Substack now has a Nazi stench about it – and Substack seems to be fueling it. Every time it opens its mouth, it seems to talk about Substack’s Nazi problem.
Today, the Platformer claimed, “Substack says it will remove Nazi publications from the platform”. I have read this reporting by Platformer at least a dozen times today, and I still cannot make head or tail of it:
The company will not change the text of its content policy, it says, and its new policy interpretation will not include proactively removing content related to neo-Nazis and far-right extremism. But Substack will continue to remove any material that includes “credible threats of physical harm,” it said.
– Substack says it will remove Nazi publications from the platform (archive.org)
Platformer further reports …
The company will not change the text of its content policy, it says, and its new policy interpretation will not include proactively removing content related to neo-Nazis and far-right extremism. But Substack will continue to remove any material that includes “credible threats of physical harm,” it said.
– Substack says it will remove Nazi publications from the platform (archive.org)
For now, it appears that Platformer will stay on Substack. Platformer did raise its concerns with Substack, and that is something. It may have even gotten something that looks like a concession from Substack.
But if I did not know any better, it appears like in response, Substack patted Platformer on the back, gave it a lollipop 🍭 and said, “there, there, is that better?”
As it turns out though, I do know better. If you will allow me, I want to set up some context with Substack’s Nazi problem, detail a bit about what Platformer did here, and what it might mean for relations between a publication and its publisher.
Context around Substack’s Nazi Problem …
Back in November, The Atlantic published a story claiming that Substack Has a Nazi Problem. A whole bunch of prominent writers on the platform signed an open letter and sent it to the show runners at Substack. The Substack bosses responded by saying, “we don’t like Nazis either” but won’t change much about Substack:
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.
We believe that supporting individual rights and civil liberties while subjecting ideas to open discourse is the best way to strip bad ideas of their power. We are committed to upholding and protecting freedom of expression, even when it hurts.
– Note by Hamish McKenzie on Substack: “Hi everyone. Chris, Jairaj, and I …” (archive.org)
That response was revealing. No one cared about what The Atlantic had to say about Substack in an article behind a paywall. No one really cared about an open letter by 247 writers on Substack. But when the Substack bosses just collectively shrugged to a question about Substack platforming pro-Nazi content then everyone on the internet paid attention.
Every social media platform has a Nazi problem – I get that. But I have not seen or heard any platform just come out and admit defeat like this. Not once. Never!
I am being charitable when I say that Substack admitted defeat. That would imply that they wanted to fight this sort of hateful content in the first place. To me it seems like Substack is comfortable with racism and hate on their platform.
Here is another instance (a TikTok clip) when a Substack co-founder straight up refused to de-platform clear and overt racism on Substack.
Platformer publicly applies pressure on Substack …
Platformer is perhaps one of the best known newsletters on Substack. I used to subscribe to Casey’s scribbles. It is one of the better researched, and principled sources of tech journalism.
So, upon seeing all this Nazi-drama, and hearing from their own readers, Casey and the Platformer team swung into action and started a campaign to get a clarification from Substack. They went as far as to meet with them personally…
On Tuesday, I told subscribers that we are considering leaving the platform based on the company’s recent statement that it would not demonetize or remove openly Nazi accounts. …
Over the past few days, the Platformer team analyzed dozens of Substacks for pro-Nazi content. Earlier this week, I met with Substack to press my case that they should remove content that praises Nazis from the network. Late today, we submitted a list of accounts that we believe to be in violation of the company’s existing policies against incitement to violence. I am scheduled to meet with the company again tomorrow.
– Why Substack is at a crossroads – by Casey Newton (archive.org)
This is a balanced, principled stance on Platformer’s part. The fact that Substack agreed to meet with a publication that it hosts, and yielded to even removing a single newsletter is a small win because its original stance was that of “protecting freedom of expression, even when it hurts.” So there seems to have been a limited reversal of that stance.
Although, here is Substack’s latest statement around the issue, again as reported by Platformer:
In a statement, Substack’s co-founders told Platformer:
– Substack says it will remove Nazi publications from the platform (archive.org)If and when we become aware of other content that violates our guidelines, we will take appropriate action.
Relatedly, we’ve heard your feedback about Substack’s content moderation approach, and we understand your concerns and those of some other writers on the platform. We sincerely regret how this controversy has affected writers on Substack.
We appreciate the input from everyone. Writers are the backbone of Substack and we take this feedback very seriously. We are actively working on more reporting tools that can be used to flag content that potentially violates our guidelines, and we will continue working on tools for user moderation so Substack users can set and refine the terms of their own experience on the platform.
This statement does not say anything. It is actually a very fancy way of saying nothing. It is a vaguely worded acknowledgment of concerns that commit to no real change in content moderation. The most tangible element about that statement is a promise of future work on content moderation tools. That is like saying, “we promise that we will do something about doing something.”
Digital dynamics of “Publication vs. Publisher”
Despite my earlier candor about Platformer’s limited gains in this transaction, I do think that something basic got highlighted here, in this specific instance of a publication-publisher relationship.
For the first time ever, I saw a significant publication seriously consider switching publishers, with an opportunity to retain most of its readership, while even having the opportunity to grow it had it gone through with the switch.
That would be like WaPo saying “thank you” to Bezos and finding some other publisher to host the publication. It would be (and is) unthinkable!
What made it thinkable in Platformer’s case was the fact that this is all based on digital circulation and readership. Substack might be a platform, but it in turn relies on email as its underlying technology medium — which is a relatively open medium. What’s more, the publication (Platformer) actually owns the reader (email) list – and that reader list is not just the purview of the publication (Substack).
The fact that as a publication, Platformer had any leverage with its publisher is very fascinating to me. Don’t get me wrong, I am sure that Platformer had something tangible to lose in terms of (paid!) subscriptions if it moved. For a publication of its size, the move may not have made (easy) financial sense. I get all that.
But to think that a widely circulated publication considered moving to a different publisher – is remarkable. I won’t be surprised if they did it, anyway.
– vijay, feeling cold 🥶
Winter Rant 
Leave a comment