“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
    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.

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

              What?

              I’m really not trying to get into anything heated with you. I’m not the enemy of you or anything, regardless if you’re getting irritated at the conversation.

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

              I don’t really want to play some kind of gotcha game of going back through your comments, but I want to defend myself against you saying I’m deliberately lying. You told me, for example, “you are spending a lot of time defending Substack’s right to make money from Nazis”. It’s hard for me to take that any way than that you wouldn’t defend Substack’s right to make money from Nazis
 i.e. that you object to them making money from Nazis, you think they shouldn’t be allowed to monetize Nazis if they want to. Yes, I think they have that right, if they want to.

              If this is, again, me being fuzzy on the difference between banning versus monetizing, then I apologize again. Can you just clarify exactly what you mean? Do you think for example that it’s okay if Substack hosts Nazi content, but doesn’t monetize it? If you tell me exactly what you think I can be careful to respect it and not misrepresent you.

              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.

              What?

              What protection was there for unpopular political speech in Germany before the war? I know the Nazis banned communists, in a way that the US wasn’t able to ban socialists and communists despite wanting to, before the war. Is that not an example? Can you explain a little more instead of just cursing at me? Again, I’m not trying to get heated at you. If you just get mad and start cursing at me instead of having some kind of rational disagreement I’ll go do something else.

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

                For fuck’s sake
 there is a big, BIG difference between “Substack should not be making money from Nazis” and “Substack should not allow Nazi content.” You must know this but you keep claiming I want the former. That is what is called a lie.

                And yes, it is bullshit that Nazi hate speech was banned before the Nazis came to power. Utter bullshit. And calling something bullshit is not me cursing at you. But it’s interesting that you find ‘bullshit’ so hard to tolerate that you don’t want me saying it but ‘kill the Jews’ acceptable and defensible.

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

                  For fuck’s sake
 there is a big, BIG difference between “Substack should not be making money from Nazis” and “Substack should not allow Nazi content.” You must know this but you keep claiming I want the former. That is what is called a lie.

                  So, you think it’s fine if Substack hosts Nazi content but doesn’t profit from it? Just subsidizes it with free hosting? That’s surprising to me if it’s true, yes; that’s not what I thought your viewpoint was. But that’s not me “lying” deliberately or anything. Maybe I was sloppy and misunderstood or missed some explanation of yours; I’m willing to take your word for it if you tell me explicitly that you think that that’s okay.

                  Please be explicit, though, so I can understand. You think it’s fine if Substack hosts Nazi content but doesn’t profit from it? Just subsidizes it with free hosting?

                  And yes, it is bullshit that Nazi hate speech was banned before the Nazis came to power. Utter bullshit. And calling something bullshit is not me cursing at you. But it’s interesting that you find ‘bullshit’ so hard to tolerate that you don’t want me saying it but ‘kill the Jews’ acceptable and defensible.

                  I think you’re just confused on what I’m saying and getting mad, because what you’re getting of it doesn’t make sense.

                  I think you should for-real just go back and read what I actually wrote, to try to understand it, whether or not you agree. I’m obviously not saying Nazi speech specifically was banned before there were Nazis. I’m making a statement about banned political speech in general, using examples of Nazi speech once the Nazis came to be, and communism across some different time periods.

                  If you’re not into the idea of calming down and trying to understand what I actually wrote – again, whether or not you agree once it comes across – I’m not into the idea of spending time just yelling at each other.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    21·
                    11 months ago

                    I literally said that I was talking about monetization and not banning, twice now, so the only reason you could misunderstand is that you’re not actually reading my posts
 which makes this quite ironic:

                    I think you should for-real just go back and read what I actually wrote, to try to understand it, whether or not you agree.

                    It is a lie that I am not calm as well. And I am not yelling. Stop lying
 or whatever you claim you’re doing instead of lying. And maybe read what I write, especially the blatant statements.

                    I have no idea why you think you can lie over and over again and get away with it by just claiming you’re not lying.