I hope Radley stays here. I think the Substack folks have their policy right.
To clarify, the Substack folks almost certainly don't believe that porn is less acceptable than Nazis. The problem, as anyone who works for a site that allows photo sharing will tell you, (even setting aside the fact that Stripe, their payments provider, won't support sites that allow porn) is that hosting porn requires significant cost investments (in both systems and personnel) to make sure that you're not allowing porn featuring underage participants or porn posted without full consent of all parties involved.
One of the things that really annoyed me about the Substack Against Nazis letter is that they wrote it in such a way to deliberately give the false impression that Substack's policy was aimed at censoring sex workers rather than prohibiting porn. Here is the relevant section Substack's actual policy (https://substack.com/content):
"Nudity, porn, erotica
We don’t allow porn or sexually exploitative content on Substack, including any visual depictions of sexual acts for the sole purpose of sexual gratification. We do allow depictions of nudity for artistic, journalistic, or related purposes, as well as erotic literature, however, we have a strict no nudity policy for profile images. We may hide or remove explicit content from Substack’s discovery features, including search and on Substack.com."
No idea if I’m in the majority on this, but I will continue to support you and the other writers I follow on Substack regardless of whether they switch platforms. While Substack is showing themselves to be supremely shitty, I fully appreciate the risk that changing platforms presents to writers’ income streams—and as much as I’d like to see everyone ditch this nazi bar, it’s more important to me to support independent journalism like this.
I support your choice to stay on Substack. I would understand your decision if you left and I agree with your/Popehat's objections to Substack's practices, but I don't think it's your responsibility to sacrifice part of your livelihood to police the platform. Maybe there's a point where it is your duty to leave, but I don't think we're there yet.
I wish we lived in a world where you were well supported here. I'll do my best to promote your investigations into the realities of policing when I encounter the masses of people who simply complain without thinking about real problems and solutions.
As is so common with free speech questions, this presents a wrenching choice among evils. I despise the views of white supremacists, just as I am sure the former ACLU did in Skokie, Illinois what seems like a cultural eternity ago.
I think censorship is almost always counterproductive, and free speech a vital value, even when we have to tolerate a stench. Take vile Trump. He was de-platformed on Facebook, Twitter, et al. Now he is back, arguably even stronger and, terrifyingly, is polling is if he might be our next president. So much for the salutary effects of deplatforming.
Yes, there are countries in world where censorship arguably works, but they are places where censorship of speech is enforced not just with deplatforming, but also with torture, imprisonment and exile. I'm talking about Russia and Alexei Navalny, for example. There are lots of other examples in China, Myanmar, etc. I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting we go there.
Then there is the problem of moderating content. It's virtually impossible to do well. Even though doing it badly is probably a necessary evil. I used to spend a lot of time on Medium, and while I have views that are quite liberal, they are not really "Progressive." Medium removed a post of mine reciting what virtually everyone until yesterday considered to be objective facts (e.g., binary sex is a biological feature of virtually all fauna and flora, including apes known as humans). People are entitled to disagree that sex is a mere "social construct" or a spectrum, but I don't think I should have been erased for (what I thought to be) a factual statement. I don't think we want to follow Medium and the hard dogmatic Left down that rabbit hole.
So now we come to "Nazi." Clearly there are people who call themselves Nazi on Substack, about 16 out of 18000 accounts as I recall. I have read Jonathan Katz' Atlantic article and looked at a few hideous examples. There are doubtless many more accounts that espouse views that might be consistent with National Socialism, but do not explicitly self-identify as Naziism. Then there is a larger subset of accounts espousing far right views that offend both liberal and Progressive people. Finally, there is a very large group of accounts espousing more mainstream conservative views, whom many on the opposite side rhetorically refer to as "Nazis." Take De Santis, for example, who is often accused of being a "Nazi," All these groups blur into each other at the inner and outer edges--creating a content moderator's nightmare--because there always will be a plethora of voices clamoring for a broader definition of "Nazi."
I recently had a nasty exchange with a person on Substack whose handle is "War for the West." He was trying to make the case that the Jews deserve what they get. The Jews a century ago ran the Bolshevik movement, he argued, and thus were to blame for "provoking Hitler into war." He also agreed with many Leftists now that Jews in Israel are "settler colonialists" who had it coming regarding Hamas' terrorism on October 7. He just didn't like Jews. Is he a Nazi? Does his current agreement with the Far Left sanitize him? I hope not But should Substack de-platform him? I think that might elevate him. Better ignored.
What to do? I don't think Ken White offered a satisfactory answer. Instead, he snarked away the real issue. The real question is whether Substack is more like a neutral conduit as is the internet generally (which also profits from Nazi accounts) or a newspaper, which has an affirmative editorial (moderation on steroids) policy. I think it is significant that Substack's initial attraction to many fine writers was its lack of moderation (editorial) oversight.
Substack drew the line largely consistent with the First Amendment and with a desire not to become a Craigslist. I struggle to find a better way, even though I know this way is unsatisfactory.
I have yet to read anything from anyone who has a better idea; everyone just says the current approach is a bad one. Deplatforming people who call themselves Nazis still permits people with some Nazi views. And there are views that are not properly "Nazi" but are still abhorrent--Hindu fundamentalism is on the rise in Modi's India along with a resurgence in caste consciousness. Deplatform these hateful views? It never ends.
I do like your idea of Substack using any revenue from such accounts to affirmatively fight such views.
Radley, I have no problem with you staying here. I'm not going to get mad at Substack for providing newsletter processing services to Nazis any more than I'd get mad at UPS for carrying their packages, ComEd for providing then with electricity, or CitiBank for cashing their checks. It would be different if "We carry Nazi messaging" was part of Substack's branding -- i.e. if they intentionally made themselves the Nazi message conduit. But that a few of their thousands of publishers have abhorrent views...doesn't seem worth getting too upset about. And I'm certain not going to get mad at their other publishers, like you, just for setting up an account.
I got a sinking feeling when you mentioned expired credit cards. So I checked, and I'm good for a year. (Whew!) I'm not unsubscribing as long as you're here.
I continue to be perplexed and dumbfounded over the lust and enthusiasm for Nazism. I have read about Nazism's history and watched numerous documentaries/historial fiction on Nazism. When stationed in Germany in the early sixties as a young Airman, the German youth my age I had become friends with were horrified even to discuss the Nazis. My barber, who had served on the Eastern Front (Russia) lamented how his country had been shamed through the ages because of the Nazi horrors. There is absolutely NOTHING about Nazism to be proud of.
Radley, as to your staying or leaving, I say "stay". I still relish reading your book on the warrior cops. If the more-reasoned among us bail, that will open the floodgates for all the nasties. There must be a sustained balance of thought. In the meantime, Substack should set its own standards and principles and then adhere to them. Not all speech should be free. Not all thoughts should be published. Period.
A lot goes into setting up a platform, making people aware of it, and then monetizing same. One of the benefits of platforms like substack is taking care of the details while also creating a town center like atmosphere where likeminded / interesting blogs from other folk can also be sought out easily. The switching costs are real and should not be underestimated.
I agree that Substack management is utterly and completely hypocritical re: what they do and do not censor on the platform. If pornography is objectionable then Nazis, White supremacists, and like trolls can be shown the door as well. What we have now is the worst of all worlds where the policy is entirely capricious as greed and the Overton window has shifted the debate enough among management to excuse inexcusable content.
AFAICT, right wingnut platforms are not wildly profitable. At the same time, enabling soft-core Nazi content helps Substack increase margins in the short term - which management benefits from. The longer-term risk to Substack is repelling normal people from subscribing / engaging just as Twitter is shedding engagement now that right-wing trolls are left free to run the asylum.
Credit cards have been compelled or have voluntarily restricted payments to unsavory accounts including porn as well as guns. Is this the motivation of substack to refuse porn, the potential to lose credit card support?
I agree it's all hard choices here, but the first step is probably to start normalizing another platform.
With that in mind: If you start cross-posting this material to another subscription-blog platform with better terms, I will shift my subscription there and double the amount.
Any other readers here interested in making such a pledge? I expect that's the sort of thing needed to displace substack's centrality to the paid-blog ecosystem, and the market is after all just all of us.
I didn’t even know there were Nazis on Substack. Much like IRL, I understand that Nazis exist, but I don’t often run into them, since we just don’t travel in the same circles. Until such time as Substack starts suggesting Nazi bs to me, I’ll just keep reading what I like and supporting who I can.
I don't hold you or Ken White accountable for the fact that there are Nazis on Substack. Its not like you or Ken invited them. I do think the editorial hypocrisy of Substack is tough to swallow. Nazis good, sex bad? Huh?
Heck, I once discovered the people who moved in across the street from me in Los Alamos were just a little...different....when they put up a big Confederate battle flag on Martin Luther King Day. Talk about "there goes the neighborhood". We had little to say to each other after that. Still, when the Las Conchas fire brewed up and was headed our way, I raced over to brief them that we were about to see the shit hit the fan, so they better pack an emergency evacuation kit. We did have to evacuate.
As The Popehat notes, "...On Twitter, Nazis were constantly in my face...Here I generally only encounter them if I look for them or, very occasionally, if one wanders into my comments for me to block. You can publish here and comment here and never encounter Nazis stuff here. "
Indeed, I don't go looking for Nazis and only found out about the ones in question after reading Ken's essay (and now yours). As you say, it might be both economically painful and a logistical pain in the ass to leave Substack for elsewhere. Likewise, for readers, having to chase down various media sources to keep track of our favorite authors can be a pain in the ass.
Fine with me if you stay here. For that matter, I tend to be a First Amendment purist and while I don't have much use for Nazis, I worry about the slippery slope of today's cancel culture, book banning, puritan-thinking, and censorship. With all due respect to Pastor Niemoller, first they came for the Nazis, and I said nothing. Then they came for the critics of Israel and I said nothing. Then they came for the critics of the Palestinians, and I said nothing. Then they came for the gun nuts.....well, you know the rest. We already see the do-gooders in California banning gun advertising to minors, forcing even "mom and apple pie" shooting sports programs for Boy Scouts to have to file lawsuits.
I still think it is the guy in the mirror's job to know Nazis when we see them. Not someone else's job. And the proper way to deal with Nazis can be found in that movie The Blues Brothers.
If the excuse from Substack is that they don’t allow perfectly legal 1st Amendment protected sex work to be monetized because of Stripe, why isn’t Stripe being pressured, too.
I have said this before - I believe I receive just about zero value as a reader from the Substack “platform”, particularly because I just read the emails and never open the app (voluntarily). It is one of the many tech-era “things consumers don’t need and never needed”.
But of course you’re correct about the inertia issue, and obviously writers get real value from it. Something tells me that Substack will not survive this dustup without fixing this problem - whenever shitty content gets posted, it will spread and a downward spiral will ensue.
Nonetheless, just tell me where to send my bargain level number of dollars per month, as necessary.
I hope Radley stays here. I think the Substack folks have their policy right.
To clarify, the Substack folks almost certainly don't believe that porn is less acceptable than Nazis. The problem, as anyone who works for a site that allows photo sharing will tell you, (even setting aside the fact that Stripe, their payments provider, won't support sites that allow porn) is that hosting porn requires significant cost investments (in both systems and personnel) to make sure that you're not allowing porn featuring underage participants or porn posted without full consent of all parties involved.
One of the things that really annoyed me about the Substack Against Nazis letter is that they wrote it in such a way to deliberately give the false impression that Substack's policy was aimed at censoring sex workers rather than prohibiting porn. Here is the relevant section Substack's actual policy (https://substack.com/content):
"Nudity, porn, erotica
We don’t allow porn or sexually exploitative content on Substack, including any visual depictions of sexual acts for the sole purpose of sexual gratification. We do allow depictions of nudity for artistic, journalistic, or related purposes, as well as erotic literature, however, we have a strict no nudity policy for profile images. We may hide or remove explicit content from Substack’s discovery features, including search and on Substack.com."
No idea if I’m in the majority on this, but I will continue to support you and the other writers I follow on Substack regardless of whether they switch platforms. While Substack is showing themselves to be supremely shitty, I fully appreciate the risk that changing platforms presents to writers’ income streams—and as much as I’d like to see everyone ditch this nazi bar, it’s more important to me to support independent journalism like this.
I support your choice to stay on Substack. I would understand your decision if you left and I agree with your/Popehat's objections to Substack's practices, but I don't think it's your responsibility to sacrifice part of your livelihood to police the platform. Maybe there's a point where it is your duty to leave, but I don't think we're there yet.
I wish we lived in a world where you were well supported here. I'll do my best to promote your investigations into the realities of policing when I encounter the masses of people who simply complain without thinking about real problems and solutions.
As is so common with free speech questions, this presents a wrenching choice among evils. I despise the views of white supremacists, just as I am sure the former ACLU did in Skokie, Illinois what seems like a cultural eternity ago.
I think censorship is almost always counterproductive, and free speech a vital value, even when we have to tolerate a stench. Take vile Trump. He was de-platformed on Facebook, Twitter, et al. Now he is back, arguably even stronger and, terrifyingly, is polling is if he might be our next president. So much for the salutary effects of deplatforming.
Yes, there are countries in world where censorship arguably works, but they are places where censorship of speech is enforced not just with deplatforming, but also with torture, imprisonment and exile. I'm talking about Russia and Alexei Navalny, for example. There are lots of other examples in China, Myanmar, etc. I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting we go there.
Then there is the problem of moderating content. It's virtually impossible to do well. Even though doing it badly is probably a necessary evil. I used to spend a lot of time on Medium, and while I have views that are quite liberal, they are not really "Progressive." Medium removed a post of mine reciting what virtually everyone until yesterday considered to be objective facts (e.g., binary sex is a biological feature of virtually all fauna and flora, including apes known as humans). People are entitled to disagree that sex is a mere "social construct" or a spectrum, but I don't think I should have been erased for (what I thought to be) a factual statement. I don't think we want to follow Medium and the hard dogmatic Left down that rabbit hole.
So now we come to "Nazi." Clearly there are people who call themselves Nazi on Substack, about 16 out of 18000 accounts as I recall. I have read Jonathan Katz' Atlantic article and looked at a few hideous examples. There are doubtless many more accounts that espouse views that might be consistent with National Socialism, but do not explicitly self-identify as Naziism. Then there is a larger subset of accounts espousing far right views that offend both liberal and Progressive people. Finally, there is a very large group of accounts espousing more mainstream conservative views, whom many on the opposite side rhetorically refer to as "Nazis." Take De Santis, for example, who is often accused of being a "Nazi," All these groups blur into each other at the inner and outer edges--creating a content moderator's nightmare--because there always will be a plethora of voices clamoring for a broader definition of "Nazi."
I recently had a nasty exchange with a person on Substack whose handle is "War for the West." He was trying to make the case that the Jews deserve what they get. The Jews a century ago ran the Bolshevik movement, he argued, and thus were to blame for "provoking Hitler into war." He also agreed with many Leftists now that Jews in Israel are "settler colonialists" who had it coming regarding Hamas' terrorism on October 7. He just didn't like Jews. Is he a Nazi? Does his current agreement with the Far Left sanitize him? I hope not But should Substack de-platform him? I think that might elevate him. Better ignored.
What to do? I don't think Ken White offered a satisfactory answer. Instead, he snarked away the real issue. The real question is whether Substack is more like a neutral conduit as is the internet generally (which also profits from Nazi accounts) or a newspaper, which has an affirmative editorial (moderation on steroids) policy. I think it is significant that Substack's initial attraction to many fine writers was its lack of moderation (editorial) oversight.
Substack drew the line largely consistent with the First Amendment and with a desire not to become a Craigslist. I struggle to find a better way, even though I know this way is unsatisfactory.
I have yet to read anything from anyone who has a better idea; everyone just says the current approach is a bad one. Deplatforming people who call themselves Nazis still permits people with some Nazi views. And there are views that are not properly "Nazi" but are still abhorrent--Hindu fundamentalism is on the rise in Modi's India along with a resurgence in caste consciousness. Deplatform these hateful views? It never ends.
I do like your idea of Substack using any revenue from such accounts to affirmatively fight such views.
Radley, I have no problem with you staying here. I'm not going to get mad at Substack for providing newsletter processing services to Nazis any more than I'd get mad at UPS for carrying their packages, ComEd for providing then with electricity, or CitiBank for cashing their checks. It would be different if "We carry Nazi messaging" was part of Substack's branding -- i.e. if they intentionally made themselves the Nazi message conduit. But that a few of their thousands of publishers have abhorrent views...doesn't seem worth getting too upset about. And I'm certain not going to get mad at their other publishers, like you, just for setting up an account.
I got a sinking feeling when you mentioned expired credit cards. So I checked, and I'm good for a year. (Whew!) I'm not unsubscribing as long as you're here.
I continue to be perplexed and dumbfounded over the lust and enthusiasm for Nazism. I have read about Nazism's history and watched numerous documentaries/historial fiction on Nazism. When stationed in Germany in the early sixties as a young Airman, the German youth my age I had become friends with were horrified even to discuss the Nazis. My barber, who had served on the Eastern Front (Russia) lamented how his country had been shamed through the ages because of the Nazi horrors. There is absolutely NOTHING about Nazism to be proud of.
Radley, as to your staying or leaving, I say "stay". I still relish reading your book on the warrior cops. If the more-reasoned among us bail, that will open the floodgates for all the nasties. There must be a sustained balance of thought. In the meantime, Substack should set its own standards and principles and then adhere to them. Not all speech should be free. Not all thoughts should be published. Period.
A lot goes into setting up a platform, making people aware of it, and then monetizing same. One of the benefits of platforms like substack is taking care of the details while also creating a town center like atmosphere where likeminded / interesting blogs from other folk can also be sought out easily. The switching costs are real and should not be underestimated.
I agree that Substack management is utterly and completely hypocritical re: what they do and do not censor on the platform. If pornography is objectionable then Nazis, White supremacists, and like trolls can be shown the door as well. What we have now is the worst of all worlds where the policy is entirely capricious as greed and the Overton window has shifted the debate enough among management to excuse inexcusable content.
AFAICT, right wingnut platforms are not wildly profitable. At the same time, enabling soft-core Nazi content helps Substack increase margins in the short term - which management benefits from. The longer-term risk to Substack is repelling normal people from subscribing / engaging just as Twitter is shedding engagement now that right-wing trolls are left free to run the asylum.
Credit cards have been compelled or have voluntarily restricted payments to unsavory accounts including porn as well as guns. Is this the motivation of substack to refuse porn, the potential to lose credit card support?
I agree it's all hard choices here, but the first step is probably to start normalizing another platform.
With that in mind: If you start cross-posting this material to another subscription-blog platform with better terms, I will shift my subscription there and double the amount.
Any other readers here interested in making such a pledge? I expect that's the sort of thing needed to displace substack's centrality to the paid-blog ecosystem, and the market is after all just all of us.
I didn’t even know there were Nazis on Substack. Much like IRL, I understand that Nazis exist, but I don’t often run into them, since we just don’t travel in the same circles. Until such time as Substack starts suggesting Nazi bs to me, I’ll just keep reading what I like and supporting who I can.
I don't hold you or Ken White accountable for the fact that there are Nazis on Substack. Its not like you or Ken invited them. I do think the editorial hypocrisy of Substack is tough to swallow. Nazis good, sex bad? Huh?
Heck, I once discovered the people who moved in across the street from me in Los Alamos were just a little...different....when they put up a big Confederate battle flag on Martin Luther King Day. Talk about "there goes the neighborhood". We had little to say to each other after that. Still, when the Las Conchas fire brewed up and was headed our way, I raced over to brief them that we were about to see the shit hit the fan, so they better pack an emergency evacuation kit. We did have to evacuate.
As The Popehat notes, "...On Twitter, Nazis were constantly in my face...Here I generally only encounter them if I look for them or, very occasionally, if one wanders into my comments for me to block. You can publish here and comment here and never encounter Nazis stuff here. "
Indeed, I don't go looking for Nazis and only found out about the ones in question after reading Ken's essay (and now yours). As you say, it might be both economically painful and a logistical pain in the ass to leave Substack for elsewhere. Likewise, for readers, having to chase down various media sources to keep track of our favorite authors can be a pain in the ass.
Fine with me if you stay here. For that matter, I tend to be a First Amendment purist and while I don't have much use for Nazis, I worry about the slippery slope of today's cancel culture, book banning, puritan-thinking, and censorship. With all due respect to Pastor Niemoller, first they came for the Nazis, and I said nothing. Then they came for the critics of Israel and I said nothing. Then they came for the critics of the Palestinians, and I said nothing. Then they came for the gun nuts.....well, you know the rest. We already see the do-gooders in California banning gun advertising to minors, forcing even "mom and apple pie" shooting sports programs for Boy Scouts to have to file lawsuits.
I still think it is the guy in the mirror's job to know Nazis when we see them. Not someone else's job. And the proper way to deal with Nazis can be found in that movie The Blues Brothers.
If the excuse from Substack is that they don’t allow perfectly legal 1st Amendment protected sex work to be monetized because of Stripe, why isn’t Stripe being pressured, too.
I have said this before - I believe I receive just about zero value as a reader from the Substack “platform”, particularly because I just read the emails and never open the app (voluntarily). It is one of the many tech-era “things consumers don’t need and never needed”.
But of course you’re correct about the inertia issue, and obviously writers get real value from it. Something tells me that Substack will not survive this dustup without fixing this problem - whenever shitty content gets posted, it will spread and a downward spiral will ensue.
Nonetheless, just tell me where to send my bargain level number of dollars per month, as necessary.
Nazi’s surround us everyday, most of us are adults and know how to deal. You have my support.
I support you, Radley, and am glad to keep my subscription up. Keep up the good work.