It isn't, unless you squint real hard and pretend it is. We all understand and accept that we're unlikely to find a place to host content that doesn't also host some content we find objectionable. Cloudflare, Digital Ocean, AWS, GCP, etc they all host some stuff we find objectionable.
However there is a pretty clear line between someone hosting objectionable content and someone promoting objectionable content which is what substack is doing with some of their new tools that highlight other creators you might (or might not) want to read. Digital Ocean doesn't promote any content hosted by people using their platform, they aren't a content platform, same with Cloudflare and others.
So a more apt comparison would be she refuses to use Faber-Castell because they have a weekly newsletter that occasionally suggests Nazi content, and will instead use California Pencil Co. pencils because they don't have a news letter at all much less one occasionally suggesting Nazi content.
Not sure why you have an objection to people taking a principled stand against companies that promote Nazi content.
However there is a pretty clear line between someone hosting objectionable content and someone promoting objectionable content which is what substack is doing with some of their new tools that highlight other creators you might (or might not) want to read. Digital Ocean doesn't promote any content hosted by people using their platform, they aren't a content platform, same with Cloudflare and others.
So a more apt comparison would be she refuses to use Faber-Castell because they have a weekly newsletter that occasionally suggests Nazi content, and will instead use California Pencil Co. pencils because they don't have a news letter at all much less one occasionally suggesting Nazi content.
Not sure why you have an objection to people taking a principled stand against companies that promote Nazi content.