I have never seen the point of twitter. You can't compose a coherent thought in 128 characters. People have gotten around that by stringing tweets together but it is a poor workaround at best. Substack is much better. AND I don't get a lot of garbage in my email or on my phone.
Totally agree for all the reasons you've given. I don't like having my eyeballs burned with surprise vitriol. When I want it I'll hunt it up. I prefer a syncopated view of the world that I curate for civil dissent, art, creativity, or deep thoughts and researched info. IMHO
Dec 13, 2023·edited Dec 13, 2023Liked by Elle Griffin
When Notes launched, I read a couple of politically-obsessed extremists posts (both the right and left.) I simply blocked the posters. I haven't had a problem with it since. Some may accuse me of burying my head in the sand, but I feel no compulsion to endure their nonsense and hatred. Any more than I would let someone punch me repeatedly in the face. Their viewpoints won't make me a better person, just depressed at how awful people and politics can be.
I get it. No one wants to be hated or oppressed. And hatred is a serious problem in this country. The only real answer is changed hearts. But new laws (or censorship) or politicians rarely accomplish that. I don't envy Substack trying to deal with it.
Citizens here are free to rant and be miserable. So am I, if I choose to. But I don't want to, or have to, listen. I choose not to. Long live kindness and love. Long live the mute and block!
This is very well said. I've never understood the fear of "the echo chamber," as if being exposed to random hateful thoughts from internet strangers was a good thing. When we are in smaller groups, like at a dinner party for example, we are actually able to navigate diverse thoughts quite easily. It is only the "throw everyone together" format that makes it seem like we can't get along. It's not "putting your head in the sand" to opt out of that.
I think hearing (when expressed with civility) and reading opposing viewpoints is good. But hateful, close-minded ranting is never a good thing. No one needs to listen to that.
When we lump people into groups (political, social, race, beliefs, etc.) hate becomes easier. But we are all individuals. I still believe "Love your neighbor as yourself" is the best strategy.
The fact that I saw some names on that list that I've seethed at on other networks and who I didn't even know had Substack speaks volumes to how civilized and pleasant and spacious for all views it is in the current form. Everyone says that Substack will eventually screw it up in search for growth, and I guess they will. But for now, it's really one of my favorite places on the internet.
Some of the authors on this list are my absolute favorite, some I don’t know, and some I wouldn’t read. But it’s something to all agree on something. I think that’s worth a lot in this world. And that we can all write on the same platform without running into one another unless we want to is pretty cool! This is not one platform, it’s many. We can coexist here!
Well, it looks like you turned your paywall off. Thank you. But my comment elsewhere still stands. I agree that Substack shouldn't control what we read, but paywalls essentially do the same thing. I also know that pay walls are a way for posters to earn money. There are two things in tension. Maybe posters can choose to take down their pay walls for important posts .
Hi Ann, I'm not sure what you mean? Did you have trouble accessing this post? This essay was never paywalled. I have comments locked to paid subscribers, but not the essay?
I came across the typical warning: Want to read more? Then subscribe. Or: this post is for subscribers only. When I went to comment I couldn't. Hence I couldn't sign up for the list. Frustrating.
Oh that's strange, maybe it was trying to get you to become a free subscriber? Because it definitely wasn't a paid post. But yes, commenting is locked to paid subscribers on my Substack just because we host literary salons here with a variety of thinkers.
It's a week later, and I have made an apology, and given Elle a thank you for opening her comments, however briefly. In fact, I had to subscribe here in order to post this comment, because the wall is back up. But several days ago I saw some VERY visible signs at the front of an article saying it was paywalled. Thank you for noticing my request. The signs were made extra glaring to make sure I didn't miss them, though. A pyrrhic victory.
I have attracted a number of people with strange names that are repeating among my comments, so they have started recruited their friends. This was not my intention so I have muted that thread here.
I am both encouraged and discouraged by how this has all played out. Trolls are trolls, and ever more shall be. Noting my requests and acting, however briefly, to fulfill them was appreciated. The sarcasm implicit in the huge screaming orange/red message box was not. But tit for tat, my tone was less than courteous. The signs may be gone by now. I haven't checked.
BTW, i have experienced troll behavior in some social media about a topic trolls did not appreciate. They called in all their buddies and swarmed me. I closed those accounts because my ability to block or screen hateful content was limited.
I understand Elle's point, so I hope she doesn't consider me a troll. I just asked for a mild change, but one that could potentially reduce paying subscribers. It evoked the predictable response, I guess. We are not living in a utopia.
Ah well, I don't want to start a campaign. I will return to my peaceful substack and will make sure it stays that way. I don't write about controversial subjects on other peoplp zzzzz. Back to bed.
Yes, all of the comments on my posts are locked to paid subscribers only. But again, the post itself is not paywalled and never has been. You might just be seeing the pop up asking you to subscribe? (For free?)
I find it to be common that folks misconstrue the "informational" pop-up window -- the one that says "subscribe (or click through to continue to read for free) as a paywall. For those who are new to Substack, they assume that they can't read. I wish Substack would change that simple popup and let people read it if it's a free post -- give them the option to subscribe elsewhere.
I like reading alternative voices, like from books in a library, papers I can check out of journals... I go searching for these things because I want to be informed about what others are saying, especially dangerous people. But digital networks disrupted all that. Digital networks are *fast* Speed of light fast.
I’m not sure how many writers on here have ever spent any time watching server logs or worse, trying to stop a DDoS attack on a server. It’s frightening... and overwhelming within seconds, like watching a tidal wave retreat from the shores and then come back to land... there’s just no way to get out of the way. That’s pretty much the way the internet has been built, with very little motivation to change it.
That’s the issue. The fact that all of us are just sitting ducks for anyone who wants to launch an attack on any of us. If you don’t think this is true, you likely have never been a target of one of these truly horrible, vicious sociopaths. (My condolences if you have been... it’s not anything I would wish on anyone!)
They want you to think they are just discussing ideas. They want to appear normal and engage with you. They want you to defend their right to say anything. Until they don’t. Until they are inside the walls. Until they have taken over your threshold, their foot firmly jammed against the jamb.
Hey everyone! I've enjoyed reading some of the comments. I am a fellow signer of the free speech letter. I've been dismayed at the level of pushback in the form of "Nazis are bad." Of course Nazis are bad; they're reprobate idiots. That doesn't have anything to do, in my view, with the democratic principle of free speech. If we're going to let some (too many) young Leftist progressives write "from the river to the sea," and name their pro-Hamas demonstrations after The Flood, then I think it's fair to allow the tiny percentage of actual racist Nazis on Substack or anywhere else have their say. I have encountered perhaps one Nazi wingnut; I blocked and reported him because he was crazy and I didn't want him tainting my thread.
Clearly, personal content moderation by individual writers is more free, safer and more liberal/democratic than Substack moderating for us. We've seen how that goes on other social media channels. It doesn't work.
What this ignores is that white supremacists are recruiting off-line, and Substack is allowing them to create safe echo chambers without any moderation or oversight. People can literally be planning mass murder on this site, without any checks. Substack is saying to people like the Christchurch shooter and the Buffalo shooter and the Tree of Life shooter, and every January 6 insurrectionist - "come here! Make us money! We don't care what you say! We don't care who you incite!"
This is not a free speech issue. This is a hate speech issue. At least on Facebook (or Threads), I am reasonably assured that if I start putting in Neo-Nazi tags, I will be fed Neo-Nazi links, and I can keep tabs on what's happening in that sphere. The fact that Substack is so isolated means that the white supremacists can do just about anything without being noticed. This is scary.
Well but that's not true. Inciting violence is against Substack's content guidelines. Posts, publications, and people who do so are removed from the platform. People simply can't "plan mass murder on this site."
As for seeing hate speech, what do you mean about using neo-nazi "tags"? Because you wouldn't be able to follow that kind of content on Substack unless you followed a writer who writes that kind of content.
And as far as that being isolating, well when we kick people off platforms, they go to Truth Social and Parler where they can really "do anything without being noticed." I'm not convinced that's better?
I feel like you may not have read the Jonathan Katz piece in the Atlantic? The issue here is that Substack doesn't enforce its terms of service - partly because it's not moderating, so it doesn't know what people are publishing. And partly because Substack actively helps white supremacists get around the TOS, and even actively promotes them.
For instance, Substack bans anyone “restricted from making money on Substack” - like if they’re banned from using Stripe. And yet, there's a white supremacist substacker, Patrick Casey, who was banned from Stripe, as well as pre-Musk Twitter and FB. But Substack allowed him to get around that particular prohibition in their TOS to use an outside payment service. (Where does that outside payment service come from? What causes do they support?)
Katz lists the white supremacist newsletters he has found that have overt Nazi symbols, or other hate symbols that can easily be found and identified on the ADL or SPLC websites. One Substack newsletter calls itself “Your pro-White policy destination,” and is one of several that openly promote the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory that inspired deadly mass shootings at a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, synagogue; two Christchurch, New Zealand, mosques; an El Paso, Texas, Walmart; and a Buffalo, New York, supermarket.
The TOS says Substack will not “publish content or fund initiatives that incite violence based on protected classes.” But it does with these newsletters Katz points out.
And Substack makes money off of each paid subscription. So, a white supremacist newsletter that writes about The Great Replacement Theory or the low IQs of Black and Brown people, which they know will incite action from their 10,000 readers, is actually putting $1,000 a month in Substack’s pocket. (Katz highlights one newsletter - Turning Point Stocks - that ran the headline: “Vaccines Are Jew Witchcraftery - something even Bari Weiss might object to.)
AND people have written manifestos that Substack didn’t catch. Katz reports: “In August, Rolling Stone reported that a group calling itself the People’s Initiative of New England—a barely concealed front for the neo-Nazi organization NSC-131—had published a manifesto advocating ‘separation from the United States of America’ for the purpose of creating a white ethnostate in the Northeast. That manifesto was published on the group’s Substack.”
But it’s not just letting people say horrible things. Substack promotes people who generate hate speech. The official Substack newsletter promoted Darryl Cooper, who has said “FDR chose the wrong side in WWII.”
And Hamish McKenzie hosted Richard Hanania on the official Substack podcast, The Active Voice. Hanania has subsequently said he was criticized “because left-wing journalists dislike anyone acknowledging statistical differences between races.”
That's eugenics. A uniquely American invention that the Nazis stole and enhanced.
But Chris Best - one of Substacks co-founders - defended the Hanania interview because his book was “in demand with reviewers.”
In other words, “This guy’s words are ricocheting off the Nazi and white supremacists echo chambers, which brings more readers for him and more money for us. So we’re all in!”
People will be killed because people publish manifestos. If I’m running a business, I want to make sure my business isn’t publishing those manifestos. The Substack guys only seem to think in terms of popularity and revenue. Their motto seems to be, “We don’t care who you harm, just as long as you make us money and get our name out there.”
Kahn's reply feels like what I dislike about journalism these days. We only count the words people write down or what comes out of their mouths. Trump has weaponized this. He doesn't say, "Kill Black people," but he says they come from "shit-hole" countries, and is silent when his supporters act on this expression and threaten American-born Black leaders and tell them to "go back to their countries." It seems to me that what Kahn is saying is that Substack's terms of service were intentionally crafted so that Nazis wouldn't be silenced. Unless they specifically say "Go kill those Jews... Black people... Mexicans..." Trump never explicitly said, "Go attack the Capitol" or "hang Mike Pence," but Colorado courts have now enshrined that he fomented insurrection by his surreptitious speech. That is the point of white supremacist symbolism - to communicate actions followers are supposed to do, but that the groups, themselves, can claim plausible deniability from. The guy who beat up Paul Pelosi was clearly incited by the hate he was reading online about Nancy Pelosi. And Kahn seems to be looking at the tree and not acknowledging the totality of the forest. White Supremacist symbols have specific history and meanings. They are used as code. And the people reading it know the codes.
From my point of view, as I wrote in this week's You're Overthinking It, the issue is the capitalist marketplace of ideas, where the most popular speech gets promoted, even if that speech is odious. That is an endorsement for populist fascism.
So you would see the barrier lifted above "inciting violence?" (Because the inciting of violence is in many cases implicit rather than explicit?) Is there another barometer better suited? What barrier would you use?
Love this article on Substack moderation. The idea is analogous to Wikipedia, which uses the community to moderate each topic. While it's not perfect, it's been shown to be WAY more accurate than single-sourced, commercial moderation systems (in their case, publishers of encyclopedias), and, in terms of the complicated job of moderating hate and appropriate speech, they have a very sophisticated approach.
A "part 2" of this post might be helpful with some concrete suggestions for HOW to make this easier for Substack authors. Wikipedia has a multi-layered system to help authors discover and address harmful speech. It relies on authors and complements them with automated tools. A Harvard study found that Wikipedia's system is largely successful at identifying and quickly removing harmful content.
And, unlike some social media platforms, Wikipedia has no concise summary of what is acceptable and what's not. They federate that responsibility to authors and the community.
YES! Wikipedia is a great example. I do feel like we have a pretty similar structure right now on Substack. Are there particular concrete suggestions you are looking for?
I have rather strict rules for my publication in that all discourse in the comments section is locked to paid subscribers, and subscribers have to contribute to the conversation in a productive way (as in, no hot takes, if you have a differing opinion you need to back it up and think it through). And you can ban or report ANYTHING by clicking the three dots beneath any comment or post! Plus, in your settings you can also choose whether you can be tagged, restacked, etc... But is there something else you were wondering?
Yes, what Substack does today is suitable for low-volume content. As the amount of content grows, you'll probably need Google Doc-like collaboration tools for team editing/collaboration, threaded off-line discussions about handling subtle issues, or automatic sentiment analysis to flag objectionable content at scale. Those are the kind of features I was thinking of.
In other words, when a Substack is small, it's pretty easy to adjudicate content manually As it grows, it gets harder, and you need more automation and tools to help. But these are problems that occur at scale over time.
Yes, that could very much be true. It's not hard for me to moderate my own community now just because the simple setting of locking everything to paid subscribers ensures good actors. I've rarely had to delete a comment from a paid subscriber so it's hard for me to imagine that not being enough. But that could eventually be the case, you're right!
Wonderful essay!
Thanks Li!!!!
I have never seen the point of twitter. You can't compose a coherent thought in 128 characters. People have gotten around that by stringing tweets together but it is a poor workaround at best. Substack is much better. AND I don't get a lot of garbage in my email or on my phone.
I so agree! Those twitter threads are impossible to read. And I much prefer the peace of reading only what I signed up for....
Totally agree for all the reasons you've given. I don't like having my eyeballs burned with surprise vitriol. When I want it I'll hunt it up. I prefer a syncopated view of the world that I curate for civil dissent, art, creativity, or deep thoughts and researched info. IMHO
SAME.
When Notes launched, I read a couple of politically-obsessed extremists posts (both the right and left.) I simply blocked the posters. I haven't had a problem with it since. Some may accuse me of burying my head in the sand, but I feel no compulsion to endure their nonsense and hatred. Any more than I would let someone punch me repeatedly in the face. Their viewpoints won't make me a better person, just depressed at how awful people and politics can be.
I get it. No one wants to be hated or oppressed. And hatred is a serious problem in this country. The only real answer is changed hearts. But new laws (or censorship) or politicians rarely accomplish that. I don't envy Substack trying to deal with it.
Citizens here are free to rant and be miserable. So am I, if I choose to. But I don't want to, or have to, listen. I choose not to. Long live kindness and love. Long live the mute and block!
This is very well said. I've never understood the fear of "the echo chamber," as if being exposed to random hateful thoughts from internet strangers was a good thing. When we are in smaller groups, like at a dinner party for example, we are actually able to navigate diverse thoughts quite easily. It is only the "throw everyone together" format that makes it seem like we can't get along. It's not "putting your head in the sand" to opt out of that.
I think hearing (when expressed with civility) and reading opposing viewpoints is good. But hateful, close-minded ranting is never a good thing. No one needs to listen to that.
When we lump people into groups (political, social, race, beliefs, etc.) hate becomes easier. But we are all individuals. I still believe "Love your neighbor as yourself" is the best strategy.
I strongly agree!
Amen!!!!
This is so important right now. Great job getting together all these important leading voices too. I’m all in.
YES!!!!!!
The fact that I saw some names on that list that I've seethed at on other networks and who I didn't even know had Substack speaks volumes to how civilized and pleasant and spacious for all views it is in the current form. Everyone says that Substack will eventually screw it up in search for growth, and I guess they will. But for now, it's really one of my favorite places on the internet.
Some of the authors on this list are my absolute favorite, some I don’t know, and some I wouldn’t read. But it’s something to all agree on something. I think that’s worth a lot in this world. And that we can all write on the same platform without running into one another unless we want to is pretty cool! This is not one platform, it’s many. We can coexist here!
Amen, agree 100%. 👏
Very well said. Your spatial metaphors (parks, public squares) work for me!
Wait I wanna sign this too! Great stuff ✨
Added you!
Well, it looks like you turned your paywall off. Thank you. But my comment elsewhere still stands. I agree that Substack shouldn't control what we read, but paywalls essentially do the same thing. I also know that pay walls are a way for posters to earn money. There are two things in tension. Maybe posters can choose to take down their pay walls for important posts .
Hi Ann, I'm not sure what you mean? Did you have trouble accessing this post? This essay was never paywalled. I have comments locked to paid subscribers, but not the essay?
I came across the typical warning: Want to read more? Then subscribe. Or: this post is for subscribers only. When I went to comment I couldn't. Hence I couldn't sign up for the list. Frustrating.
Oh that's strange, maybe it was trying to get you to become a free subscriber? Because it definitely wasn't a paid post. But yes, commenting is locked to paid subscribers on my Substack just because we host literary salons here with a variety of thinkers.
It's a week later, and I have made an apology, and given Elle a thank you for opening her comments, however briefly. In fact, I had to subscribe here in order to post this comment, because the wall is back up. But several days ago I saw some VERY visible signs at the front of an article saying it was paywalled. Thank you for noticing my request. The signs were made extra glaring to make sure I didn't miss them, though. A pyrrhic victory.
I have attracted a number of people with strange names that are repeating among my comments, so they have started recruited their friends. This was not my intention so I have muted that thread here.
I am both encouraged and discouraged by how this has all played out. Trolls are trolls, and ever more shall be. Noting my requests and acting, however briefly, to fulfill them was appreciated. The sarcasm implicit in the huge screaming orange/red message box was not. But tit for tat, my tone was less than courteous. The signs may be gone by now. I haven't checked.
BTW, i have experienced troll behavior in some social media about a topic trolls did not appreciate. They called in all their buddies and swarmed me. I closed those accounts because my ability to block or screen hateful content was limited.
I understand Elle's point, so I hope she doesn't consider me a troll. I just asked for a mild change, but one that could potentially reduce paying subscribers. It evoked the predictable response, I guess. We are not living in a utopia.
Ah well, I don't want to start a campaign. I will return to my peaceful substack and will make sure it stays that way. I don't write about controversial subjects on other peoplp zzzzz. Back to bed.
Yes, all of the comments on my posts are locked to paid subscribers only. But again, the post itself is not paywalled and never has been. You might just be seeing the pop up asking you to subscribe? (For free?)
I find it to be common that folks misconstrue the "informational" pop-up window -- the one that says "subscribe (or click through to continue to read for free) as a paywall. For those who are new to Substack, they assume that they can't read. I wish Substack would change that simple popup and let people read it if it's a free post -- give them the option to subscribe elsewhere.
I like reading alternative voices, like from books in a library, papers I can check out of journals... I go searching for these things because I want to be informed about what others are saying, especially dangerous people. But digital networks disrupted all that. Digital networks are *fast* Speed of light fast.
I’m not sure how many writers on here have ever spent any time watching server logs or worse, trying to stop a DDoS attack on a server. It’s frightening... and overwhelming within seconds, like watching a tidal wave retreat from the shores and then come back to land... there’s just no way to get out of the way. That’s pretty much the way the internet has been built, with very little motivation to change it.
That’s the issue. The fact that all of us are just sitting ducks for anyone who wants to launch an attack on any of us. If you don’t think this is true, you likely have never been a target of one of these truly horrible, vicious sociopaths. (My condolences if you have been... it’s not anything I would wish on anyone!)
They want you to think they are just discussing ideas. They want to appear normal and engage with you. They want you to defend their right to say anything. Until they don’t. Until they are inside the walls. Until they have taken over your threshold, their foot firmly jammed against the jamb.
That’s the plan.
It just hasn’t bloomed yet on Substack.
But it will. It will.
Posting this comment likely makes me a target... I will delete it shorty...
Well said. Could not agree more. (I signed too)
Thanks Finlay!
Hey everyone! I've enjoyed reading some of the comments. I am a fellow signer of the free speech letter. I've been dismayed at the level of pushback in the form of "Nazis are bad." Of course Nazis are bad; they're reprobate idiots. That doesn't have anything to do, in my view, with the democratic principle of free speech. If we're going to let some (too many) young Leftist progressives write "from the river to the sea," and name their pro-Hamas demonstrations after The Flood, then I think it's fair to allow the tiny percentage of actual racist Nazis on Substack or anywhere else have their say. I have encountered perhaps one Nazi wingnut; I blocked and reported him because he was crazy and I didn't want him tainting my thread.
Clearly, personal content moderation by individual writers is more free, safer and more liberal/democratic than Substack moderating for us. We've seen how that goes on other social media channels. It doesn't work.
I wrote an essay on why I signed the letter: https://michaelmohr.substack.com/p/why-i-signed-the-pro-free-speech
Michael Mohr
"Sincere American Writing"
https://michaelmohr.substack.com/
Young progressives who support Palestinians are equal to Nazis?
What this ignores is that white supremacists are recruiting off-line, and Substack is allowing them to create safe echo chambers without any moderation or oversight. People can literally be planning mass murder on this site, without any checks. Substack is saying to people like the Christchurch shooter and the Buffalo shooter and the Tree of Life shooter, and every January 6 insurrectionist - "come here! Make us money! We don't care what you say! We don't care who you incite!"
This is not a free speech issue. This is a hate speech issue. At least on Facebook (or Threads), I am reasonably assured that if I start putting in Neo-Nazi tags, I will be fed Neo-Nazi links, and I can keep tabs on what's happening in that sphere. The fact that Substack is so isolated means that the white supremacists can do just about anything without being noticed. This is scary.
Well but that's not true. Inciting violence is against Substack's content guidelines. Posts, publications, and people who do so are removed from the platform. People simply can't "plan mass murder on this site."
As for seeing hate speech, what do you mean about using neo-nazi "tags"? Because you wouldn't be able to follow that kind of content on Substack unless you followed a writer who writes that kind of content.
And as far as that being isolating, well when we kick people off platforms, they go to Truth Social and Parler where they can really "do anything without being noticed." I'm not convinced that's better?
I feel like you may not have read the Jonathan Katz piece in the Atlantic? The issue here is that Substack doesn't enforce its terms of service - partly because it's not moderating, so it doesn't know what people are publishing. And partly because Substack actively helps white supremacists get around the TOS, and even actively promotes them.
For instance, Substack bans anyone “restricted from making money on Substack” - like if they’re banned from using Stripe. And yet, there's a white supremacist substacker, Patrick Casey, who was banned from Stripe, as well as pre-Musk Twitter and FB. But Substack allowed him to get around that particular prohibition in their TOS to use an outside payment service. (Where does that outside payment service come from? What causes do they support?)
Katz lists the white supremacist newsletters he has found that have overt Nazi symbols, or other hate symbols that can easily be found and identified on the ADL or SPLC websites. One Substack newsletter calls itself “Your pro-White policy destination,” and is one of several that openly promote the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory that inspired deadly mass shootings at a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, synagogue; two Christchurch, New Zealand, mosques; an El Paso, Texas, Walmart; and a Buffalo, New York, supermarket.
The TOS says Substack will not “publish content or fund initiatives that incite violence based on protected classes.” But it does with these newsletters Katz points out.
And Substack makes money off of each paid subscription. So, a white supremacist newsletter that writes about The Great Replacement Theory or the low IQs of Black and Brown people, which they know will incite action from their 10,000 readers, is actually putting $1,000 a month in Substack’s pocket. (Katz highlights one newsletter - Turning Point Stocks - that ran the headline: “Vaccines Are Jew Witchcraftery - something even Bari Weiss might object to.)
AND people have written manifestos that Substack didn’t catch. Katz reports: “In August, Rolling Stone reported that a group calling itself the People’s Initiative of New England—a barely concealed front for the neo-Nazi organization NSC-131—had published a manifesto advocating ‘separation from the United States of America’ for the purpose of creating a white ethnostate in the Northeast. That manifesto was published on the group’s Substack.”
But it’s not just letting people say horrible things. Substack promotes people who generate hate speech. The official Substack newsletter promoted Darryl Cooper, who has said “FDR chose the wrong side in WWII.”
And Hamish McKenzie hosted Richard Hanania on the official Substack podcast, The Active Voice. Hanania has subsequently said he was criticized “because left-wing journalists dislike anyone acknowledging statistical differences between races.”
That's eugenics. A uniquely American invention that the Nazis stole and enhanced.
But Chris Best - one of Substacks co-founders - defended the Hanania interview because his book was “in demand with reviewers.”
In other words, “This guy’s words are ricocheting off the Nazi and white supremacists echo chambers, which brings more readers for him and more money for us. So we’re all in!”
People will be killed because people publish manifestos. If I’m running a business, I want to make sure my business isn’t publishing those manifestos. The Substack guys only seem to think in terms of popularity and revenue. Their motto seems to be, “We don’t care who you harm, just as long as you make us money and get our name out there.”
Here's the Katz piece, if anyone wants to read it. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/11/substack-extremism-nazi-white-supremacy-newsletters/676156/?utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
Yes, of course I read the Katz piece. I think Sam Kahn did a much better job rebutting Katz' specific complaints than I could, so I'm going to refer to his note on the topic: https://substack.com/profile/46835831-sam-kahn/note/c-45570514
Kahn's reply feels like what I dislike about journalism these days. We only count the words people write down or what comes out of their mouths. Trump has weaponized this. He doesn't say, "Kill Black people," but he says they come from "shit-hole" countries, and is silent when his supporters act on this expression and threaten American-born Black leaders and tell them to "go back to their countries." It seems to me that what Kahn is saying is that Substack's terms of service were intentionally crafted so that Nazis wouldn't be silenced. Unless they specifically say "Go kill those Jews... Black people... Mexicans..." Trump never explicitly said, "Go attack the Capitol" or "hang Mike Pence," but Colorado courts have now enshrined that he fomented insurrection by his surreptitious speech. That is the point of white supremacist symbolism - to communicate actions followers are supposed to do, but that the groups, themselves, can claim plausible deniability from. The guy who beat up Paul Pelosi was clearly incited by the hate he was reading online about Nancy Pelosi. And Kahn seems to be looking at the tree and not acknowledging the totality of the forest. White Supremacist symbols have specific history and meanings. They are used as code. And the people reading it know the codes.
From my point of view, as I wrote in this week's You're Overthinking It, the issue is the capitalist marketplace of ideas, where the most popular speech gets promoted, even if that speech is odious. That is an endorsement for populist fascism.
So you would see the barrier lifted above "inciting violence?" (Because the inciting of violence is in many cases implicit rather than explicit?) Is there another barometer better suited? What barrier would you use?
I saw Jonathan Katz made this point above, but this is not about “just don’t read what you don’t like.” This is about Substack actually promoting white supremacy. I expanded on this here https://open.substack.com/pub/carriekaufman/p/hate-speech-as-laissez-faire-economics?r=3lwct&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Love this article on Substack moderation. The idea is analogous to Wikipedia, which uses the community to moderate each topic. While it's not perfect, it's been shown to be WAY more accurate than single-sourced, commercial moderation systems (in their case, publishers of encyclopedias), and, in terms of the complicated job of moderating hate and appropriate speech, they have a very sophisticated approach.
A "part 2" of this post might be helpful with some concrete suggestions for HOW to make this easier for Substack authors. Wikipedia has a multi-layered system to help authors discover and address harmful speech. It relies on authors and complements them with automated tools. A Harvard study found that Wikipedia's system is largely successful at identifying and quickly removing harmful content.
And, unlike some social media platforms, Wikipedia has no concise summary of what is acceptable and what's not. They federate that responsibility to authors and the community.
Please add me to the list in support!
YES! Wikipedia is a great example. I do feel like we have a pretty similar structure right now on Substack. Are there particular concrete suggestions you are looking for?
I have rather strict rules for my publication in that all discourse in the comments section is locked to paid subscribers, and subscribers have to contribute to the conversation in a productive way (as in, no hot takes, if you have a differing opinion you need to back it up and think it through). And you can ban or report ANYTHING by clicking the three dots beneath any comment or post! Plus, in your settings you can also choose whether you can be tagged, restacked, etc... But is there something else you were wondering?
Yes, what Substack does today is suitable for low-volume content. As the amount of content grows, you'll probably need Google Doc-like collaboration tools for team editing/collaboration, threaded off-line discussions about handling subtle issues, or automatic sentiment analysis to flag objectionable content at scale. Those are the kind of features I was thinking of.
In other words, when a Substack is small, it's pretty easy to adjudicate content manually As it grows, it gets harder, and you need more automation and tools to help. But these are problems that occur at scale over time.
Yes, that could very much be true. It's not hard for me to moderate my own community now just because the simple setting of locking everything to paid subscribers ensures good actors. I've rarely had to delete a comment from a paid subscriber so it's hard for me to imagine that not being enough. But that could eventually be the case, you're right!