Like you, I’m incredibly annoyed and insulted. For one, I’m annoyed at how the public discussion about this has treated to Substack or not like it was a cost less, frictionless choice; that’s not the case. For another, I’m now facing reputational damages because of the Substack team’s cack-handed policies and explanations—thanks, guys! And as Balko (and I in my own post) noted, this isn’t a Substack or not question—all platforms will face the same questions unless you handle your own tech backend, which is what I came here to avoid! So I am in a wait-and-see mode but keeping enough public discontent that I hope it will pressure the team to do minimal anti Nazi stuff.
I disagree fairly strongly with both DD’s post and most of the comments. A few reasons why:
First off, I think the hypocrisy argument raised by the prohibition against porn is a canard. Even setting aside the fact that Substack's payments processor, Stripe, won't process payments related to porn (a policy that is almost certainly about economics rather than morals; the porn industry has huge numbers of fraud and chargeback issues), hosting porn is also a huge burden because of the cost of developing systems and hiring personnel necessary to guard against hosting child porn, porn that violates copyright, or porn that has been posted without the approval of the participants. Long story short, Substack isn't making an editorial judgment that porn is worse than Nazis. They just don't want to be in the porn hosting business, which is really a completely different business than hosting a blogging platform. The prohibition against spam newsletters is similar.
I suppose that their ban against posting content that “incites violence” or that includes “credible threats of physical harm” comes closer to having a “content moderation policy” in the way that DD then thinks makes it hypocritical to allow Nazi sympathizers to use the platform, but I disagree. Rather than making a policy that prohibits classes of people and ideas as beyond the pale, they instead have rules against specific types of content that apply to everyone.
I think that is the right approach for two reasons:
First, it says clearly right from the beginning that they are not going to be drawn into the game of deciding what ideas are legitimate and what ideas are not but rather will let readers make their own judgements. The former is a path that leads to endless arguments. One can already see the signs of it in these comments with the objections to “transphobes” and “Hamas apologists.” I think it’s wise of Substack not to get drawn into that game, and there is no clearer way of making that point then not to ban Nazis (who everyone, doubtless including the folks at Substack, would agree are the worst of the worst).
Second, I believe the whole deplatforming approach is counterproductive. I think in the long run forcing people who believe in bad ideas to other platforms doesn’t actually change their minds or stop their ideas from spreading, but rather makes people more likely to hold these ideas even more strongly, both because of the inevitable human reaction when people under siege and because they are less likely to be exposed to ideas that could influence their thinking in more positive ways. I think the fact that support for Trump has only become stronger in the three years since he was kicked off Facebook and Twitter is the clearest evidence of that.
And while I could perhaps be convinced that this second belief is wrong, that the marketplace of ideas is broken to use DD’s formulation in ways that make deplatforming the right strategy, he doesn’t ever (at least in this piece) even try to make the case that this is true; he simply asserts it. And especially given how lazy this piece is (with spurious accusations of “spouting BS” and “treating me like a moron” where the case is never really made), I found that it strengthened my belief that the Substack folks have it right.
Also, the fact that this is their policy should be a surprise to no one. They described their philosophy toward content moderation three years ago (https://on.substack.com/p/substacks-view-of-content-moderation). I thought they had it right then, and I think events since have only strengthened that case.
I took my blog to ghost because Substack was *paying* transphobes to post on Substack. Allowing the excrement is one thing. But paying for it? And apparently they're paying some neofascists too.
I think something we need to consider is when private companies have one or two people, almost invariably dudes, calling the shots while only accountable to the market.
If you've got a board, committee or team working on decisions like these it can be a way to hide responsibility, to be sure. On the other hand, maybe you don't have two dudes spouting intellectually and morally bankrupt hogwash to justify their personal greed.
And Nazism requires violence to exist. It is a threat of violence by definition. I don't understand why no one is talking about this. Being a Nazi or other type of fascist including neofascists IS A THREAT OF VIOLENCE. It's like hosting a klan member (a proto fascist movement in its first incarnation) and saying they're not threatening violence. There's no point to being in the Klan if there's no threat of violence.
It's relatively easy for me to say that I'm not going to boycott the writers I like on Substack in order to punish Substack for hosting Nazis. Admittedly, this sidesteps the question whether I'm indirectly subsidizing Nazis by subscribing here, but, be that as it may, as long as you're publishing, I'm subscribing.
This may be facetious, or maybe not: Could Substack split into a White Supremacist Division, and a (Mostly) Nazi-free Division, each with separate income streams?
That is a good approximation of where I am. I honor J.M. Berger for having integrity and walking away but weekly research roundups can be almost anywhere. Most of the people I follow here and have given paid subscriptions are NOT in the process of angst about leaving so I will subsidize Substack no matter what Dan does. Popehat's line "Do I stay on Twitter to prove that I am not a snowflake and that I am open to discussions of how the Jews created polio?" made me feel seen although I am comforted that even @JewishWonk lost it who is normally a very level-headed non-snowflake.
You completely avoided something that has split other Jewish readers and writers on this issue. Jonathan M Katz, the originator of the sparsely researched “Substack has a Nazi problem” article and protest campaign, is a Hamas apologist. You remember Hamas, right? Those Palestinian death squads who on October 7th massacred in a single day more Jews than anyone since the Nazis? Mr Katz defends pro Hamas protestors, and as an anti Zionist propagandist, he has the same goal of destroying Israel as Hamas. That’s the ‘anti-Nazi’ campaigner you’ve been manipulated by.
Is it really a ‘Nazi’ problem? Nobody on Substack is a Nazi party member. It’s shorthand for Neo-Nazi, White Supremacists and assorted scum. The term flung casually by leftists (by the Nate Silver categorization), and gobbled up by progressives lacks any accuracy. Does it also cover anti-Trans conservatives writers? Obviously to most leftists those are Nazis too. Does it cover any writer who is pro-Israel? Leftists tag all of those as Nazis too (Zionism=Racism, duh). Who gets to define 'Nazi'?
Since ‘Nazi’ is used in the loosest way possible, let’s reflect on the fact that Substack also has a big Hamas apologia problem. There are some outright pro Hamas readers and writers - I get their opinions on my notes and their replies in comment threads so I’ll stop you in advance from denying their existence. Substack also has Hamas apologists like Jonathan M Katz himself. There is no Nazi party in any country, but Hamas does exist, and has openly stated genocidal plans for the biggest group of Jews in the world, 7 million Israeli Jews, and is part of the Iranian axis, which has engaged in terrorism against Jews around the world (AMIA bombing and elsewhere). If ‘Nazi’ is used against anyone on the far Right who wants more Jews to die, surely it also applies to Jonathan M Katz and similar leftists who have little problem when Jews die.
I’m totally incapable of getting excited about this; it seems a storm in a teacup. The practical consequences of this quirk in Substack is negiligible (I’d rather see it as an irrational dislike of porn than an irrational liking of Nazis) and the platform works well.
No particularly insightful argument for this (everything has already been said by others); I’m posting just because our host says he wants paid subscribers’ opinions.
I've followed you for a number of years, long enough I don't remember the first blog, if it was a blog. I joined the ACLU back in the Nazi march in Skokie time, so I've been hard line on First amendment as applied to govt. I tend to carry that over to nongovernment forums..
I'm perhaps still naive enough to believe that ignoring the extremes works best in the long run, that the proportion of crazies in the society is small enough that reason will work in the long run.
Bottomline, I'll follow the writers whose opinions I value, wherever they go, if I can figure out the forum, and ignore those I don't.
I pay for a number of substacks, mostly writers who reference you or you reference them on occasion (Brad DeLong, Noah Smith, Calculated Risk, plus one or two more). I've never seen any nazis or fascists despite reading multiple substacks every day since it started. So as far as I'm concerned, my reading is not personally affected by any poor decisions made by substack leadership. That said, I don't want to financially support assholes who provide a voice to fascists. I'll give Substack a period of time to reconsider before I leave. I'll also let the writers I follow a reasonable period of time after it's clear that Substack isn't going to change to move to a different platform. The current state is not acceptable.
I’ve been online for over 30 years and my rough estimate is that there’s a near 100% chance that any platform will have its own political issues.
“ Not if you have your own site. It's not impossibly difficult”
No, but… Think of all the things that a hosting site like Substack does. From email list management, to billing, to maintaining the domain registration. And all the other bits that go into a newsletter. Ask Rusty Foster, @rusty.todayintabs.com on BlueSky, about his personal site, Kuro5hin. Well, former site. It got overrun by trolls despite attempts at moderation, and he eventually lost track of the time to renew the domain and, oops, it’s gone. And Rusty is a very technically savvy guy. But he had this thing called “a life”.
So for most people having someone else do all the behind the scenes work is a necessity. But that “someone else” may be tolerant of Nazis. Or Hamas. Or maybe the Chinese Communists genocide of the Uighurs.
I would prefer that you leave. I would re-pay a subscription at a new site. Even indirectly, supporting Nazis is not something I want to do. Substack is willingly supporting Nazis. If you walk with a Nazi, you are a Nazi.
I only follow a few people on substack and Twitter and don't post on the either; so I don't see antisemitic or racist posts. I certainly understand why you find them offensive and would like to find a forum where they're forbidden. If you move, l
I'll try to follow, but as a gezzer, I may not be able to. The internet can be confusing for old people
I hope you stay. I like Substack a lot. I am able to follow a lot of writers, including discovering new ones. Especially since I use the app and keep my email from becoming overwhelmed.
Of course, eff nazis. But the only thing I see is the discussion of nazis. No actual nazis. I like browsing my more open feed, but I look for interesting notes and don’t pay much attention to the promoted links. And when I don’t feel like expending any effort on filtering, I go to my inbox. I made one mistake on someone who had a couple of interesting posts, but turned out to be angrier than I want to read. Mute worked just fine.
The thing about the discussion of banning nazis is that it quickly becomes a discussion of not nazi-nazis, but might-as-well-be-nazis and hate speech and “hate speech.” For now, I am satisfied curating my own feed.
I would be very disappointed if the Nazis and the other "haters" win. In my view, Haters Winning would mean that all of the good guys left Substack -- hey Drezner's World -- and the Haters remained. But I also can't wrap my mind around a fix.
I don’t think Substack leadership cares about what you/we think. I don’t wish to support hate in any of its incarnations. I will follow if you go, just keep us informed.
Precisely correct. If some of the mega authors pack it up and leave (people with 200K or more subscribers, and tens of thousands of paid subscribers) the management will take notice. Anything less than that is not going to move their needle enough to alter their stance.
I wish it wasn't so, but it sure seems to be the case.
I am comfortable with substackers I subscribe to choosing the voice option and think they've done so wisely thus far. I think the big tent criticism and thoughtful discernment applied in the group letter and by Balko help. The exit option would also work best if someone saw a market opportunity for competition and offered a compelling alternative with good software and defensible if not uncontroversial policies on moderation.
Like you, I’m incredibly annoyed and insulted. For one, I’m annoyed at how the public discussion about this has treated to Substack or not like it was a cost less, frictionless choice; that’s not the case. For another, I’m now facing reputational damages because of the Substack team’s cack-handed policies and explanations—thanks, guys! And as Balko (and I in my own post) noted, this isn’t a Substack or not question—all platforms will face the same questions unless you handle your own tech backend, which is what I came here to avoid! So I am in a wait-and-see mode but keeping enough public discontent that I hope it will pressure the team to do minimal anti Nazi stuff.
I disagree fairly strongly with both DD’s post and most of the comments. A few reasons why:
First off, I think the hypocrisy argument raised by the prohibition against porn is a canard. Even setting aside the fact that Substack's payments processor, Stripe, won't process payments related to porn (a policy that is almost certainly about economics rather than morals; the porn industry has huge numbers of fraud and chargeback issues), hosting porn is also a huge burden because of the cost of developing systems and hiring personnel necessary to guard against hosting child porn, porn that violates copyright, or porn that has been posted without the approval of the participants. Long story short, Substack isn't making an editorial judgment that porn is worse than Nazis. They just don't want to be in the porn hosting business, which is really a completely different business than hosting a blogging platform. The prohibition against spam newsletters is similar.
I suppose that their ban against posting content that “incites violence” or that includes “credible threats of physical harm” comes closer to having a “content moderation policy” in the way that DD then thinks makes it hypocritical to allow Nazi sympathizers to use the platform, but I disagree. Rather than making a policy that prohibits classes of people and ideas as beyond the pale, they instead have rules against specific types of content that apply to everyone.
I think that is the right approach for two reasons:
First, it says clearly right from the beginning that they are not going to be drawn into the game of deciding what ideas are legitimate and what ideas are not but rather will let readers make their own judgements. The former is a path that leads to endless arguments. One can already see the signs of it in these comments with the objections to “transphobes” and “Hamas apologists.” I think it’s wise of Substack not to get drawn into that game, and there is no clearer way of making that point then not to ban Nazis (who everyone, doubtless including the folks at Substack, would agree are the worst of the worst).
Second, I believe the whole deplatforming approach is counterproductive. I think in the long run forcing people who believe in bad ideas to other platforms doesn’t actually change their minds or stop their ideas from spreading, but rather makes people more likely to hold these ideas even more strongly, both because of the inevitable human reaction when people under siege and because they are less likely to be exposed to ideas that could influence their thinking in more positive ways. I think the fact that support for Trump has only become stronger in the three years since he was kicked off Facebook and Twitter is the clearest evidence of that.
And while I could perhaps be convinced that this second belief is wrong, that the marketplace of ideas is broken to use DD’s formulation in ways that make deplatforming the right strategy, he doesn’t ever (at least in this piece) even try to make the case that this is true; he simply asserts it. And especially given how lazy this piece is (with spurious accusations of “spouting BS” and “treating me like a moron” where the case is never really made), I found that it strengthened my belief that the Substack folks have it right.
Also, the fact that this is their policy should be a surprise to no one. They described their philosophy toward content moderation three years ago (https://on.substack.com/p/substacks-view-of-content-moderation). I thought they had it right then, and I think events since have only strengthened that case.
Also worth reading, if folks hadn’t, is Ben Dreyfuss’ take (https://www.calmdownben.com/p/substack-doesnt-have-a-nazi-problem), as well the counter letter that has been circulating (https://www.elysian.press/p/substack-writers-for-community-moderation). In particular, that latter piece speaks for me.
I took my blog to ghost because Substack was *paying* transphobes to post on Substack. Allowing the excrement is one thing. But paying for it? And apparently they're paying some neofascists too.
I think something we need to consider is when private companies have one or two people, almost invariably dudes, calling the shots while only accountable to the market.
If you've got a board, committee or team working on decisions like these it can be a way to hide responsibility, to be sure. On the other hand, maybe you don't have two dudes spouting intellectually and morally bankrupt hogwash to justify their personal greed.
And Nazism requires violence to exist. It is a threat of violence by definition. I don't understand why no one is talking about this. Being a Nazi or other type of fascist including neofascists IS A THREAT OF VIOLENCE. It's like hosting a klan member (a proto fascist movement in its first incarnation) and saying they're not threatening violence. There's no point to being in the Klan if there's no threat of violence.
It's relatively easy for me to say that I'm not going to boycott the writers I like on Substack in order to punish Substack for hosting Nazis. Admittedly, this sidesteps the question whether I'm indirectly subsidizing Nazis by subscribing here, but, be that as it may, as long as you're publishing, I'm subscribing.
This may be facetious, or maybe not: Could Substack split into a White Supremacist Division, and a (Mostly) Nazi-free Division, each with separate income streams?
That is a good approximation of where I am. I honor J.M. Berger for having integrity and walking away but weekly research roundups can be almost anywhere. Most of the people I follow here and have given paid subscriptions are NOT in the process of angst about leaving so I will subsidize Substack no matter what Dan does. Popehat's line "Do I stay on Twitter to prove that I am not a snowflake and that I am open to discussions of how the Jews created polio?" made me feel seen although I am comforted that even @JewishWonk lost it who is normally a very level-headed non-snowflake.
"lost it" -- visibly got angry
You completely avoided something that has split other Jewish readers and writers on this issue. Jonathan M Katz, the originator of the sparsely researched “Substack has a Nazi problem” article and protest campaign, is a Hamas apologist. You remember Hamas, right? Those Palestinian death squads who on October 7th massacred in a single day more Jews than anyone since the Nazis? Mr Katz defends pro Hamas protestors, and as an anti Zionist propagandist, he has the same goal of destroying Israel as Hamas. That’s the ‘anti-Nazi’ campaigner you’ve been manipulated by.
Is it really a ‘Nazi’ problem? Nobody on Substack is a Nazi party member. It’s shorthand for Neo-Nazi, White Supremacists and assorted scum. The term flung casually by leftists (by the Nate Silver categorization), and gobbled up by progressives lacks any accuracy. Does it also cover anti-Trans conservatives writers? Obviously to most leftists those are Nazis too. Does it cover any writer who is pro-Israel? Leftists tag all of those as Nazis too (Zionism=Racism, duh). Who gets to define 'Nazi'?
Since ‘Nazi’ is used in the loosest way possible, let’s reflect on the fact that Substack also has a big Hamas apologia problem. There are some outright pro Hamas readers and writers - I get their opinions on my notes and their replies in comment threads so I’ll stop you in advance from denying their existence. Substack also has Hamas apologists like Jonathan M Katz himself. There is no Nazi party in any country, but Hamas does exist, and has openly stated genocidal plans for the biggest group of Jews in the world, 7 million Israeli Jews, and is part of the Iranian axis, which has engaged in terrorism against Jews around the world (AMIA bombing and elsewhere). If ‘Nazi’ is used against anyone on the far Right who wants more Jews to die, surely it also applies to Jonathan M Katz and similar leftists who have little problem when Jews die.
I’m totally incapable of getting excited about this; it seems a storm in a teacup. The practical consequences of this quirk in Substack is negiligible (I’d rather see it as an irrational dislike of porn than an irrational liking of Nazis) and the platform works well.
No particularly insightful argument for this (everything has already been said by others); I’m posting just because our host says he wants paid subscribers’ opinions.
I've followed you for a number of years, long enough I don't remember the first blog, if it was a blog. I joined the ACLU back in the Nazi march in Skokie time, so I've been hard line on First amendment as applied to govt. I tend to carry that over to nongovernment forums..
I'm perhaps still naive enough to believe that ignoring the extremes works best in the long run, that the proportion of crazies in the society is small enough that reason will work in the long run.
Bottomline, I'll follow the writers whose opinions I value, wherever they go, if I can figure out the forum, and ignore those I don't.
I pay for a number of substacks, mostly writers who reference you or you reference them on occasion (Brad DeLong, Noah Smith, Calculated Risk, plus one or two more). I've never seen any nazis or fascists despite reading multiple substacks every day since it started. So as far as I'm concerned, my reading is not personally affected by any poor decisions made by substack leadership. That said, I don't want to financially support assholes who provide a voice to fascists. I'll give Substack a period of time to reconsider before I leave. I'll also let the writers I follow a reasonable period of time after it's clear that Substack isn't going to change to move to a different platform. The current state is not acceptable.
I’ve been online for over 30 years and my rough estimate is that there’s a near 100% chance that any platform will have its own political issues.
“ Not if you have your own site. It's not impossibly difficult”
No, but… Think of all the things that a hosting site like Substack does. From email list management, to billing, to maintaining the domain registration. And all the other bits that go into a newsletter. Ask Rusty Foster, @rusty.todayintabs.com on BlueSky, about his personal site, Kuro5hin. Well, former site. It got overrun by trolls despite attempts at moderation, and he eventually lost track of the time to renew the domain and, oops, it’s gone. And Rusty is a very technically savvy guy. But he had this thing called “a life”.
So for most people having someone else do all the behind the scenes work is a necessity. But that “someone else” may be tolerant of Nazis. Or Hamas. Or maybe the Chinese Communists genocide of the Uighurs.
Good luck figuring out what to do.
I would prefer that you leave. I would re-pay a subscription at a new site. Even indirectly, supporting Nazis is not something I want to do. Substack is willingly supporting Nazis. If you walk with a Nazi, you are a Nazi.
I only follow a few people on substack and Twitter and don't post on the either; so I don't see antisemitic or racist posts. I certainly understand why you find them offensive and would like to find a forum where they're forbidden. If you move, l
I'll try to follow, but as a gezzer, I may not be able to. The internet can be confusing for old people
I hope you stay. I like Substack a lot. I am able to follow a lot of writers, including discovering new ones. Especially since I use the app and keep my email from becoming overwhelmed.
Of course, eff nazis. But the only thing I see is the discussion of nazis. No actual nazis. I like browsing my more open feed, but I look for interesting notes and don’t pay much attention to the promoted links. And when I don’t feel like expending any effort on filtering, I go to my inbox. I made one mistake on someone who had a couple of interesting posts, but turned out to be angrier than I want to read. Mute worked just fine.
The thing about the discussion of banning nazis is that it quickly becomes a discussion of not nazi-nazis, but might-as-well-be-nazis and hate speech and “hate speech.” For now, I am satisfied curating my own feed.
I would be very disappointed if the Nazis and the other "haters" win. In my view, Haters Winning would mean that all of the good guys left Substack -- hey Drezner's World -- and the Haters remained. But I also can't wrap my mind around a fix.
I don’t think Substack leadership cares about what you/we think. I don’t wish to support hate in any of its incarnations. I will follow if you go, just keep us informed.
Precisely correct. If some of the mega authors pack it up and leave (people with 200K or more subscribers, and tens of thousands of paid subscribers) the management will take notice. Anything less than that is not going to move their needle enough to alter their stance.
I wish it wasn't so, but it sure seems to be the case.
I am comfortable with substackers I subscribe to choosing the voice option and think they've done so wisely thus far. I think the big tent criticism and thoughtful discernment applied in the group letter and by Balko help. The exit option would also work best if someone saw a market opportunity for competition and offered a compelling alternative with good software and defensible if not uncontroversial policies on moderation.
Happy for you to pressure the folks while you look for a sufficiently suitable alternative.