Holy cow, did they actually talk themselves into believing that free speech means businesses are morally obligated to give them money no matter what they do?— Nicholas Grossman (@NGrossman81) November 4, 2022
The answer, hilariously and sadly at the same time, is yes:
He would do anything to appease the ”activists,” except not personally tweeting out deranged homophobic conspiracy theories from Alex Jones-caliber websites in the mentions of a former secretary of state:
When the world’s richest man/owner of this very site himself traffics in conspiracy theories days after claiming to advertisers that he’s going to be a responsible leader, all I can say is: I’m not overreacting by expressing my concerns. Actions always speak louder than words. pic.twitter.com/00RhlJa4rh— Yael Eisenstat (@YaelEisenstat) October 30, 2022
The underlying premise of My Free Speech/IDW SubStack is that free speech and freedom of association are a strict zero-sum game. Free speech does not simply entail the right to say things, but a right to an adoring audience, the platform of your choice, and in some cases actual money. Advertisers have an obligation to continue to pay you even if they don’t think that your stated model of allowing more trolls and Nazis and harassers on your website is in their interest. Freedom of speech, in this vision, is a one-way ratchet, and the idea that other people have their own ideas and interests and might not wish to be associated with you is something their worldview cannot grasp.
So we’re headed here:
The end state of the First Amendment is a Ted Cruz bill that requires GM to buy ads next to racist tweets— nilay patel (@reckless) November 4, 2022
At least the people who quit their jobs for SubStack sinecures to say this stuff are making money. Setting an immense pile of money on fire because you’re high on your own supply is a whole different thing.