93
Note by Hamish McKenzie on Substack
substack.comHi everyone. Chris, Jairaj, and I wanted to let you know that weâve 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).Â
I just want to make it clear that we donât like Nazis eitherâwe 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 awayâin 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 @Ted Gioia has noted, history shows that censorship is most potently used by the powerful to silence the powerless. (Tedâs note: https://substack.com/profile/4937458-ted-gioia/note/c-45421012)Â
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 @Elle Griffinâs 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 Elleâs post below). Even if we were in a minority of one, however, we would still believe in these principles.Â
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 didnât 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 donât regret having him on the podcast. I think itâs important to engage with and understand a range of views even ifâespecially ifâyou disagree with them. Hanania is an influential voice for some in U.S. politicsâhis recent book, for instance, was published by HarperCollinsâand there is value in knowing his arguments. The same applies to all other guests I have hosted on The Active Voice, including Hananiaâs political opposites.Â
We donât expect everyone to agree with our approach and policies, and we believe itâs 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: âWe are still trying to figure out the best way to handle extremism on the internet. But of all the ways weâve tried so far, Substack is working the best.â
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.
The day just isnât complete without a tiresome retread of freeze peach rhetorical tropes. Oh, itâs âimportant to engage with and understandâ white supremacy. Thatâs why we need to boost the voices of white supremacists! And give them money!
What fucking data do they show that deplatforming and demonetizing makes extremist views worse?
Last I remember, actively demonetizing fringe views like Alex Jones damn near killed their reach. And quarantining on Reddit completely nuked organic reach which was, for a long time, how crazy shit was reaching people.
In what fucking world do the powerful care about the powerless nazis. What fucking world. Didnât we fucking fight a world war about this. Itâs really fucking cliche to say but holy fuck why the fuck would the powerful ever care about censoring the powerless nazis.
Shit dude the owner of Substack is not engaging with my view that heâs a fucking witless dishcloth. Kinda hypocritical amirite
The idea that removing someoneâs platform makes things worse is just insane.
Itâs not silencing them, itâs just removing their reach to spread their horseshit.
Itâs not even removing someoneâs platform when theyâre using your platform to spread their message. Cutting off their internet? Thatâs deplatforming. Throttling their bandwidth? Thatâs fucking with their access to utilities (internet should be a utility). Kicking them off your privately-owned site they donât have a majority ownership stake in? If thatâs deplatforming youâre admitting your platform is all about the Nazis.
I do not understand these mental gymnastics tech bros go through.
Iâm not sure when deplatforming became a dirty word in the first place. Freedom of speech doesnât entitle anyone to a platform. Itâs not a crime to express whatever views you have, but you may need to bring your own soapbox.
Or maybe deplatforming is bad and an affront to freedom of expression. If that is the case, I will let you know on the next episode of Joe Rogan. If Iâm not invited, consider me silenced by the cancel culture mob.
when it started happening to these guys, duh
Iâm fully in favor of kicking nazis off of wherever specifically because doing so is censorship, deplatforming, etc, so gotta disagree with you there
It sounds like we only disagree on the specific word we use to describe the act of removing someone from a website so thatâs an okay disagreement!
The data is his bussy pain
deleted by creator