A lot of us know by now that Substack has a Nazi problem. It not only profits from fascist voices, it actively promotes their work and recruits them. And it's funded by Silicon Valley anti-democracy billionaires like Marc Andreesen — the same type of people who are, right now, raiding the US government to basically cut funding for social services and scientific research, and to steal money for themselves.

Still, a lot of talented writers — including some that I subscribe to — publish on Substack. But others have moved to Ghost, an open source and non-shitty-tech-bro newsletter service. These include Casey Newton's publication Platformer, Molly White's newsletter Citation Needed, and plenty of others. From the beginning, 404 Media decided to publish on Ghost because, as I understand it, Substack sucks.

. . .

If you already have a Substack, Ghost has written documentation explaining how to migrate your subscribers (including paid ones) to a new Ghost newsletter. Since both Substack and Ghost use Stripe as a payment processor, your paid subscribers don't have to do anything to continue paying you.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] mke@programming.dev 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

I've seen people defend Substack saying it's not so bad, or the bad is a necessary evil to protect free speech.

I'm gonna say it: fuck free speech, I like myself some censorship. I sincerely believe some things are too harmful to be allowed to openly proliferate, that there's often a feasible path to reaching that conclusion, and it's not that difficult.

We mustn't avoid this because "it harms free speech." Nazis love that argument, and they're a threat to much more than just free speech. They shouldn't get to block attempts at censoring them, and they specially shouldn't get support to do so, because they're one of the reasons it's necessary in the first place.

"But not every case is clear-cut like Nazis," people will say, "you shouldn't support censorship, since it can be used for evil. Innocent ideas always get censored, too." To which I'll reply, "tell me more about those innocent ideas." When that happens, tell me. I'll reach out to people in charge, spread the news, get mad, help you in any way I can to fix it. We'll do it together. Fucking tell me more.

But lo and behold, many innocent ideas turn out to be dog-whistles or worse, it's always the same shit.

I don't care if it's Substack, or Ghost, or Twitter, or Reddit, or whatever. It's one thing to platform harmful views unaware. I get it, moderation is hard. Once aware, though, if your response is "but free speech," fuck off. It is moral and correct to censor Nazis. Same for people saying immigrants will eat your pets, or that gays want to sexualize children, change their genders, and harm women. Fuck that.

Platforms defining themselves on free speech is a red flag. "We're popular with both extremes" isn't a defense, it's a self-report that you're just a mercenary and like it that way—both sides being users means double the revenue.

Substack may not be Nazi-central, but it's surely a product of broligarchy.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I’ve seen people defend Substack saying it’s not so bad

Surely "there are not actually any Nazis on Substack" is a fair counterargument to "Substack has a Nazi problem and no one should listen to all of these good journalists who are on it now that even the tiny minority of Nazis have been ejected" is different from "not so bad."

, or the bad is a necessary evil to protect free speech.

Surely "there are excellent journalists saying excellent things on Substack, and no Nazis" is different from "necessary evil to protect free speech."

You're living in opposite world, man.

[–] mke@programming.dev 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

If you think my problem with Substack is "Nazis are there right now," then you didn't get it. I must've not explained myself well, and that's on me, but you're missing the point regardless.

Nazis are part of my explanation because it ought to be clear to any reasonable reader how they should be dealt with, but one can still be horrible without being an outright Nazi. Those people should be dealt with similarly. Substack will see something horrible and first ask, "but how would our handling of this affect free speech?" which is a disgrace and a red flag.

I'm commenting on a larger issue related to the topic. At no point do I say people shouldn't listen to good journalists because of their platform of choice. At no point do I claim there are Nazis there. To reiterate: bad is not specifically and exclusively Nazis.

Substack may not be Nazi-central, but it's surely a product of broligarchy.

You're answering something else, man.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

A lot of us know by now that Substack has a Nazi problem.

It is moral and correct to censor Nazis.

Nazis love that argument, and they’re a threat to much more than just free speech. They shouldn’t get to block attempts at censoring them, and they specially shouldn’t get support to do so, because they’re one of the reasons it’s necessary in the first place.

Got it.

If you think my problem with Substack is “Nazis are there right now,” then you didn’t get it.

At no point do I claim there are Nazis there. To reiterate: bad is not specifically and exclusively Nazis.

Got it.

Anyway, the core of my point is that anyone who's talking about this type of free speech argument on Substack, particular if it's specifically applied in the context of Nazis, is largely living in a fantasy-land.

You are commenting under an article that says "A lot of us know by now that Substack has a Nazi problem," and then saying that you're not talking about Nazis.

You are saying "the bad is a necessary evil to protect free speech," and not at all addressing the fact that the "bad" doesn't appear to exist on modern Substack. If you have seen it, where have you seen it?

Substack may not be Nazi-central, but it’s surely a product of broligarchy.

There's a lot of this type of innuendo in the OP article and in your response. I'm dealing only with your factual arguments, sort of leaving aside things like this "many innocent ideas turn out to be dog-whistles" "it’s always the same shit" and things. If you want me to try to mount some kind of counterargument for the broligarchy claim, I can I guess. How would you define the broligarchy?

If you're upset that I am mischaracterizing your argument as being about Nazis (because in some crazy fashion I got that idea), tell me what ideas you are in favor of removing from Substack. Where are they on Substack, right now?

I actually do agree with Substack's original moderation stance, precisely for reasons of free speech. We can talk about that if you want, although it's a more complex conversation and we probably won't come to agree on it. But that whole side of things is completely moot at this point, because they caved to the pressure and removed all the Nazis, quite a while ago.

So why are you still upset at them? Wasn't that the goal, to mount public pressure, and deplatform the Nazis?

Edit:

At no point do I say people shouldn’t listen to good journalists because of their platform of choice.

I should answer this, also. What are you saying the solution should be, if not to avoid Substack?

I don't agree with your characterization of the "problem" with Substack, in terms of there being Nazi-adjacent content they are not moderating. But if there does turn out to be that content, what should you and I be doing about it?

[–] mke@programming.dev 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

You are saying "the bad is a necessary evil to protect free speech," and not at all addressing the fact that the "bad" doesn't appear to exist on modern Substack. If you have seen it, where have you seen it?

I literally linked an example.

tell me what ideas you are in favor of removing from Substack. Where are they on Substack, right now?

Follow the links.

So why are you still upset at them?

Link.

I actually do agree with Substack's original moderation stance, precisely for reasons of free speech. We can talk about that if you want, although it's a more complex conversation and we probably won't come to agree on it.

I had a feeling, and maybe this reply isn't outright confirmation, but it's enough. I think you tunnel visioned so hard on defending poor Substack and free speech that you're not even properly reading what you're replying to. You're going up and down this thread, finger on the trigger, and the moment you see the word Nazi you just fire.

You're right, we probably wouldn't agree, and if my read on you is any good, I'd rather not risk wasting time on that conversion.

[–] PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat 1 points 4 hours ago

You are saying “the bad is a necessary evil to protect free speech,” and not at all addressing the fact that the “bad” doesn’t appear to exist on modern Substack. If you have seen it, where have you seen it?

I literally linked an example.

Okay, so you're in favor of removing any content which is dishonest and anti-gay from Substack. Fair enough, I get it.

I actually do agree with Substack’s original moderation stance, precisely for reasons of free speech. We can talk about that if you want, although it’s a more complex conversation and we probably won’t come to agree on it.

I had a feeling, and maybe this reply isn’t outright confirmation, but it’s enough. I think you tunnel visioned so hard on defending poor Substack and free speech that you’re not even properly reading what you’re replying to. You’re going up and down this thread, finger on the trigger, and the moment you see the word Nazi you just fire.

You’re right, we probably wouldn’t agree, and if my read on you is any good, I’d rather not waste time on that conversion.

Sounds good. What do you think should be done about Substack's hosting of anti-gay content? Do you think it should impact me posting Tim Snyder articles from Substack? Do you think it's accurate to summarize it as "Nazi" content?