More than 200 Substack authors asked the platform to explain why it’s “platforming and monetizing Nazis,” and now they have an answer straight from co-founder Hamish McKenzie:
I just want to make it clear that we don’t like Nazis either—we wish no-one held those views. But some people do hold those and other extreme views. Given that, we don’t think that censorship (including through demonetizing publications) makes the problem go away—in fact, it makes it worse.
While McKenzie offers no evidence to back these ideas, this tracks with the company’s previous stance on taking a hands-off approach to moderation. In April, Substack CEO Chris Best appeared on the Decoder podcast and refused to answer moderation questions. “We’re not going to get into specific ‘would you or won’t you’ content moderation questions” over the issue of overt racism being published on the platform, Best said. McKenzie followed up later with a similar statement to the one today, saying “we don’t like or condone bigotry in any form.”
McKenzie followed up later with a similar statement to the one today, saying “we don’t like or condone bigotry in any form.
Condone:
verb accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue
coded language for “we think Nazis have a point”
This is plainly irresponsible.
“we don’t like or condone bigotry in any form.” I mean they are litterally Condoning bigotry.
“His response similarly doesn’t engage other questions from the Substackers Against Nazis authors, like why these policies allow it to moderate spam and newsletters from sex workers but not Nazis.”
Doesn’t seem very consistent.
Condone (transitive verb): To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.
Neat.
Funny how words mean things
Interesting, I generally think of the Merriam-Webster definition:
to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless
Or perhaps even further than that: actually approving of something. Guess “condone” is a little weaker of a word than I thought. But its popularity calls for being extra careful of even overlooking wrongdoing.
Substack: Nazis are cool, but you better not be selling sex related shit! We have standards!
“We do not condone Nazi propaganda, but we are very concerned about sex work causing social degeneracy.”
Substack is likely very concerned about the purity of the volk
TIL that Substack is apparently a bunch of crypto-fascists who expect people to believe they don’t support Nazis, they just give them money and a place at their table to talk about it.
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that you are obligated to host a platform so shitty people can use it to share shitty ideals. It simply means that you won’t get arrested on a federal level.
Websites can do whatever they want, including deciding that they don’t want to be a platform for hate speech. If people are seeking a place for this conversation genre to happen, and they want it enough, they can run their own website.
Imagine if you invited a friend of a friend over, and they were sharing nasty ideals at your Christmas party. And they brought their friends. Are you just going to sit there and let them turn your dinner into a political rally? No, you’re going to kick them out. It’s your dinner, like it is your website. If you don’t kick them out, then at some level, you’re aligning with them.
I like your example there a lot, I’m going to use that in the future when I’m trying to express that notion. In the past I’ve never been able to articulate that exact concept. So thanks!
I just want to make it clear that we don’t like Nazis either—we wish no-one held those views. But some people do hold those and other extreme views. Given that, we don’t think that censorship (including through demonetizing publications) makes the problem go away—in fact, it makes it worse.
Are Musky and Hamish McKenzie’s friends because that sound like the same bullshit he would say. Also, hasn’t deplatforming actually been shown to work?
It’s the only thing that works. Shouting Nazis into silence is the best early way to deal with them. Show up to protest in huge numbers, deplatform them, force them to scurry back into the shadows.
Most importantly of all, keep them from recruiting more.
Once these efforts fail, all you’re left with is violence, and violence will come, because the Nazis love it.
Welp. On my way to Substack and peek in over there.
I don’t think anyone here is shocked that you want to help Nazis make money.
“Yeah they’re nazis but hey, they bring the money in. Why should I ban them?”
I just want to make it clear that we don’t like Nazis either—we wish no-one held those views.
“But we’ll gladly host those views on our platform, run ads alongside them, and profit from them.”
For anyone who remembers the interview the CEO did with the Verge back when they launched Notes, this isn’t surprising at all.
You can see a transcript here. The relevant section can be found by searching
all brown people are animalsor more specifically justanimalsand reading on from there.I’m not sure if the video footage of the interview is still available, but it’s even worse because you can see that the CEO is completely lost when talking about the idea of moderating anything and basically shuts down because they have nothing to say all while the interview is politely berating them about how they’re obviously failing a litmus test.
Do note that above the point where “animals” occurs is some post-hoc context provided by the interviewer (perhaps why the video is no longer easily available?) where they point out that the question they asked and the response they got wasn’t exactly as extreme as it first appeared. But they also point out that it’s still very notable despite the slightly mitigating correction and I’d agree entirely, especially if you watch(ed) the video and clocked the CEO’s demeanor and lack of any intelligent thought on the issue.
Oh yeah that’s the classic. The interviewer describes himself as one of the targets, even, and that still doesn’t make it real for this fuck.
Yea I’m guessing it’s pretty obvious that it’s simply their shameless business model or they’ve made promises to someone in exchange for money to platform Nazis in the name of free speech.
Yea… Meta took the same “free peaches” approach and the entire fucking globe is now dealing with various versions of white nationalism. So like, can we actually give censorship of hate a fucking try for once? I’m willing to go down that road.
Never ever fall for that one. You can look at various regimes in the world what happens when “hate” gets censored. Demonitizing is one thing, technical implementations to “live censor hate” would be catastrophic.
So…Nazi then?
not everyone who doesn’t want to censor nazis is a nazi. while i think hate has no place anywhere online, i agree that free speech is important. substack should definetely stop someone hateful from earning money on that platform one way or another.
removed by mod
Why are you so combative? You responded to a post rebutting a desire to censor speech from a legal perspective. Being opposed to defining any speech as illegal and being a nazi sympathizer are two very different things. You do not, in fact, have to choose one.
removed by mod
They can’t. That would break the illusion of being an “enlightened centrist.”
I.E. votes right wing, sees themselves as slightly more moderate, but sympathizer and defender of the far right and Nazis.
Or one of the many foreign troll farms found to be pushing the “enlightened centrist” narrative.
i’m by no means any kind of centrist or right leaning and i do have very strong opinions about nazis. but free speech on the internet is a very important thing, while i also believe hate speech should be censored.
tl;dr, conflicting opinions != Nazi, dumbass.
It’s not the conflicting opinions. It’s your lack of commitment to your own professed opinions. You literally stated you believe hate speech should be censored. But all your arguments to this point are that they should not. Where is your consistency?
Pressing X to doubt
removed by mod
i don’t think i will, this is complicated and i don’t care enough. i am not taking sides.
🤡
Won’t work here, on here it is black or white, either hate Nazis and anything that even approaches it or you are one. Every other subject in the world will be grey and nuanced, and they will argue minor points to death, except for this.
If you do not support removing Nazis from the public sphere, you aren’t necessarily a Nazi. But you do support Nazis. That didn’t make a difference between 1939 and 1945 and it doesn’t make a difference now.
Your username is disgusting.
Do you not know who Dick Tracy is?
removed by mod
I like to accuse people of blocking me because I don’t understand how Lemmy works.
Right? Me too. When replies disappear from my inbox that’s when I know: “I am just a weird idiot”. In addition to the refrain in my brain: I like to have people imagine sexual bodily fluids oozing from the devil’s bunghole with rotting meat and maggots. Due to this, I also confirm that I am definitely cool and popular with all the other Internet hipsters"
I wanted to be a mall cop but after failing both the physical and psychological screening I decided to tell other people how they should use social media.
It’s all about making the world a better place, you know?
Do you have a Meta or Substack stamp on your passport?
I’m looking. Is something supposed to stand out about Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK?
There is real time censorship present anywhere in europe? Nowhere near. We have “you have to act within certain time” laws when content gets flaged, that’s all. You could argue forcing DNS resolvers to block certain domains is censorhip though. Look at China. Talk bad about politics in your private chats with your mates, i’m sure your censorship dream will do you and your family well! Heck even talking about Winnie poh is “hate” or was this not true?
Again, demonitize them as you want. But censorship just leads to the groups isolating more and more from the world.
Just look at the beliefs of people witch a member of cults (or religions if you want) - thousands of people which are explicitly denied via rules to gather knowledge in the internet (looking at you Mormons). I’d like to call that psychological censorship - it aims for the same goal in a way but I get way to off topic
Actually, yes. In the UK people (including Jewish people) are being arrested and jailed for speaking out against Israeli naziism and genocide as inciting “hate.”
That example is literally EXACTLY why people, myself included, believe that the censoring of certain types of speech needs to remain exclusively a private enterprise.
That’s an interesting point. On one hand Israel is the way it is because right wing nationalism has been normalized through open and free speech in the US. But Israel is also where it is because of the conflation of the meaning of antisemitism shutting down anyone challenging it. Though, I am seeing that conflation being properly challenged more so now than ever before but it’s obviously not fast enough. It’s probably time to implement looking more at collective actions more than words within governmental policy writing. As in mass killings = bad. I wish humans didn’t suck.
Monetization of such content is questionable for sure, but I’m affirmative about what he says about the propagation of such extreme views. Simply being unaware about such things won’t make them go away. People should know who they are and why they are so we can deal with them better. There’s alot we can do better but can’t do because of limited awareness and our own negative attitude to deal with them.
Submitted for good faith discussion: Substack shouldn’t decide what we read. The reason it caught my attention is that it’s co-signed by Edward Snowden and Richard Dawkins, who evidently both have blogs there I never knew about.
I’m not sure how many of the people who decide to comment on these stories actually read up about them first, but I did, such as by actually reading the Atlantic article linked. I would personally feel very uncomfortable about voluntarily sharing a space with someone who unironically writes a post called “Vaccines Are Jew Witchcraftery”. However, the Atlantic article also notes:
Experts on extremist communication, such Whitney Phillips, the University of Oregon journalism professor, caution that simply banning hate groups from a platform—even if sometimes necessary from a business standpoint—can end up redounding to the extremists’ benefit by making them seem like victims of an overweening censorship regime. “It feeds into this narrative of liberal censorship of conservatives,” Phillips told me, “even if the views in question are really extreme.”
Structurally this is where a comment would usually have a conclusion to reinforce a position, but I don’t personally know what I support doing here.
IDGAF if it feeds into the narrative. It also shuts down a recruitment pipeline. It reduces their reach. It makes the next generation less likely to continue the ideology. De-platforming is a powerful tool that should be reserved for only the most crucial fights, but the fight against Nazi is one of those fights.
The Nazis were already full-blown conspiracy theorists. EVERYTHING is spun to feed into their narrative. That ship has sailed.
A platform operator needs to AT MINIMUM demonetize the content and censure it, and is likely only being responsible if they ban it outright. If you aren’t prepared to wade into the fraught, complex world of content moderation, don’t run a content platform.
This would be silly even if they didn’t moderate at all but they do. They don’t allow sex workers use their service. And we aren’t talking about “Nazis” as a code word for the far right. The complaint letter cited literal Nazis with swastika logos.
Plus, how grand are his delusions of grandeur if he thinks his fucking glorified email blast manager is the one true hope for free speech? Let the Nazis self-host an open source solution (like Ghost).
They don’t allow sex workers use their service.
What about a nazi sex worker ?
I guess exceptions could be made …
Do they not allow sex workers to use their service? Here’s a sex worker who posts on Substack.
I believe keeping the ability for sex workers to post there intact is a good reason not to ban Nazis – basically, deciding who are “good” posters and allowing only them leads to a steadily-expanding list of “bad” categories of people who need to get banned, with sex workers as an obvious additional early target.
If you’re open to reading an article from Reason.com expanding on this take, which I partially agree with, there it is.
(Edit: Restructured so that more of the argument comes directly from me, as opposed to Reason.com)
I’m not at all surprised that a Koch-funded publication thinks that Substack should allow Nazis to use their platform to make money.
Ad hominem. Nice. That said, I get it if you think Reason.com is a sketchy source to try to point to as an argument for anything. I restructured my message, so I’m simply stating my facts and opinions directly, so you can disagree directly if you like, instead of just jeering at the “Reason.com” part of it.
If the fact that I cited “Reason.com” as an aside is a problem, but it’s not a problem the person I was replying to was calmly stating something that was highly relevant to the argument that wasn’t actually true… you might be only concerned with whether something agrees with your biases, not whether it’s accurate. Does that not seem like a problem to you?
The Kochs are Nazis. That’s not an ad hominem, that’s just a fact.
David, along with his brother Chuck Koch continued their father’s rabid anti-communism and anti-semitism by founding and funding both the Reason Foundation and the Cato Institute. Both “think tanks” billed themselves as libertarian. Both published holocaust denial literature including the writings of school mates of the Koch brothers.
They were even partly raised by a Nazi.
Here again, you get this strange recurrence of a kind of little touch of Nazi Germany, because … Charles and Frederick, the oldest sons, were put in the hands of a German nanny who was described by other family members as just a fervid Nazi. She was so devout a supporter of Hitler that finally, after five years working for the family, she left of her own volition in 1940 when Hitler entered France because she wanted to celebrate with the Fuehrer.
And no, it doesn’t seem like a problem to me to call Nazis Nazis. Because they’re Nazis.
“Ad hominem” refers to ignoring the content of a message, and making your argument based on who is speaking. It doesn’t mean that your statement about the speaker isn’t factual, or that understanding more about who is speaking might not be relevant – it simply refers to the idea that you should at some point address the content of the message if you’re going to debate it.
In this case, I said something, you ignored the content and instead focused on the fact that I’d linked to something, and criticized the source of the thing I’d linked to. Okay, fair enough, the Koch brothers are Nazis. I don’t like them either. If you want to respond to the content of my message, I’ve now reframed it so the stuff I’m saying is coming directly from me, so that “but Reason.com!” isn’t any longer a way to dismiss it because of who is speaking.
“Ad hominem” refers to ignoring the content of a message, and making your argument based on who is speaking.
I’m aware. And that is perfectly valid when the content of the message is defending monetizing Nazis is funded by Nazis.
You missed what I’m saying. I’m not funded by Nazis. You took my message and ignored what I was saying in favor of criticizing Reason.com. Fair enough. I was inviting you to continue the conversation, if you have an argument against the content, now that I’ve removed anything that could be construed as “because Reason.com says so” and simply said what I think about it.
They don’t allow sexually explicit content. From their TOS:
We don’t allow porn or sexually exploitative content on Substack, including any depictions of sexual acts for the sole purpose of sexual gratification.
So, a porn star could write about the industry but couldn’t use it like “OnlyFans but blog” where she had a post and included some pictures for subscribers.
Which is fine. They’re the publisher. They can decide smut is a step too far. But don’t pretend to be some free speech martyr for publishing Nazi propaganda while banning showing a tit.
… which is very different from “not allowing sex workers to use their service,” and undermines the whole argument that “well they do do moderation, they just think Nazis are on the ‘ok’ list.” I would have had a totally different response if the person I was responding to had tried to argue that since they don’t allow actual porn, they should also be obligated to ban extreme viewpoints.
I can ALMOST see his point… If you push them underground, you push them to find a space where nobody will challenge them, and they can grow stronger in that echo chamber.
Allowing them to be exposed to the light of day and fresh air makes their evil apparent to all and searchable.
And besides, “Punch a Nazi Day” just isn’t the same without Nazis. :)
The problem being we basically know that’s not how it works.
If you push them underground, the main result is fewer Nazis. Intentionally platforming them helps them maintain a facade of normalcy that makes it WAY easier to recruit people into the organizations and further radicalize them. Not to mention the simple amplification effect of having a platform.
The idea that the underground Nazis are going to be a more distilled, pure, volatile form of Nazi SOUNDS theoretically sensible. But if that’s your argument, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it actually happens. And even if it sometimes does, if there’s only 10 of them it barely matters.
The simplest solution, to shut down the recruitment pipeline, is also the correct choice for a platform operator to make.
Thanks for putting it into words. I couldn’t quite put my finger on what specifically felt wrong about this reasoning but you’re on point.
