“We don’t think that censorship (including through demonetizing publications) makes the problem go away.”

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.”

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
    31·
    11 months ago

    Interesting. You’re okay with them banning porn but you’re not okay with them getting money from specific Nazi content featuring Nazi imagery. Which, by the way, is not the same as ordering from Starbucks or using an ATM and I don’t believe you’re so stupid that you’re unaware of that. Also, Nazi imagery is not political speech, something I’m also sure you’re aware of. And porn is 100% legal, so you should have the same opinion about porn as you do about swastikas. But you don’t.

    Instead, you are spending a lot of time defending Substack’s right to make money from Nazis, you posted from a Nazi website… it is not a good look.

    • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      11 months ago

      I… what?

      Let me ask you a question. Do you like Nazis? Do you want their ideas to spread, or should they be defeated and dwindle away in the court of public opinion over time?

      I’m gonna assume it’s the latter. My feeling is that the most effective way to get that done is to let them take part in the exchange of ideas in the public sphere, as opposed to driving them underground. Their ideas are so abhorrent that giving them a good public airing is the quickest way to turn people against them and make sure people know who they are. Would you like me to search for support from experts on extremism on that? Maybe I will learn that I am wrong in this, but that’s a big part of what’s at the root of why I’m saying what I’m saying.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        11 months ago

        Whether or not they should be allowed in the public sphere, and I disagree that letting someone talk is more effective than not letting them talk, why are you okay with Substack making money from Nazi content?

        • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          11 months ago

          Because that’s the way of allowing them in the public sphere. I think that’s the core of our disagreement. Simple business operations that aren’t connected with allowing an extremist “political” viewpoint in the public sphere or not, I don’t feel the same way about. That’s why I’m fine with the government combating organized misinformation, or Substack banning porn, or Google banning advertising by Nazis. Once someone tries to publish a newsletter with their abhorrent views, and someone else says “whoa whoa whoa you’re not allowed to even say that,” then I object to that, whether that “abhorrent” view is a Nazi or a sex worker or a BLM protestor. That’s the other big part at the root of what I’m saying – different people have different definitions of what’s “abhorrent,” and you’re on some people’s lists the same way Nazis are on yours.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
            11·
            11 months ago

            Sorry, you’re saying that private companies should not only be forced to have Nazis on their servers but should be forced to profit from their content otherwise Nazis are not in the public sphere and thus people will not know about what Nazis believe and therefore… something?

            Because as far as I can tell, not allowing Nazi content in Germany hasn’t been an issue.

            • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2·
              11 months ago

              When did I say anything about forcing? The first amendment applies to the government only. Any company can do what they like, and I might have my opinion on it, but that doesn’t mean I think anyone should have to have Nazis if they don’t want to. I’m just saying what is my take on what the right thing to do is.

              It sounds like you’re the one advocating for Substack to have to operate their private servers in a fashion that they clearly don’t want to do. Not saying this is you, but I’ve seen other (presumably confused) people in this thread advocating for talking to Substack’s “advertisers” to pressure them into banning the Nazis, and talking to Stripe about what kind of content Substack is allowing, to try to coerce Substack into banning the Nazis. I’m strongly against that, whether it comes from the “pro-free-speech” crowd or the anti-Nazi crowd.

              Because as far as I can tell, not allowing Nazi content in Germany hasn’t been an issue.

              Except, of course, for that one time. That one time it was a pretty big issue.

              That’s not purely a flip answer. As far back ago as the business plot, and certainly all the way through the heyday of the KKK, there have been fascist and extremist elements in the USA. There was an American Nazi party. The US always had strong protections (in theory and mostly in practice) for those abhorrent views in the public sphere, whereas in Germany it’s legal for the current government to ban Nazis, or for the Nazi government to ban communists.

              Why, then, did the fascists take over in Germany and not the US? If allowing Nazi speech is so dangerous and banning it is such a powerful tool against it?

              (Edit: phrasing)

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
                11·
                11 months ago

                It sounds like you’re the one advocating for Substack to have to operate their private servers in a fashion that they clearly don’t want to do. Not saying this is you

                So you’re directly saying that’s what it sounds like I’m doing, but you’re not saying it’s me?

                Except, of course, for that one time. That one time it was a pretty big issue.

                That one time before anything relating to the Nazis was banned in Germany? What’s your point?

                • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  2·
                  11 months ago

                  So you’re directly saying that’s what it sounds like I’m doing, but you’re not saying it’s me?

                  I’m saying that you’re saying Substack shouldn’t be letting Nazis on their servers, and when they issue a detailed statement explaining why they’re doing that, you object to it. I never said any company should change their policy away from the policy they want to have, and you have, but you’re accusing me of trying to “force” a private company to change their policy.

                  There are other people in the thread who are saying “we” should start trying to coerce Substack into banning the Nazis. As far as I know, that’s not you, so I didn’t accuse you of it, but I did bring it up as an example of something else that I object to even more strongly.

                  That one time before anything relating to the Nazis was banned in Germany? What’s your point?

                  My point is, hateful political speech can be banned in Germany. That was true before the Nazis. And yet, they came to power. Hateful political speech can’t be banned in the US, and yet fascists didn’t come to power here (or… not as thoroughly as it did in Germany, at least). I listed some examples from way before WW2. Does my thinking not make sense here? You don’t have to agree or anything, just trying to lay out another reason behind why I think that way.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    11·
                    11 months ago

                    I’m saying that you’re saying Substack shouldn’t be letting Nazis on their servers

                    I have blatantly told you already that I am not saying that. So now you are deliberately lying.

                    My point is, hateful political speech can be banned in Germany. That was true before the Nazis.

                    Bullshit. Absolute and utter bullshit. So no, your bullshit does not make sense.