Context : TheNewPlatforms
BigTech has negotiated that the law doesn't hold platforms to account for the behaviour of its users, the way that it does hold publishers to account.
What's interesting in this story is that because SubStack pays some users, the PhantomAuthority is taking it as a publisher and therefore morally responsible for everything that people do on it as a platform. Even those users it doesn't pay.
The Netiquette here is complicated.
If platforms don't pay users, there is a valid criticism of share-cropping (see TheWebsThePlace). But if they do, they can be blamed for publishing bad stuff.
What's the "morally" correct thing for them to do then?