We keep seeing false claims about Substack that seem designed to mislead.
Here’s just one recent example, which the outlet refuses to correct.
We believe the best way to fight misinformation is through open debate, so here are the facts.
1/x
Here’s just one recent example, which the outlet refuses to correct.
We believe the best way to fight misinformation is through open debate, so here are the facts.
1/x
The writer claims Substack “actively recruits and pays extremists.”
We do not and have not, and he can’t name any examples. Yet when approached about it, he said: “I'd be happy to remove it if you could provide evidence that it's inaccurate.”
That’s not how this works.
We do not and have not, and he can’t name any examples. Yet when approached about it, he said: “I'd be happy to remove it if you could provide evidence that it's inaccurate.”
That’s not how this works.
It’s not journalism to make an unfounded claim and demand contrary “evidence” to remove it. It borders on extortion: we will defame you unless you give us what we want.
No.
The onus is on the journalist to prove the accusation, not on the subject to disprove it.
No.
The onus is on the journalist to prove the accusation, not on the subject to disprove it.
It’s like a media outlet accusing you of money laundering, and when you protest, they refuse to issue a correction unless you give them your financial statements.
This is clearly unreasonable. That’s why the burden of proof is on the journalist, not the subject.
This is clearly unreasonable. That’s why the burden of proof is on the journalist, not the subject.
Not only does the writer fail to produce any evidence or examples, but he doesn’t even attempt to make the argument that anyone we’ve “recruited” is an “extremist” by any definition.
Rather, he seems to just use “extremist” as a label for anyone whose opinions he doesn’t like.
Rather, he seems to just use “extremist” as a label for anyone whose opinions he doesn’t like.
It’s now common to use words like “extremist” not in the true sense, but as a slur against people on the other side — like how Putin calls Ukrainians “fascist.”
It’s unfortunate when people do this but crazy when it comes from a media outlet that makes any claim to integrity.
It’s unfortunate when people do this but crazy when it comes from a media outlet that makes any claim to integrity.
You can find disagreeable people and opinions everywhere online, including Substack.
That doesn’t give a media outlet the license to fabricate and defame.
The accusation here is a serious one, and its unsubstantiated sweeping claim smears an entire community of writers.
That doesn’t give a media outlet the license to fabricate and defame.
The accusation here is a serious one, and its unsubstantiated sweeping claim smears an entire community of writers.
We’ve asked @WIRED to correct this, but they refuse unless we pay the ransom in the form of private information.
We won’t be doing that.
Instead, the responsibility is theirs to get the facts right. When they fail as they have here, they should issue an unambiguous correction.
We won’t be doing that.
Instead, the responsibility is theirs to get the facts right. When they fail as they have here, they should issue an unambiguous correction.
A happy ending to this thread:
https://twitter.com/lulumeservey/status/1534896275098943488
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
