentions, who want to fight mis information, who are resorting to the idea that censorship or content moderation is the way to do thatand don't blame them. We've gone through like, a decade of pretty terrible shit and seen a scene like social meteor play a large role in delivering us to the shit a face. Bok an, twitter in particular. Bt ans graham, titok ll be part of the story too. And so the impulse understandble you might be like, let's control those. Let's make em like let's tame them. Let's kickle the bad voices out and only keep the good voices s a really difficult project, and we've seen the effects of how difficult that is. And i think the the approach theave been taken up unti this proch until this point, an that people will continue to advocate for and criticise substag for, not except in is actually making the problem worse. They are fighting misinformation by banning voices or shutting them down, or putting alttle state affiliated medeor flag besides their names, and reducing trust generally, like by combating misinformation directly, by playing wackmole with it, the actually a road trust, because people don't know, like people from the left and the right and everywhere in between, ave ben affected by this kind of censorship, this kind of content moderation. And our approach is like, no, no, no, no, no. Tat. That's fucking everything up. That's making it harder. That's making our goal of building e more trustworthy, eke system, of having a better understanding of each other, of being able to enter into face discussions with each other, harder. And that the bitter thete the bitter approach, or atleast subsa belief. Our thesis on this is that the problem needs to be solved at the system level. It's not a creata system that massively amplifies our voices and a rewards provocative tent, which is a lot of what's happening on social media.