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.”

  • sc_griffith@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    the site you are imagining, the supposed free speech site? it converges to gab. this dynamic is basic and I can’t take you seriously if you don’t get this.

    • nazis are encouraged to be equal voices on a platform
    • they use the platform’s reach to radicalize fence sitters
    • other users, realizing their digital roommates are Nazis, are alarmed and leave
    • now it’s a nazi site

    what exactly do you think substack will consist of in two years if they don’t do a 180? the entire reason we’re having this conversation right now is that a bunch of substack writers said they would rather leave than hang out with nazis