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.”

  • TacoButtPlug@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Yea… Meta took the same “free peaches” approach and the entire fucking globe is now dealing with various versions of white nationalism. So like, can we actually give censorship of hate a fucking try for once? I’m willing to go down that road.

    • extracheese@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Never ever fall for that one. You can look at various regimes in the world what happens when “hate” gets censored. Demonitizing is one thing, technical implementations to “live censor hate” would be catastrophic.

      • ira@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I’m looking. Is something supposed to stand out about Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK?

  • Dra@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Gen Z needs to understand the historical lesson that the Blues Brothers taught those before them. Illinois Nazis exist, and some days they demonstrate, as per their right to freedom of speech - but this is as much as an opportunity to humiliate them and openly critique the mindset as anyone else. Dark little underground communities flourish behind closed doors.

  • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Ehhh, it’s one of those things where I agree with the principle, but the principle fails. It’s the so called tolerance paradox (which isn’t actually a paradox at all, but that’s tangential).

    On principle, no company should be in the business of deciding what is and isn’t acceptable “speech”. That’s simply not something we really want happening.

    But then there’s nazis and other outright insane bigots. But we still don’t really want companies making that call, because they’ll decide on the side of profit, period. If enough of the nazi types get enough power and money going, every single fucking company out there that isn’t owned by a single person, or very small group of people that share the same ideals, is going to be deciding that it’s the nazi bullshit that’s the only acceptable speech.

    This is something that has to come from the bottom to the top and be decided on a legal level first. We absolutely can ban nazi type bullshit if we want to. There’s plenty of room for it to be pointed at as the incitement to violence that it is. There need to be very specific, very limited definitions to govern what is and isn’t part of that

    And the limitations have to be impossible to expand without starting all the way over with the kind of stringency it takes to amend the constitution.

    That takes it out of the hands of corporations, and makes it very difficult to game. But it has to come from us, as a people first.

  • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Good for them. I’m all for allowing people make their own choices about what kind of content they want to see instead of a corporation/government deciding for them.

    I can’t think of a single thing we’ve succesfully gotten rid of by banning it. I however can think of several examples where it has had an opposite effect.

  • helenslunch@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Kicking them off the platform just sends them to other echo chambers like False social where they just circle jerk each other all day unchallenged.

  • Gamers_Mate@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    “we don’t like or condone bigotry in any form.” I mean they are litterally Condoning bigotry.

    “His response similarly doesn’t engage other questions from the Substackers Against Nazis authors, like why these policies allow it to moderate spam and newsletters from sex workers but not Nazis.”

    Doesn’t seem very consistent.

      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        “We do not condone Nazi propaganda, but we are very concerned about sex work causing social degeneracy.”

  • xkforce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    If there are 10 nazis at a table and you decide to sit among them, there are 11 nazis sitting at that table.

    • 𝔇𝔦𝔬@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Hearing some one out and not changing your viewpoint after the conversation, doesn’t make you one of them. 🙄

    • Dra@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      This is such a wonderfully ironic statement. It is through toleration that they are painted in a poor light.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          paradox of tolerance

          From the article

          “I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.”

            • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              there is nothing worthwhile lost silencing nazi bullshit from social media

              "… as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.”

              If you don’t win the argument, the argument goes on forever.

              • Baines@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                lol imagine trying to ‘win’ an argument with an idiot instead of just mocking them for the lulz…

                • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  lol imagine trying to ‘win’ an argument with an idiot instead of just mocking them for the lulz…

                  It’s not about winning, or replying directly to just the troll/conflict bot.

                  It’s about leaving an elaboration of the initial opinion, for everyone else who comes by later to the topic and reads.

      • ABC123itsEASY@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Tolerance is a social contract not a right. If you are tolerant, you earn tolerance for yourself. If you are intolerant, you don’t deserve tolerance yourself. It’s really not that complicated imo. I don’t feel the need to be tolerant of racist, bigoted people.

        • Zengen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          You dont. You just have to be tolerant of their existence because theirr existance is protected by right and law. If you punch a Nazi your still getting charged with assault and battery. If you kill a racist your still going to jail. We dont illegalize views and ideas in america.

          • Strykker@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            No you don’t have to tolerate their existence.

            We fought a war against Nazis for a fucking reason.

            Their ideals are shut and anyone who pushes them is worth less than the air they breath and the dirt they shit in.

            • Zengen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              The first amendment says you do in fact have to tolerate them sir. You may not commit acts of violence against them for their speech or you get put in prison. Thats the way it is.

              • Strykker@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                The first amendment applies to the government’s actions. Not personal actions.

                Hate speech is not a protected class so you can be refused service for it at any business,

        • Alsephina@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Tolerance is a social contract not a right. If you are tolerant, you earn tolerance for yourself. If you are intolerant, you don’t deserve tolerance yourself.

          I’ve never heard it said that way. This is a fantastic way to put it.

      • reversebananimals@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        “but hey” is a colloquial conjunction phrase in American English. It’s usually used to indicate that the previous clause had a valid concern or made a good point, but the speaker is choosing to make light of it in order to disregard it despite knowing better, because they shortsightedly want the outcome described in the clause that follows.

        Another example: “My doctor told me to watch my weight, but hey, it’s Christmas and those cookies look fantastic.”

        • kashara@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          British don’t say “but hey”. Australians don’t. New Zelanders don’t. South African don’t. They could but they don’t. Therefore, “but hey” is fucking, broken american english which they instead call colloquial.

          But hey! It’s ok to speak fuckingly broken english.

  • ira@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    What does Substack plan to do with the profits that it makes from hosting Nazi content?

  • Alsephina@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Another day of thanking god the devs for the decentralized Fediverse and Lemmy 🙏😔