Skip Navigation

Substack says it will not remove or demonetize Nazi content

More than 200 Substack authors asked the platform to explain why it’s “platforming and monetizing Nazis,” and now they have an answer straight from co-founder Hamish McKenzie:

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.

While McKenzie offers no evidence to back these ideas, this tracks with the company’s previous stance on taking a hands-off approach to moderation. In April, Substack CEO Chris Best appeared on the Decoder podcast and refused to answer moderation questions. “We’re not going to get into specific ‘would you or won’t you’ content moderation questions” over the issue of overt racism being published on the platform, Best said. McKenzie followed up later with a similar statement to the one today, saying “we don’t like or condone bigotry in any form.”

355 comments
  • 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.

    • Yeah, people don't seem to realize how insidious this shit is. Unfettered capitalism is allowing these fuckers to gain credibility and giving them a soapbox under the guise of "free speech."

      The desire for profit above all else, combined with the fact that the last of the people alive during (and old enough to understand) WW2 dying off, has been allowing fascism to wrap its filthy tendrils around our society once again. Preventing these people from taking power needs to be our priority, but unfortunately, constantly having to fight against this shit impedes all other progress.

      Free speech is not absolute. Fascists (and particularly ones that call themselves Nazis) have no place in modern society, and they should be given no quarter because we've seen what happens if we don't root them out.

      This is not just a disagreement on policy, or a mere difference of opinion. These people literally want my friends dead.

  • "We don't like or condone bigotry in any form."

    ...But we are happy to financially support bigotry and directly profit from it.

  • No, it does not “make it worse”.

    In fact, stamping out dissent and controlling people is incredibly effective. Ask any dictator.

    Control is effective and necessary when it comes to people actively trying to damage society. No, I’m not supporting dictatorship or authoritarianism, just pointing out that control is effective.

    Being a sect of destructive assholes doesn’t mean you should get a platform.

    • “I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

      ― Elie Wiesel

  • And then people wonder why we're so scared of Facebook if the fediverse is "supposed to be open".

    The answer is literally in front of you, people!

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

355 comments