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.”
the context of the post is about knowingly serving nazis. this argument does not work in that context.
They are also knowingly serving many other categories, so ? They are both democrats and republican, nazis and pro-israel and whatever other “category” uses them to publish artices ?
this argument is implicitly assuming nazism is “on the same level” as being democrat/republican or any other “category”. this is not the case, so this argument also doesn’t work. do you have any others?
I don’t said they are on the same level.
I simply said that if you define a platform as “nazi” because they serve a nazi then you can define the same platform as “whatever” because they serve whatever.i can define the color orange by the color of the fruit. i could also define red and blue by the color of that same fruit. not all of these definitions are equally valid
