“We don’t think that censorship (including through demonetizing publications) makes the problem go away.”

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.”

    • KptnAutismus@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6·
      11 months ago

      not everyone who doesn’t want to censor nazis is a nazi. while i think hate has no place anywhere online, i agree that free speech is important. substack should definetely stop someone hateful from earning money on that platform one way or another.

        • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nlEnglish
          37·
          11 months ago

          They can’t. That would break the illusion of being an “enlightened centrist.”

          I.E. votes right wing, sees themselves as slightly more moderate, but sympathizer and defender of the far right and Nazis.

          Or one of the many foreign troll farms found to be pushing the “enlightened centrist” narrative.

          • KptnAutismus@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            11 months ago

            i’m by no means any kind of centrist or right leaning and i do have very strong opinions about nazis. but free speech on the internet is a very important thing, while i also believe hate speech should be censored.

            tl;dr, conflicting opinions != Nazi, dumbass.

            • Eldritch@lemmy.worldEnglish
              6·
              11 months ago

              It’s not the conflicting opinions. It’s your lack of commitment to your own professed opinions. You literally stated you believe hate speech should be censored. But all your arguments to this point are that they should not. Where is your consistency?

          • CazRaX@lemmy.worldEnglish
            6·
            11 months ago

            Won’t work here, on here it is black or white, either hate Nazis and anything that even approaches it or you are one. Every other subject in the world will be grey and nuanced, and they will argue minor points to death, except for this.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
              9·
              11 months ago

              If you do not support removing Nazis from the public sphere, you aren’t necessarily a Nazi. But you do support Nazis. That didn’t make a difference between 1939 and 1945 and it doesn’t make a difference now.

        • HiT3k@midwest.socialEnglish
          2·
          11 months ago

          Why are you so combative? You responded to a post rebutting a desire to censor speech from a legal perspective. Being opposed to defining any speech as illegal and being a nazi sympathizer are two very different things. You do not, in fact, have to choose one.