The very first paragraph of the NYT article actually supports Substack’s decision to avoid centralized censorship, and shows the slippery slope behind “come on, just ban the nazis, it’s a no brainer.”

Under pressure from critics who say Substack is profiting from newsletters that promote hate speech and racism

Recall that Katz’s piece in The Atlantic was about Nazis only. Because some people define racism very broadly (eg discussing the possibility that different races have on average different interests or abilities is viewed by some as racist), what is ostensibly a ban on far right discourse actually prevents meaningful discussion on subjects that are unrelated.

The NYT shows its true color further down in the article:

Substack (…) has faced similar criticism in the past, particularly after it allowed transphobic and anti-vaccine language from some writers.

So we start with banning nazis but we end up banning “anti vaccine language,” presumably even if that language turns out to be right.

Is it any surprise that the legacy media is bleeding subscribers, visitors, and revenue, and cutting down on the number of reporters?