“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.”

  • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    1 year 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·
      1 year 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·
        1 year 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·
          1 year 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.