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.”

  • Gamers_Mate
    link
    fedilink
    8411 months ago

    “we don’t like or condone bigotry in any form.” I mean they are litterally Condoning bigotry.

    “His response similarly doesn’t engage other questions from the Substackers Against Nazis authors, like why these policies allow it to moderate spam and newsletters from sex workers but not Nazis.”

    Doesn’t seem very consistent.

    • Unaware7013
      link
      fedilink
      4911 months ago

      Substack: Nazis are cool, but you better not be selling sex related shit! We have standards!

      • @Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3611 months ago

        “We do not condone Nazi propaganda, but we are very concerned about sex work causing social degeneracy.”

        • Unaware7013
          link
          fedilink
          411 months ago

          Substack is likely very concerned about the purity of the volk

    • admiralteal
      link
      fedilink
      2211 months ago

      Condone (transitive verb): To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.

      Neat.

      • @brbposting@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1011 months ago

        Interesting, I generally think of the Merriam-Webster definition:

        to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless

        Or perhaps even further than that: actually approving of something. Guess “condone” is a little weaker of a word than I thought. But its popularity calls for being extra careful of even overlooking wrongdoing.