Facing a writer revolt, Substack changed course from defending Nazis' right to speak and banned 5 obscure extremist accounts. Some critics say it isn't enough. I wrote about the growing cracks in Substack's "free speech" facade: www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2...@taylorlorenz.bsky.social)

Substack wanted to be neutral. Its tolerance of Nazis proved divisive.

Facing a writer revolt, the popular newsletter platform agrees to ban some accounts — testing its “free speech” stance.

Do other critics say it is enough?