Lies, Damn lies, and Tyranny of the Most Vocally Offended
Substack got it right! Substack saw the community dissatisfaction and pushback against “Substack against Nazis” and … agreed!
Let’s get a few things out of the way before we dive in to the meat of this article.
I shouldn’t even be here. I told you all before that this was my PTO month. I did fantastic work throughout the year, and December was my time to log off, relax for a while, get some IRL things done, and maybe rub my balls for a while. So much for that.
I should, in cultural theory, be on the other side of this piece. I should be angry at Substack for not taking Content Moderation(TM)(C)(R) as seriously as David Katz would like. As a gay man of multiple races and a strong left-leaning bent, I should, by all means be in favor of such heavy-handed safe-space-ing. For the record I’m not and I find myself far more in favor of open debate than censorship. I always have and always will.
I think Substack is already fairly okay when it comes to content moderation. Substack isn’t a large platform inundated with spam, verbal bile, and clickbait. Quite the opposite. The smaller nature of the creature allows it to be better-tailored, and also less interesting to those looking for maximum disruption. Sometimes smaller comes in handy.
The entirety of “Substack against Nazis” comes off to me as the whiny death throes of legacy media, being ginned up by an audience of bored, middle-aged scolds who spend their days online tut-tuting at people for using language or discussing concepts that they don’t understand, find uncomfortable or wish to otherwise have erased from the collective lexiconography.
So, on with it. Let’s go. I need to get this done in an hour, I have shit to do today. It’s 4 days to Christmas. You’re lucky you’re getting this.
Imagine my surprise this week, nay, month, that the topic seemingly on everyone’s lips are Nazis on Substack. Now, as a casual Nazi buff, in that I find neonazis and neonazism an ideological curiosity, a tumor on society; I find it curious - I have yet to see said Nazis on Substack. I have seen some users expressing fairly right wing, nationalist, sometimes even racially-charged positions - but not nazism. Curiously enough, the few times I have encountered positions even bordering on things neonazis might consider culturally relevant (IE: white replacement, Jewish control of media/culture, generic racial stereotyping), it tends to be… Quite mild on the skin, to put it politely. I obviously dignify none of this nonsense, mute the motherfuckers, and move on with my day.
Some, especially those at The Atlantic, feel differently - and took it upon themselves to start a moral crusade on Substack in order to bring this to attention and rectify it at the highest echelons of Substack Corporate Office Manager. Their petition, which amounted to very little more than “waaaaaah deplatform them, I don’t know how to use the block button”, devolved far further. I saw Substack users picking fights via email with white nationalists, attempting to use this as justification for their arguments. Curiously, Substack remains unable to moderate our email inboxes at time of writing.
However, to my chagrin and to my delight and surprise, Hamish McKenzie today put out a statement explaining Substack’s full unequivocal position.
I am linking to it here, but I am also quoting it in full for this piece. It is beautiful, it is the statement I wish every social media company would champion and send to those who wish to edit reality on our collective behalf to suit their own overly-sensitive sensitivities.
Hi everyone. Chris, Jairaj, and I wanted to let you know that we’ve heard and have been listening to all the views being expressed about how Substack should think about the presence of fringe voices on the platform (and particularly, in this case, Nazi views).
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.
We believe that supporting individual rights and civil liberties while subjecting ideas to open discourse is the best way to strip bad ideas of their power. We are committed to upholding and protecting freedom of expression, even when it hurts. As
has noted, history shows that censorship is most potently used by the powerful to silence the powerless. (Ted’s note:substack.com/profile/4937458-ted-gioia/…)
Our content guidelines do have narrowly defined proscriptions, including a clause that prohibits incitements to violence. We will continue to actively enforce those rules while offering tools that let readers curate their own experiences and opt in to their preferred communities. Beyond that, we will stick to our decentralized approach to content moderation, which gives power to readers and writers. While not everyone agrees with this approach, many people do, as indicated by
’s post in defense of decentralized moderation on Substack, which was signed and endorsed by hundreds of writers on the platform, including some of the leading names in journalism, literature, and academia (see Elle’s post below). Even if we were in a minority of one, however, we would still believe in these principles.
There also remains a criticism that Substack is promoting these fringe voices. This criticism appears to stem from my decision to host Richard Hanania, who was later outed as having once published extreme and racist views, on my podcast, The Active Voice. I didn’t know of those past writings at the time, and Hanania went on to disavow those views. While it has been uncomfortable and I probably would have done things differently with all the information in front of me, I ultimately don’t regret having him on the podcast. I think it’s important to engage with and understand a range of views even if—especially if—you disagree with them. Hanania is an influential voice for some in U.S. politics—his recent book, for instance, was published by HarperCollins—and there is value in knowing his arguments. The same applies to all other guests I have hosted on The Active Voice, including Hanania’s political opposites.
We don’t expect everyone to agree with our approach and policies, and we believe it’s helpful for there to be continued robust debate of these issues. Six years into Substack, however, we have been encouraged by the quality of discourse on the platform. As Elle said in her letter: “We are still trying to figure out the best way to handle extremism on the internet. But of all the ways we’ve tried so far, Substack is working the best.”
Thanks for listening, and for caring, and thanks to everyone who publishes on Substack. We are here to serve you and will continue to do our very best in that mission.
I don’t have anything else to say that isn’t being said in the above quote. I think it’s refreshing to see a platform put such an unequivocal spin on personal responsibility. Content moderation is your job. It’s not your job to censor the internet for all of us to suit yourself. Fuck off, Substack against Nazis, and curiously I looked through some of your Substacks - you never once mention Azov Nazis or Stepan Bandera being the “Father of Ukraine”. Curious how that works.
Until next year my beloved readers, merry Christmas, happy New Year’s, and stay free.
Rich @ Counterspin
Content of Character will always rise above Cultural Theory, Rich.
If they did not do anything illegal they should have the right to say whatever they want. ON the other hand if they did and if these "Nazis" are such a threat they need to be in the criminal justice system/slammer. If they are not in the slammer, sorry they get to speak. Yeah, it hurts us to say it. It sticks in my throat to say, that you know. And a lot of people would like to throttle them. A lot of persons would like to do a lot of things. But we know it's wrong, we refrain from doing it. This is what the Bible says, too "Thous shalt not kill - Period." No qualifier. Other religions same. Human beings usually have a deep-seated inhibition to doing harm to the lives of others. And no devious persons, for whatever deep-seated reasons of they own, should be goading us to change. There is something devious about it. It hurts my "vengeance warrior" self to say it, but this is correct. Everybody talks about doing bad things to others esp the Nazi sorts. You basically don't hurt others. And if you do, there is the system of law enforcement. That is it. As I said I am really sorry to say this. What I "really want" to do is kill lots of people like a screaming madman. Somehow I restrain myself. I don't know how I do it. So Katz, and everyone else in the world should be the same.