- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- ghazi@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- ghazi@lemmy.blahaj.zone
More than 200 Substack authors asked the platform to explain why itâs âplatforming and monetizing Nazis,â and now they have an answer straight from co-founder Hamish McKenzie:
I just want to make it clear that we donât like Nazis eitherâwe wish no-one held those views. But some people do hold those and other extreme views. Given that, we donât think that censorship (including through demonetizing publications) makes the problem go awayâin fact, it makes it worse.
While McKenzie offers no evidence to back these ideas, this tracks with the companyâs 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. âWeâre not going to get into specific âwould you or wonât youâ content moderation questionsâ 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 âwe donât like or condone bigotry in any form.â
This thing Iâm broadly agreeing with, in addition to being a viewpoint of this one article which youâve managed to construct a connection back to some Nazis from, is also a viewpoint of the list of cosigners on this essay, which includes Edward Snowden and Richard Dawkins. Does that all of a sudden change your viewpoint on whether this is a valid thing for me to agree with? If, all of a sudden, some âgood peopleâ are saying it instead of some âbad peopleâ?
I also agree with Winston Churchill on some things, even though he was a colonizing racist. I agree with some things Thomas Jefferson said, even though he was a literal slaveowner, which is arguably a much worse thing to be than an internet Nazi. Yes. I evaluate things on the merits, not on who agrees or disagrees with me. Iâm not sold on the connection between âthis essayâ -> âthe editors of Reasonâ -> âthe Koch brothers giving it fundingâ -> âNazisâ meaning Iâm directly agreeing with Nazis if I agree with this essay. But the big point is, I mostly just donât care who said it when evaluating whether itâs true.
To me, it sounds like youâre so attached to saying viewpoints are good or bad depending on the people who said them that Iâm not going to talk you out of it. Best of luck with it then, I guess.
If youâre only advocating for âdemonetizing,â allowing the Nazis to remain on Substack but not get subscription revenue, my feeling on that is pretty much the same. The platform shouldnât be in the business of rewarding or punishing people depending on whether they agree with the viewpoint. That should be up to the person reading.
It wasnât a deliberate lie; I just assumed you wanted to ban them, but Iâm happy to talk about it in terms of demonetizing instead. I apologize if I was misconstruing anything. I gave a quick stalk to your profile just now and you did say âIf you do not support removing Nazis from the public sphere, you arenât necessarily a Nazi. But you do support Nazis,â which some people could construe as advocating for banning them.
Substack makes money from the Nazis being monetized. They donât monetize out of the kindness of their heart. They take a cut. It should be unacceptable to you that a mainstream company is profiting off of Nazis. Itâs worrisome that it isnât.
And before you ask me to define Nazi, we are talking about literal Nazis using Nazi symbology on Substack. Substack makes money from them. Why are you okay with that?
Also, Iâm worried that youâre defending them making money from Nazis and not their banning sex workers. From OPâs article:
Do you âbroadly agreeâ with that? If not, were you even aware of it? Did you read the article?
Starbucks profits off Nazis whenever one walks in and buys a coffee. The Naziâs banking institution profits off them when they use an ATM card and get charged a fee. Yes, thatâs all acceptable to me.
I should say â someone whoâs violent on a daily basis, or posting messages saying âwe need to kill Dr. Rosenstein, he lives at (whatever address)â, thatâs criminal, and it should be prosecuted. That is some Nazis, yes; like all fascism itâs an inherently violent âpolitics.â So maybe thereâs more overlap between our viewpoints than youâre thinking. Iâm just saying that someone who doesnât do that but does go on and uses Nazi symbology, talks about Hitler, basically a âtechnically legalâ version of this abhorrent viewpoint, that should be allowed. Not because I like it or want it to spread. Because allowing it is the most effective way to combat it. Trying to suppress political speech that most people are going to recoil in abhorrence from, (1) can get used against your political speech, which I can guarantee you some people find as abhorrent as you find the Nazis (2) will not prevent it, just drive it underground and separate it from the exchange of ideas which is the most effective way to defeat it.
Iâm still confused about this one. Are they banning sex workers? The same comment of mine way up there that linked to Reason.com also linked to a sex worker whoâs on Substack. It looks to me like they ban porn, but any non-pornographic newsletters by sex workers is fine.
(Edit: To answer the question, yes I skimmed the article. Itâs short in length and on detail. I also tried to read and pay more attention to the original Atlantic article, which seemed a lot more in depth and to the point, but it wanted my credit card and I abandoned the idea.)
(Edit: When I say âable toâ or âallowed toâ in the following paragraph, I just mean what I like and donât like. Obviously, in a legal sense, Substack is âallowed toâ do whatever they choose with their servers, as is entirely proper since theyâre a private company and they own the servers. Iâm just using that language, which I chose a little poorly, in order to define what I do and donât like for them to do with their servers.)
I do think they should be able to delete spam, yes. I do think they should be allowed to ban porn, yes, because thatâs not political speech. When I was going to set up a Lemmy instance, I did exactly the same thing; any viewpoint is allowed but no porn. I donât think they should be allowed to ban non-pornographic newsletters from sex workers. Iâd be strongly against them doing that, for the exact same reasons as I wouldnât want them to ban Nazis. I actually used that example somewhere; sex workers are a perfect example of the next step on the slippery slope that banning Nazis leads to. You ban Nazis, then sex workers, then antivaxxers, then all of a sudden some journalist you agree with is banned, and so on. I think any political / social viewpoint that someone feels, they should be able to type up. Again, that is one of the most effective way to combat Nazis.
Interesting. Youâre okay with them banning porn but youâre 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 donât believe youâre so stupid that youâre unaware of that. Also, Nazi imagery is not political speech, something Iâm also sure youâre aware of. And porn is 100% legal, so you should have the same opinion about porn as you do about swastikas. But you donât.
Instead, you are spending a lot of time defending Substackâs right to make money from Nazis, you posted from a Nazi website⊠it is not a good look.
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?
Iâm gonna assume itâs 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 thatâs a big part of whatâs at the root of why Iâm saying what Iâm saying.
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?
Because thatâs the way of allowing them in the public sphere. I think thatâs the core of our disagreement. Simple business operations that arenât connected with allowing an extremist âpoliticalâ viewpoint in the public sphere or not, I donât feel the same way about. Thatâs why Iâm 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 âwhoa whoa whoa youâre not allowed to even say that,â then I object to that, whether that âabhorrentâ view is a Nazi or a sex worker or a BLM protestor. Thatâs the other big part at the root of what Iâm saying â different people have different definitions of whatâs âabhorrent,â and youâre on some peopleâs lists the same way Nazis are on yours.
Sorry, youâre 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 hasnât been an issue.
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 doesnât mean I think anyone should have to have Nazis if they donât want to. Iâm just saying what is my take on what the right thing to do is.
It sounds like youâre the one advocating for Substack to have to operate their private servers in a fashion that they clearly donât want to do. Not saying this is you, but Iâve seen other (presumably confused) people in this thread advocating for talking to Substackâs âadvertisersâ 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. Iâm strongly against that, whether it comes from the âpro-free-speechâ crowd or the anti-Nazi crowd.
Except, of course, for that one time. That one time it was a pretty big issue.
Thatâs 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 itâs 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)