Image: © Rymden/Stock.adobe.com
A report recently noted that Substack gains revenue from Nazis monetising their content, but a co-founder claims censoring this content would only make the problem worse.
Substack has responded to criticisms that it gives Nazis a platform to share and monetise their content, but the response might not be what critics were hoping for.
The criticisms followed a report by The Atlantic last month that said Substack’s lax content moderation has created an opening for white nationalists to share their views. This report noted that Substack takes a 10pc cut of subscription revenue and makes money when readers pay for Nazi newsletters.
Co-founder and chief writing officer Hamish McKenzie said the company has heard the complaints and added that “we don’t like Nazis either”, but argued that “some people do hold those and other extreme views”.
“We don’t think that censorship (including through demonetising publications) makes the problem go away – in fact, it makes it worse,” McKenzie said in a blogpost. “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.”
Hundreds of writers and creators on the platform signed a letter to Substack’s founders earlier this month and said it is “unfathomable” to give Nazis the tools to succeed on the platform. This letter claimed several Nazis have paid subscriptions turned on and Substack ‘bestseller’ badges, which indicates they make “at a minimum thousands of dollars a year” from their posts.
“We know you moderate some content, including spam sites and newsletters written by sex workers,” the writers said. “Why do you choose to promote and allow the monetisation of sites that traffic in white nationalism?”
McKenzie did not respond to the point about moderating spam sites and newsletters written by sex workers, but said Substack’s content guidelines 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,” McKenzie said. “Beyond that, we will stick to our decentralised approach to content moderation, which gives power to readers and writers.
“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.”
McKenzie also responded to criticisms that Substack is “promoting these fringe voices” and referenced an example where he hosted Richard Hanania on his podcast. Hanania reportedly published racist views under a pseudonym and posted controversial tweets a month before appearing on the podcast.
“I didn’t know of those past writings at the time, and Hanania went on to disavow those views,” McKenzie said. “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.”
10 things you need to know direct to your inbox every weekday. Sign up for the Daily Brief, Silicon Republic’s digest of essential sci-tech news.
