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.”

  • xkforce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    126
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    If there are 10 nazis at a table and you decide to sit among them, there are 11 nazis sitting at that table.

    • linearchaos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Toleration is a social contract. Those that break the contract should not be allowed to seek protection under it.

  • Synthead@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • Jonathan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      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!

  • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    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).

    • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      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)

      • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

        • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          … 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.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        I’m not at all surprised that a Koch-funded publication thinks that Substack should allow Nazis to use their platform to make money.

        • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          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?

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            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.

            https://www.mockingbirdpaper.com/content/david-koch-industrialist-and-holocaust-denier-dies-age-79-american-politicians-scramble-new

            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.

            https://www.npr.org/2016/01/19/463565987/hidden-history-of-koch-brothers-traces-their-childhood-and-political-rise

            And no, it doesn’t seem like a problem to me to call Nazis Nazis. Because they’re Nazis.

            • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              “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.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 years ago

                “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.

                • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  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.

  • fubo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    To be clear — what McKenzie is saying here is that Substack will continue to pay Nazis to write Nazi essays. Not just that they will host Nazi essays (at Substack’s cost), but they will pay for them.

    They are, in effect, hiring Nazis to compose Nazi essays.

    • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      2 years ago

      Not exactly. Substack subscribers pay subscription fees, the content author keeps roughly 80% of the fees, and the rest goes to Substack or to offset hosting costs. The Nazi subscribers are paying the Nazi publishers, and money is flowing from the Nazi subscribers to Substack because of that operation (not away from Substack as it would be if they hired Nazis).

        • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          How is it pedantic to point out that “will pay for them” means “will get paid by them”?

          There’s a perfectly good argument to be made that Substack shouldn’t host Nazis even if they’re making money off them. But that wasn’t (edit: your the) message; your the message was, they’re hiring Nazis. It’s relevant whether they’re materially supporting the Nazis, or being materially supported by a cut of their revenue.

          • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            2 years ago

            It wasn’t my message, but it certainly made sense to me and still does. whereas your message makes sense but in a totally different way. It’s basically “nuh-uh”

            • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 years ago

              Hm. Fair enough. The core complaint I have with banning Nazis from being able to speak, has nothing to do with which way the money is flowing. And I fixed “your” to be “the”; I just hadn’t noticed you weren’t the person I was talking with before.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        That’s splitting hairs. Salespeople who work on commission are keeping an amount of what they make for the company, but I doubt many people would claim they aren’t being paid to sell a product.

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    Being a Nazi isn’t a “view.” It is a political movement guided by the principles of hate, violence, and genocide.

  • yamanii@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    “Let’s tolerate the people that say they want to genocide entire ethnic groups” Surely nothing bad is gonna happen /s

    • RickRussell_CA@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’d love to say that, but unfortunately journalists I respect, who are doing very excellent content that repudiates fascism, don’t really have anywhere else to go. Radley Balko, for example, is a preeminent journalist on the topics of police brutality, law enforcement misdeeds, and failures of the criminal justice system. But WaPo didn’t want to publish him any more, so where does he go?

      I hope they find alternatives, but I’m not going to stop paying for journalism from people like Balko. I don’t want to let white supremacists force any more epistemic closure.

        • RickRussell_CA@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          No idea how the compensation structure works on Medium. But I also have no idea what their content moderation policies are either.

      • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Almost as if Radley Balko’s publisher deciding whether he was allowed to continue to speak anymore was a bad thing, and giving him a place where he can do it and earn a living and no one polices his content was a good thing.

        (Edit: Woo hoo hoo judging by the downvotes y’all sure don’t like it when it happens to one of your guys. Just to be clear, I don’t really care all that much what happens to the literal Nazis. I only care a lot about this issue because I suspect that once you’re done kicking off Nazis, you’ll want to kick off the Joe Rogans and the Dave Chappelles and the COVID denialists and sooner or later some person will arrive with a list on which is someone you like. Like Radley Balko. And yet, somehow, that’ll be totally different in your mind, not connected at all with the earlier people you were advocating for banning.)

  • badaboomxx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 years ago

    Nazism doesn’t deserve tolerance, any person who doesn’t punch it in the face is equal or worse.

    • drmeanfeel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Agreed. Unfortunate that many times this is met with some smug shit about “wanting echo chambers”

      Not wanting a feed full of modern phrenology and a 20 page analysis about how this weeks 13 year old black kid getting murdered by the cops for looking at them wrong is “totally fine and actually should happen more” does NOT mean I “want echo chambers”

    • Seudo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      2 years ago

      Fists aren’t a cure to intolerance. Probably doesn’t hurt so knock yourself a nazi out. As long as force isn’t being used to prevent open discussion and debate, it would be most unwise to drive dangerous ideologies underground where they can’t be monitored and understood.

      • badaboomxx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        You should read the tolerance paradox, to understand why you shouldn’t be tolerant to intolerant people.

        Why would someone would know myself? you idiot? I am not nazy or plan to tolerate them.

        Those ideologies should be put in the mud where they belong, it is good to read history to understand why they are bad, and only stupid untolerant and racists edgelords are the ones that think that being nazi is cool.

        Lol, you think you can monitor and understand those? lol. Just look how dangerous racist idiots are, for example the maga, who tried to overturn the election, in an attempt to inssurection, all of those idiots are traitors, and if they want to say that it is not that bad, then they are also as stupid as those inssurectionits.

        • Wolf_359@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          I like the idea that tolerance is a social contract.

          You’re only covered by it when you practice it.

          You break the contract by being intolerant, nobody is obligated to be tolerant to you anymore.

          • badaboomxx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            That is the paradox of tolerance. And describes how you need to stop being tolerant to groups like the nazis.

  • scarabic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    Tolerating Naziism and allowing it to use social tools to spread its hate is what makes it worse.

    • Seudo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      Teach critical thinking skills as a pillar of the school curriculum and the population will be immunized preventing the spread.

      • Victor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        And teach the value of everyone being equal and their human rights, in school and at home, where it matters (both).

  • gmtom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 years ago

    So substack is a pro-nazi platform run by Nazi enablers, got it.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    So let me get this straight… They don’t like Nazis, but Nazis not making money is worse than Nazis making money?

  • Girru00@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    2 years ago

    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