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.”
This is such a wonderfully ironic statement. It is through toleration that they are painted in a poor light.
Tolerance is a social contract not a right. If you are tolerant, you earn tolerance for yourself. If you are intolerant, you don’t deserve tolerance yourself. It’s really not that complicated imo. I don’t feel the need to be tolerant of racist, bigoted people.
You dont. You just have to be tolerant of their existence because theirr existance is protected by right and law. If you punch a Nazi your still getting charged with assault and battery. If you kill a racist your still going to jail. We dont illegalize views and ideas in america.
No you don’t have to tolerate their existence.
We fought a war against Nazis for a fucking reason.
Their ideals are shut and anyone who pushes them is worth less than the air they breath and the dirt they shit in.
This is ideal, but falls on a simple premise - everyone believes the other party is intolerant and that they are proudly righeous in behaving like a judge, jury and executioner.
Open and free critique means manipulation and grooming happens far less effectively, which neuters anything from its core. Society is the judge, but it must also be the metric it is measured against.
I feel like you’re just being contrarian for its own sake.
The first paragraph is just plain false. Everyone believes others to be intolerant? No, the parent comment just said you be intolerant to the people who prove themselves to be intolerant? “Judge, Jury, Executioner”? Word salad. And people should judge others - we already do that, thats how we know if we can trust someone and expend the energy spend guarding against them in more useful tasks. The second paragraph is just a whole lot of words that say nothing.
Also, I’m just following your advice:
Open and free critique means manipulation and grooming happens far less effectively, which neuters anything from its core.
Be better.
The critique is free and open. That’s what we’re doing right now. We’re critiquing and saying “belief systems that are based on hate shouldn’t be given a platform to spread.” That’s is the result of the open critique.
As for ‘everyone believing that the other party is intolerant’, I’m sure we can imagine some subtle examples where its hard to tell who, if anyone, is at fault - but that isn’t what we’re discussing here. We’re talking about Nazis - they are openly intolerant and hateful. That’s pretty much their main thing. They aren’t trying to hide their intolerance. So surely we can put away the subtle hypotheticals and just agree to shun the Nazis.
paradox of tolerance
From the article…
“I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.”
there is nothing worthwhile lost silencing nazi bullshit from social media
