Substack, a popular platform for newsletter writers, has received criticism for its decision not to ban Nazi symbols or extremist rhetoric from its platform. Responding to the backlash, Substack’s founders, Chris Best, Jairaj Sethi, and Hamish McKenzie, stated that they believe censorship and demonetization only worsen the problem of hateful rhetoric. They argue that supporting individual rights and subjecting ideas to open discourse is the best way to challenge and strip bad ideas of their power. This stance has sparked outrage among some writers who feel uncomfortable working with a platform that allows hateful content to thrive. The debate surrounding Substack’s content moderation raises questions about how technology companies should approach such issues.
Table of Contents
Substack’s Stance on Not Banning Nazis or Extremist Speech
Background of Substack’s Controversy
Substack, a platform that hosts newsletters written by individuals, has come under fire for its decision to not ban Nazi symbols or extremist rhetoric. This controversy arose after The Atlantic revealed that at least 16 Substack newsletters prominently featured Nazi symbols in their logos or graphics. It was also discovered that white supremacists were allowed to publish on, and profit from, the platform. This sparked widespread criticism and debate about Substack’s content moderation policies.
Founders’ Response to Criticism
In response to the criticism, Substack’s founders, Chris Best, Jairaj Sethi, and Hamish McKenzie, defended their decision to not censor or demonetize publications that contain Nazi symbols or promote extremist rhetoric. They expressed their dislike for Nazis and extreme views but argued that censorship does not make the problem go away; in fact, it may even exacerbate it. They believe that supporting individual rights and civil liberties while allowing open discourse is the best approach to combatting harmful ideas.
Supporting Individual Rights and Civil Liberties
Substack’s founders maintain that their decision to not ban Nazis or extremist speech is rooted in their commitment to upholding individual rights and civil liberties. They argue that by subjecting ideas to open discourse, bad ideas can be stripped of their power. They assert that it is not their role to police and control content, but rather to provide a platform for writers and readers to engage in free speech.
Outrage and Criticism from Substack Writers
Substack’s stance on not banning extremists and Nazis has sparked outrage and criticism from many writers on the platform. They argue that by allowing hateful rhetoric to fester or flourish, Substack is complicit in promoting and monetizing sites that traffic in white nationalism. These writers question whether Substack’s vision for success includes providing a platform for individuals with hateful ideologies. Some writers have even threatened to leave the platform in protest.
Renewed Debate on Content Moderation
This controversy has reignited the ongoing debate surrounding content moderation on online platforms. It underscores the challenges that technology companies and social media platforms face in determining how to effectively moderate extremist speech. Substack’s approach, presenting itself as a neutral provider of content, sends a message that the platform does not want to take a position and prefers not to police the complex problem of hate speech.
Substack’s Neutral Provider Image
Substack’s rapid growth has positioned it as a neutral provider of content, allowing writers and readers to exercise their freedom of speech. The platform takes a 10 percent cut of revenue from writers who charge for newsletter subscriptions. While this hands-off approach allows for diverse viewpoints and enables individual expression, it has also led to criticism and concerns about Substack’s responsibility in moderating harmful and hateful content.
Letter from Writers Opposing Substack’s Approach
Over 200 writers who publish newsletters on Substack have signed a letter expressing their opposition to the company’s passive approach to content moderation. They question why Substack chooses to promote and monetize sites that traffic in white nationalism. The letter also raises concerns about providing platforms for prominent white nationalists such as Richard Spencer. These writers are calling for transparency from Substack and are considering leaving the platform due to these concerns.
Popular Writers Promising to Leave Substack
Some influential writers on Substack have already made the decision to leave in response to Substack’s approach to content moderation. Rusty Foster, a writer with over 40,000 subscribers, expressed discomfort with the platform’s tolerance for hateful rhetoric and announced his plans to depart from Substack. This move highlights the impact of Substack’s approach on its relationships with its writers and the potential consequences it might face.
Defense of Substack’s Approach
While many writers oppose Substack’s approach, there are also supporters who defend the company’s stance. Roughly 100 Substack writers signed a letter arguing that content moderation should be left to writers and readers, rather than social media companies. They argue that Substack’s model, which allows subscribers to choose the newsletters they want to receive, provides freedom of speech without amplifying hateful content to the masses. These supporters assert that Substack is not a single platform but rather thousands of individualized platforms with their own unique cultures.
Better Approach to Content Moderation
The debate over Substack’s approach to content moderation raises broader questions about how to effectively moderate extremist speech online. Balancing freedom of speech with the prevention of hate speech is a complex challenge. As technology companies and social media platforms grapple with these issues, a better approach to content moderation may involve a combination of user moderation, clear guidelines on violence, and effective measures to limit the spread of extremist and Nazi content.
Substack’s Decision to Host Richard Hanania
Controversy Surrounding Richard Hanania
Another controversial decision by Substack was its choice to host Richard Hanania, the president of the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, on the Substack podcast “The Active Voice.” The Atlantic reported that Mr. Hanania had previously made derogatory remarks about Black people on social media. This decision added to the criticism surrounding Substack’s approach to content moderation.
Value in Knowing Different Arguments
Substack defended its decision to host Richard Hanania, stating that there is value in understanding different arguments, even from individuals with controversial views. By engaging in open discourse, Substack believes that audiences can develop a more informed perspective and challenge harmful ideas.
Unawareness of Mr. Hanania’s Writings
Substack acknowledged that they were not aware of Richard Hanania’s past writings at the time of his appearance on the platform. This lack of awareness raises questions about Substack’s vetting process and its responsibility in ensuring that individuals hosted on the platform do not have a history of promoting hateful or harmful ideologies.
Debating the Effects of Censorship
Substack’s decision to host Richard Hanania sparked renewed debate on the effectiveness of censorship. Substack’s founders argue that censoring ideas considered to be hateful only leads to their proliferation. However, research suggests that deplatforming extremists can have a positive effect on diminishing the spread of far-right propaganda and Nazi content. The opposing viewpoints on censorship highlight the complexities surrounding the regulation of extremist speech.
Research on Deplatforming and Nazi Content
Studies have shown that deplatforming, or removing extremists from one platform, can limit their audience and ultimately diminish their incomes. While some extremists may migrate to different platforms, the majority of their audience does not follow them. This research suggests that deplatforming can be an effective strategy in reducing the reach and impact of extremist ideologies.
Freedom of Speech Rights and Business Choices
Substack’s decision to allow Nazi rhetoric and extremist speech raises questions about the balance between freedom of speech rights and business choices. While freedom of speech is a constitutional right, businesses have the power to choose the types of content they host or prohibit. Substack’s hands-off approach reflects its belief in the importance of free expression, but it also invites scrutiny about the company’s responsibility in addressing hate speech.
Murky Line in Allowing Racist and Extremist Rhetoric
One of the challenges in content moderation is determining the line between acceptable discourse and promoting hate speech. While Substack claims to disallow users from calling for violence, the line can be unclear, and racists and extremists may skirt around it without overtly crossing it. The potential for rhetoric to inspire violence further complicates this issue.
Normalization of Nazi Rhetoric
Allowing Nazi rhetoric on a platform contributes to its normalization. The more this rhetoric is used, the more it becomes acceptable in the general population. Normalization of hate speech can have serious consequences and perpetuate harmful ideologies. It is crucial to consider the societal impact of hosting and enabling the spread of extremist and Nazi content.
Challenges in Moderating Extremist Speech
Call for Violence and Gray Area
One of the biggest challenges in moderating extremist speech is the gray area when it comes to calls for violence. Racist and extremist individuals or groups may not explicitly call for violence, but their rhetoric can still inspire others to commit violent acts. Determining the boundary between protected speech and incitement to violence is a complex task that requires careful attention.
Rhetoric’s Potential to Inspire Violence
The power of rhetoric should not be underestimated. Hate speech and extremist ideologies have the potential to inspire violence and radicalize individuals. Platforms like Substack must continually evaluate and refine their content moderation policies to address this risk and minimize the potential harm caused by the spread of extremist speech.
Normalizing Nazi Rhetoric
Allowing Nazi rhetoric on a platform can normalize it, making it more acceptable in mainstream discourse. This normalization poses a threat to social cohesion and perpetuates harmful ideologies. Platforms need to be vigilant in combating the normalization of hate speech and taking necessary action to prevent its proliferation.
Government Dictated Freedom of Speech
While freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democratic societies, its boundaries are often dictated by governments. Businesses like Substack have the power to choose their content policies, but they must navigate a fine line between upholding free expression and countering harmful and hateful ideologies. Striking the right balance is crucial to protect democracy and promote inclusivity.
Businesses’ Control over Content
As private entities, businesses have control over the content on their platforms. This control comes with the responsibility to prevent the dissemination of harmful ideologies. Substack, like other platforms, must consider its role in shaping public discourse and whether its approach aligns with promoting a safe and inclusive online environment.
Substack’s Guidelines on Violence
Substack has outlined its guidelines on violence, disallowing users from calling for violence. However, the effectiveness of these guidelines in addressing the issue of extremist speech remains a point of contention. Striking the right balance between free expression and preventing harm is an ongoing challenge for platforms like Substack.
Effectiveness of Censorship in Diminishing Nazi Content
Research suggests that deplatforming can be effective in reducing the spread of Nazi content and far-right propaganda. However, the debate on censorship and its impact on free speech rights remains complex. Striking the right balance between restricting harmful content and preserving freedom of speech is a crucial task that requires careful consideration and ongoing evaluation.
Substack’s Overall Growth and Controversies
Substack’s Rapid Growth
In recent years, Substack has experienced rapid growth as a platform for independent writers. Its business model, which allows writers to monetize their newsletters, has attracted a diverse range of voices and topics. However, this growth has also brought increased scrutiny and controversies surrounding Substack’s content moderation practices.
Previous Controversies on Transphobic and Anti-Vaccine Content
Prior to the current controversy, Substack faced criticism for hosting newsletters containing transphobic and anti-vaccine content. These controversies highlighted the challenges that Substack and other platforms face in navigating the balance between promoting free expression and preventing the spread of harmful misinformation.
Implications of Substack’s Hands-Off Approach
Substack’s hands-off approach to content moderation has significant implications for the platform and its relationship with writers and readers. While it allows for diverse viewpoints and individual expression, it also invites criticism and concerns about the platform’s responsibility in combatting hate speech and harmful ideologies.
The Debate on Content Moderation
Substack’s controversies contribute to the ongoing debate surrounding content moderation on online platforms. This debate extends far beyond Substack and raises critical questions about the role of technology companies and social media platforms in shaping public discourse and promoting a safe online environment. The ongoing discussion on content moderation seeks to find a balance between free expression and the prevention of harm.
Conclusion
Substack’s decision to not ban Nazis or extremist speech has ignited a contentious debate on content moderation, freedom of speech, and the responsibilities of online platforms. The platform’s founders defend their approach, emphasizing the importance of individual rights and civil liberties while subjecting ideas to open discourse. However, this stance has faced significant opposition from writers and critics who argue that Substack’s tolerance for hate speech and extremist rhetoric is complicit in promoting harmful ideologies. As Substack continues to grow and navigate these controversies, the debate on content moderation will persist, raising important questions about the future of online platforms and the challenges they face in fostering a safe and inclusive digital space.
Related site – Substack Has a Nazi Problem (The Atlantic)
Champagne producers experimenting with deep-sea aging to enhance quality