Technology

I just want to make it clear that we don’t like Nazis either

Actions speak louder than words. Fuck Substack and fuck any platform that offers a safe haven for nazis.

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.

“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.

Here's a Wired article featuring four good alternatives to Substack.

For anyone who remembers the interview the CEO did with the Verge back when they launched Notes, this isn't surprising at all.

You can see a transcript here. The relevant section can be found by searching all brown people are animals or more specifically just animals and reading on from there.

I'm not sure if the video footage of the interview is still available, but it's even worse because you can see that the CEO is completely lost when talking about the idea of moderating anything and basically shuts down because they have nothing to say all while the interview is politely berating them about how they're obviously failing a litmus test.

Do note that above the point where "animals" occurs is some post-hoc context provided by the interviewer (perhaps why the video is no longer easily available?) where they point out that the question they asked and the response they got wasn't exactly as extreme as it first appeared. But they also point out that it's still very notable despite the slightly mitigating correction and I'd agree entirely, especially if you watch(ed) the video and clocked the CEO's demeanor and lack of any intelligent thought on the issue.

We already knew that SS liked Nazis.

All joking aside, silencing Nazis and deplatforming them is LITERALLY fighting against them. How is allowing them to make money and market themselves on your platform doing anything to stem the tide of Nazism? Obviously they're playing culture war games and saying they're not.

If a Nazi has a large subscription following than Substack would be directly profiting from Nazi content.

Translated: McKenzie just wants the sweet money and is trying to gaslight us into thinking platforming nazis is ok.

I just want to make it clear that we don’t like Nazis either—we wish no-one held those views.

"But we'll gladly host those views on our platform, run ads alongside them, and profit from them."

Cool... so they now facilitate and directly benefit from Nazi activity. Sounds great when you put it like that.

Techbros tolerate Nazis.

You can run your own blog with WordPress. It even Federates.

TIL that Substack is apparently a bunch of crypto-fascists who expect people to believe they don't support Nazis, they just give them money and a place at their table to talk about it.

To be clear — what McKenzie is saying here is that Substack will continue to pay Nazis to write Nazi essays. Not just that they will host Nazi essays (at Substack's cost), but they will pay for them.

They are, in effect, hiring Nazis to compose Nazi essays.

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.

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.

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.

(transcribed from a series of tweets) - iamragesparkle

I was at a shitty crustpunk bar once getting an after-work beer. One of those shitholes where the bartenders clearly hate you. So the bartender and I were ignoring one another when someone sits next to me and he immediately says, "no. get out." And the dude next to me says, "hey i'm not doing anything, i'm a paying customer." and the bartender reaches under the counter for a bat or something and says, "out. now." and the dude leaves, kind of yelling. And he was dressed in a punk uniform, I noticed

Anyway, I asked what that was about and the bartender was like, "you didn't see his vest but it was all nazi shit. Iron crosses and stuff. You get to recognize them."

And i was like, ohok and he continues. "you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it's always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don't want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too. And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it's too late because they're entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down.

And i was like, 'oh damn.' and he said "yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people."

And then he went back to ignoring me. But I haven't forgotten that at all.

So they have no rules, any content is acceptable?

Anything less is "censorship" after all

This tracks with my previous attempts at reporting that Sinfest guy. Posts hundreds of comics that blatantly break multiple official substack content guidelines and I get the effective equivalent of a promise for "action" combined with a dismissive eye roll. They completely ignored my follow-up email detailing the complete lack of action and the dozen or so new content guideline violations.

I want them to explain how it makes things worse.

Submitted for good faith discussion: Substack shouldn’t decide what we read. The reason it caught my attention is that it's co-signed by Edward Snowden and Richard Dawkins, who evidently both have blogs there I never knew about.

I'm not sure how many of the people who decide to comment on these stories actually read up about them first, but I did, such as by actually reading the Atlantic article linked. I would personally feel very uncomfortable about voluntarily sharing a space with someone who unironically writes a post called "Vaccines Are Jew Witchcraftery". However, the Atlantic article also notes:

Experts on extremist communication, such Whitney Phillips, the University of Oregon journalism professor, caution that simply banning hate groups from a platform—even if sometimes necessary from a business standpoint—can end up redounding to the extremists’ benefit by making them seem like victims of an overweening censorship regime. “It feeds into this narrative of liberal censorship of conservatives,” Phillips told me, “even if the views in question are really extreme.”

Structurally this is where a comment would usually have a conclusion to reinforce a position, but I don't personally know what I support doing here.

On one hand, Substack is in it's rights and as a journalistic organization, they are in the right.

The issue is: Once you serve a Nazi in your bar, you become a Nazi bar. This is no longer a marginalized viewpoint you can ignore. Its actively recruiting and frightening. Inaction is enabling. Substack is going to become shitty, and fast. They will lose high engagement users, first when the ones who protested pile out for another platform and then quickly when the quality dips.

Also, their cavalier attitude will change when Stripe steps in.

“Yeah they’re nazis but hey, they bring the money in. Why should I ban them?”

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

Do not tolerate the intolerant.