Glad to find someone who signed both letters! I found stuff to agree with in both but my approach was to sign neither, although that may change once I officially start my substack. I also noticed both Elle and Jonathan, both of whom I follow, being misrepresented. And I've only been here for a while, but it did suddenly feel like Twitter!
Nope; you're wrong. Not every bar needs to have a Nazi wing, and that has NOTHING TO DO with free speech.
A bar can chose to be a Nazi bar; No bar should feel obligated to include Nazis. The Nazis are free to go elsewhere; nowhere is the government supressing Nazis ("freedom of speech")
Substack is NOT the "Marketplace of Ideas", it is but a *small* part of the marketplace. Substack'sanagement preens as if they are the whole market because they need to be seen as a monopoly, in law or in fact, to justify the infinite growth their VC valuation is based on.
Every claim of "Marketplace of Ideas" is gaslighting, delusion or smokescreen - they are taking themselves to be the sole source of speech.
Great article. Interesting point on banning nazis eventually leading to far left contributors being banned, as we have witnessed on other platforms! Don’t give the fash an inch!
Can I just say that this is why you are one of my favorite people to discourse with? And we are a capitalist and an anarchist who somehow manage to share ideas about how we can create a better future. I love that about Substack, that there is space for our discourse to interweave.
Generally, there's a lot I agree with here, as evidenced by my post which shares a lot of these same ideas. Substack shouldn't moderate, we should, and I agree that company leadership should behave ethically and carefully as far as which accounts they promote.
But I have two thoughts: 1) Isn't deciding where to draw the line on monetization just as slippery as drawing the line on being here? Not to mention, imagine if Amazon published all books but the bad ones had to be free? I'm not sure that's better? And 2) I don't think Substack promotes voices on the right but not the left. Because in that same political post you mentioned, Substack mentions Robert Reich, Heather Cox Richardson, Matthew Yglesias, Michael Moore, among many other left leaning, and even extremely left leaning writers. And those people are earning much more—see millions to tens of millions of dollars—than the "thousands to tens of thousands of dollars" the platform might be making from niche alt right voices. I agree that leadership should be even handed, but it seems to me that they are? But then I haven't listened to every podcast so I definitely could be missing something?!
Thank you, glad we have this space too! I think you're right that the line with monetization is just as slippery as with hosting. I had a chunk where I dug a bit more into the line-drawing, but I had to cut it because the post was already too long. Basically, whenever a line-dilemma shows up I think it signals the problem is more fundamental. In this case, it's the question of whether Substack is simply a software provider for writers, like Wordpress, or if they're a media company with an angle and regular guests, etc. It's obviously a little of both, and I'm not sure there's a good way around it with our current profit-driven business models.
For a semblance of consistency, I would make overt Nazi imagery the arbitrary line by which publications get at least demonetized if not removed. Meaning, I would simply enforce existing terms of service by defining Nazi symbols and imagery as hate speech. Would I still be guilty of having double-standards? Possibly. But at least then I wouldn't be open to the accusation that I'm just saying "well, they seem like Nazis to me!" Would that allow some white nationalists to get around the ban by being covert and hiding behind plausible deniability? Probably. But then we're at "mouse-shit in cereal" levels of problematic. For example COVID conspiracy theorists also do pretty well on Substack, and I can't really argue in good faith that they should be banned (being convinced not to get a vaccine is different than being convinced you should try to kill your neighbors). But at some point it's good to remind your users and investors that you (as a platform) don't support misinformation, etc.
As for the second point, it's true that Substack has not only promoted right-wing figures, and that it's impossible to satisfy everyone's standards or ideas of what a balanced offering would be. I'm sure that if they ever featured an anarchist, and didn't grill them during the interview, people would be up in arms asking why there was no pushback, how could you platform such extremist views, etc. Again in that case I would draw the line at overt Nazi rhetoric – which means that Hanania might have gotten thru at first, but then I'd walk back and apologize once I was made aware of his background.
There are no quick fixes, and I'm quite certain if I were calling the shots I'd make a great mess of things. As it stands though, it seems like Substack leadership is at least sympathetic to far-right perspectives, given their inability or unwillingness to clearly acknowledge what's happening. This could again just be due to ignorance about how fascism is different than other speech, thus meriting different treatment. The problem is fascists are dishonest about what they mean and believe, which makes this whole thing so tricky. But overall, I don't look forward to what might happen to Substack if the fascist creep is allowed to spread unchecked.
All this is for the good of the platform, too: Twitter's collapsing precisely because they pulled out all the stops on content moderation (Musk went around directly reinstating far-right talking heads and is now acting surprised that people are leaving smh).
In the meantime, boy am I glad we get so much direct control over our own publications and home feeds!
The issue with the writers you listed is they are center-left to left-liberal writers, and Richard Hanania would not be a right-wing equivalent. If Substack hosted someone like Bari Weiss or some of the staff writers at the Bulwark, that would be one thing. On that podcast interview, Richard Hanania called for the roll back of the Civil Rights Act, and Hamish responded by calling that a gutsy take. Hanania is a pretty blatant racist with ties to white supremacist publications.
This is the main point of contention of the “Substack Against Nazis” signatories, and I haven’t seen many free speech defenders on here engage with it. Why did Substack decide to invite a racist on their podcast, allow him to make racist comments without any meaningful pushback, and promote him via their corporate newsletter for weeks after the fact?
There is a difference between hands-off content moderation and actively promoting bigotry.
To further clarify, I will pose you two questions:
1. Substack has never hosted me on their podcast. Is this an infringement on my freedom of speech?
2. Is every day that they continue not to host me an act of censorship?
If your answers to those questions are “no,” then we are not talking about banning accounts. We are talking about Substack leadership priorities and their proactive choice to promote white supremacists.
I definitely agree that Substack leadership should not be promoting Semitic accounts. I do not know Hanania's stance, nor do I read his newsletter, so I can't comment on whether he falls under that. But I very much agree there is a difference between hands-off content moderation and promoting problematic material. That the latter should not be happening seems a given!
Thank you, Sam, you beat me to it. I came here to point out that the writers Elle Griffith points to as examples of "left leaning and even extremely left leaning writers" (look, Substack promotes *both sides*!) show her lack of political awareness. I unsubscribed from both Heather Cox Richardson and Robert Reich, for example, because their incessant neoliberal obtuseness was more irritating to me than a poison oak rash. And I never bothered to follow the neoliberal, Harvard-educated Matthew Yglesias in the first place. And Michael Moore? I don't even know what to say there... he's definitely not who I want people to think of when people talk about representation of "The Left."
That Elle considers these to be evidence of balance shows her ignorance. Saying "We have the entire food group represented on the dinner table here because we have both a head of wilted lettuce AND a plate of actual shit!" is not a statement anyone in their right mind would take seriously.
Reich thinks capitalism can be reformed, but is still ultimately the best system possible. But what's worse and very telling is that he has on more than one recent occassion on this very platform quoted Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan) with a straight face. I've also seen him in some interviews in Adam Curtis documentaries where he espouses the Hobbensian and Freudian belief that the masses must be manipulated, suppressed, and controlled by an elite power who know what's best for them.
This publication isn't a place for transphobia or conspiracy theories. Queer people are currently victims of, not perpetrators of, state censorship and repression. The COVID pandemic is still ongoing and dangerous. Please take measures to protect your health and that of your loved ones. Also Matt Taibbi has tens of thousands of paid subscribers. He's doing quite fine for himself.
In my humble opinion, the writers who are nazis come to this platform mainly because it’s a simple solution to make money. Youtube has been cracking down on hate or triggering speech and sometimes it can be very silly but at least it’s clear they’re working at making it consumer friendly.
This is another point i rarely hear brought up: consumer friendliness. I’m a consumer. I don’t want to see any nazi rhetoric on this app, in comments, promoted and featured anywhere. It’s not fun, it’s not engaging, it’s not good business. The more consumers are aware of this, the more likely they will stop subscribing.
Glad to find someone who signed both letters! I found stuff to agree with in both but my approach was to sign neither, although that may change once I officially start my substack. I also noticed both Elle and Jonathan, both of whom I follow, being misrepresented. And I've only been here for a while, but it did suddenly feel like Twitter!
Nope; you're wrong. Not every bar needs to have a Nazi wing, and that has NOTHING TO DO with free speech.
A bar can chose to be a Nazi bar; No bar should feel obligated to include Nazis. The Nazis are free to go elsewhere; nowhere is the government supressing Nazis ("freedom of speech")
Substack is NOT the "Marketplace of Ideas", it is but a *small* part of the marketplace. Substack'sanagement preens as if they are the whole market because they need to be seen as a monopoly, in law or in fact, to justify the infinite growth their VC valuation is based on.
Every claim of "Marketplace of Ideas" is gaslighting, delusion or smokescreen - they are taking themselves to be the sole source of speech.
Resist their flag-draped demgoguery.
Yes, I can read your pretentious french - I grew up in belgium - but I don't need to translate to recognize tiresome pontification.
Great article. Interesting point on banning nazis eventually leading to far left contributors being banned, as we have witnessed on other platforms! Don’t give the fash an inch!
Can I just say that this is why you are one of my favorite people to discourse with? And we are a capitalist and an anarchist who somehow manage to share ideas about how we can create a better future. I love that about Substack, that there is space for our discourse to interweave.
Generally, there's a lot I agree with here, as evidenced by my post which shares a lot of these same ideas. Substack shouldn't moderate, we should, and I agree that company leadership should behave ethically and carefully as far as which accounts they promote.
But I have two thoughts: 1) Isn't deciding where to draw the line on monetization just as slippery as drawing the line on being here? Not to mention, imagine if Amazon published all books but the bad ones had to be free? I'm not sure that's better? And 2) I don't think Substack promotes voices on the right but not the left. Because in that same political post you mentioned, Substack mentions Robert Reich, Heather Cox Richardson, Matthew Yglesias, Michael Moore, among many other left leaning, and even extremely left leaning writers. And those people are earning much more—see millions to tens of millions of dollars—than the "thousands to tens of thousands of dollars" the platform might be making from niche alt right voices. I agree that leadership should be even handed, but it seems to me that they are? But then I haven't listened to every podcast so I definitely could be missing something?!
Thank you, glad we have this space too! I think you're right that the line with monetization is just as slippery as with hosting. I had a chunk where I dug a bit more into the line-drawing, but I had to cut it because the post was already too long. Basically, whenever a line-dilemma shows up I think it signals the problem is more fundamental. In this case, it's the question of whether Substack is simply a software provider for writers, like Wordpress, or if they're a media company with an angle and regular guests, etc. It's obviously a little of both, and I'm not sure there's a good way around it with our current profit-driven business models.
For a semblance of consistency, I would make overt Nazi imagery the arbitrary line by which publications get at least demonetized if not removed. Meaning, I would simply enforce existing terms of service by defining Nazi symbols and imagery as hate speech. Would I still be guilty of having double-standards? Possibly. But at least then I wouldn't be open to the accusation that I'm just saying "well, they seem like Nazis to me!" Would that allow some white nationalists to get around the ban by being covert and hiding behind plausible deniability? Probably. But then we're at "mouse-shit in cereal" levels of problematic. For example COVID conspiracy theorists also do pretty well on Substack, and I can't really argue in good faith that they should be banned (being convinced not to get a vaccine is different than being convinced you should try to kill your neighbors). But at some point it's good to remind your users and investors that you (as a platform) don't support misinformation, etc.
As for the second point, it's true that Substack has not only promoted right-wing figures, and that it's impossible to satisfy everyone's standards or ideas of what a balanced offering would be. I'm sure that if they ever featured an anarchist, and didn't grill them during the interview, people would be up in arms asking why there was no pushback, how could you platform such extremist views, etc. Again in that case I would draw the line at overt Nazi rhetoric – which means that Hanania might have gotten thru at first, but then I'd walk back and apologize once I was made aware of his background.
There are no quick fixes, and I'm quite certain if I were calling the shots I'd make a great mess of things. As it stands though, it seems like Substack leadership is at least sympathetic to far-right perspectives, given their inability or unwillingness to clearly acknowledge what's happening. This could again just be due to ignorance about how fascism is different than other speech, thus meriting different treatment. The problem is fascists are dishonest about what they mean and believe, which makes this whole thing so tricky. But overall, I don't look forward to what might happen to Substack if the fascist creep is allowed to spread unchecked.
All this is for the good of the platform, too: Twitter's collapsing precisely because they pulled out all the stops on content moderation (Musk went around directly reinstating far-right talking heads and is now acting surprised that people are leaving smh).
In the meantime, boy am I glad we get so much direct control over our own publications and home feeds!
The issue with the writers you listed is they are center-left to left-liberal writers, and Richard Hanania would not be a right-wing equivalent. If Substack hosted someone like Bari Weiss or some of the staff writers at the Bulwark, that would be one thing. On that podcast interview, Richard Hanania called for the roll back of the Civil Rights Act, and Hamish responded by calling that a gutsy take. Hanania is a pretty blatant racist with ties to white supremacist publications.
This is the main point of contention of the “Substack Against Nazis” signatories, and I haven’t seen many free speech defenders on here engage with it. Why did Substack decide to invite a racist on their podcast, allow him to make racist comments without any meaningful pushback, and promote him via their corporate newsletter for weeks after the fact?
There is a difference between hands-off content moderation and actively promoting bigotry.
To further clarify, I will pose you two questions:
1. Substack has never hosted me on their podcast. Is this an infringement on my freedom of speech?
2. Is every day that they continue not to host me an act of censorship?
If your answers to those questions are “no,” then we are not talking about banning accounts. We are talking about Substack leadership priorities and their proactive choice to promote white supremacists.
I definitely agree that Substack leadership should not be promoting Semitic accounts. I do not know Hanania's stance, nor do I read his newsletter, so I can't comment on whether he falls under that. But I very much agree there is a difference between hands-off content moderation and promoting problematic material. That the latter should not be happening seems a given!
Here's a good primer: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/08/richard-hanania-racist-message.html
Thank you, Sam, you beat me to it. I came here to point out that the writers Elle Griffith points to as examples of "left leaning and even extremely left leaning writers" (look, Substack promotes *both sides*!) show her lack of political awareness. I unsubscribed from both Heather Cox Richardson and Robert Reich, for example, because their incessant neoliberal obtuseness was more irritating to me than a poison oak rash. And I never bothered to follow the neoliberal, Harvard-educated Matthew Yglesias in the first place. And Michael Moore? I don't even know what to say there... he's definitely not who I want people to think of when people talk about representation of "The Left."
That Elle considers these to be evidence of balance shows her ignorance. Saying "We have the entire food group represented on the dinner table here because we have both a head of wilted lettuce AND a plate of actual shit!" is not a statement anyone in their right mind would take seriously.
Is Robert Reich neoliberal? I’ve always thought of him as a New Deal/Berniecrat
Reich thinks capitalism can be reformed, but is still ultimately the best system possible. But what's worse and very telling is that he has on more than one recent occassion on this very platform quoted Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan) with a straight face. I've also seen him in some interviews in Adam Curtis documentaries where he espouses the Hobbensian and Freudian belief that the masses must be manipulated, suppressed, and controlled by an elite power who know what's best for them.
The moment that the people who want censorship win then it’ll be down with people who think men are men.
People like Alex Berenson who warn against the covid Jab.
Dr Robert Malone. Censored.
Matt Taibbi. Censored.
Never give them an inch in regard to censorship or they will attempt to take a mile.
This publication isn't a place for transphobia or conspiracy theories. Queer people are currently victims of, not perpetrators of, state censorship and repression. The COVID pandemic is still ongoing and dangerous. Please take measures to protect your health and that of your loved ones. Also Matt Taibbi has tens of thousands of paid subscribers. He's doing quite fine for himself.
Whatever dude. You’re obviously a lost cause.
In my humble opinion, the writers who are nazis come to this platform mainly because it’s a simple solution to make money. Youtube has been cracking down on hate or triggering speech and sometimes it can be very silly but at least it’s clear they’re working at making it consumer friendly.
This is another point i rarely hear brought up: consumer friendliness. I’m a consumer. I don’t want to see any nazi rhetoric on this app, in comments, promoted and featured anywhere. It’s not fun, it’s not engaging, it’s not good business. The more consumers are aware of this, the more likely they will stop subscribing.
great points all around.