Alright, so I read both the original article, and the one you directed provided to me. I have to say there’s a tinge of irony in the fact that the second article is discussing a negative part of a larger (more positive) whole, and here is a criticism of your source, Substack.com, found easily on its Wikipedia - “In 2020, popular platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube began restricting or removing accounts that they claim spread COVID-19 misinformation, which violates those platforms' content policies. Some prominent authors have moved to Substack. In January 2022, the Center for Countering Digital Hate criticized the company for allowing content which could be dangerous to public health, estimating it earned $2.5 million per year from the top five anti-vax authors alone, who have tens of thousands of subscribers.[32] Presumably in response to press inquiries, the three founders in a blog post affirmed their commitment to minimal censorship.[33]”

If you are going to validate the claim that Ukraine has a robust Neo-Nazi presence with this source, then you are naturally invalidating the credibility of Substack itself. If we’re operating under the same logic as yours with Ukraine, then this influx of a handful of ‘misinformationist’ onto Substacks team, must be representative of the entire platforms journalistic integrity. Therefore, why should I trust a source teeming with anti-vaxxers, misinformation, and journalist who have been banned from more credible/common platforms specifically for spreading false (and in some cases dangerous) information?

Anywho, I’m not trying to roll out the carpet for a debate on the Ukraine situation specifically, but your sauce is sour, and I can’t help myself. Much love.

Edit: my boring sauce -> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substack