I’m so glad you wrote this. Been talking about this with other trust and safety folks as I’m struggling with this as well. This came up too with Meta accepting 2020 election denialism ads. I wish leaders of these companies would better outline their thinking process and what tradeoffs they were weighing when making these decisions.
For instance, I think they both can't afford the operational costs to have more nuanced content moderation, but also want to stick to their strict free speech principles for as long as possible so as to not open up more pressure for them to have more nuanced policies. I do think they'll eventually be forced into it like every platform has.
This is an interesting question too of whether it would be better that they have more nuanced policies even if they can only reactively enforce or try to hold out as long as possible. They are still very green in working on many of these things so I don't know how nuanced their thinking even is. 100 percent agree the post could use some comms polish too.
I’m staying on Substack too, for now, as I agree about continuing to make noise and talk about these issues.
Thanks Katie! Yes, I agree it's an interesting question about reactive monitoring; Dave Karpf made that point well in his piece: "The way to keep Substack effectively internet-Nazi free is to make it clear that, even if the company might not catch them launching a sad angry white nationalist newsletter, the newsletter will surely be vaporized at the first sign of success." Maybe I'm being naive, but I think keeping the platform's top-earning publications free of Nazis should be doable.
Thank you. Well said. Now, is there a way to pinpoint, or at least estimate, how MUCH money Substack makes from (and for!) Nazis? Maybe we can shame them with a dollar figure...
To my knowledge the platform does not release precise subscriber metrics (probably for this precise reason). We can estimate, knowing that bestselling publications are in the "thousands" or "tens of thousands" of subscribers, and we don't know how many of those are paid.
Really, you should be thankful that substack has a strong enough commitment to free speech that they even let a censorious would be thoughtpolicewoman use their platform.
Substack is clearly taking a principled stance by refusing to deplatform Nazis. If the owners of Substack were motivated primarily by money they would allow porn and turn this site into Only Fans. Sex sells -- a lot. Nazis sell very little. I am grateful that the people behind Substack have integrity and backbone and are standing firm. Good for them -- and us!!!
eh....I don't think my argument is dispelled at all. Yes, Substack has made a business decision not to turn this place into Only Fans, true. It's exactly that business decision that demonstrates that they are not primarily motivated by money alone. Again, sex sells. So the argument that they are profitting from Nazis doesn't hold. It's about values (free speech) and not merely money. We'll probably have to agree to disagree here.
right, but if they truly cared about "free speech" they'd allow porn. Also, the publications people are upset about are among some of Substack's most popular- they *are* making money, and that's why people are upset. And for the record, as I note above, I and many others would be much more satisfied if they allowed the Nazi content to remain but did not monetize it.
I’m so glad you wrote this. Been talking about this with other trust and safety folks as I’m struggling with this as well. This came up too with Meta accepting 2020 election denialism ads. I wish leaders of these companies would better outline their thinking process and what tradeoffs they were weighing when making these decisions.
For instance, I think they both can't afford the operational costs to have more nuanced content moderation, but also want to stick to their strict free speech principles for as long as possible so as to not open up more pressure for them to have more nuanced policies. I do think they'll eventually be forced into it like every platform has.
This is an interesting question too of whether it would be better that they have more nuanced policies even if they can only reactively enforce or try to hold out as long as possible. They are still very green in working on many of these things so I don't know how nuanced their thinking even is. 100 percent agree the post could use some comms polish too.
I’m staying on Substack too, for now, as I agree about continuing to make noise and talk about these issues.
Thanks Katie! Yes, I agree it's an interesting question about reactive monitoring; Dave Karpf made that point well in his piece: "The way to keep Substack effectively internet-Nazi free is to make it clear that, even if the company might not catch them launching a sad angry white nationalist newsletter, the newsletter will surely be vaporized at the first sign of success." Maybe I'm being naive, but I think keeping the platform's top-earning publications free of Nazis should be doable.
Thank you. Well said. Now, is there a way to pinpoint, or at least estimate, how MUCH money Substack makes from (and for!) Nazis? Maybe we can shame them with a dollar figure...
To my knowledge the platform does not release precise subscriber metrics (probably for this precise reason). We can estimate, knowing that bestselling publications are in the "thousands" or "tens of thousands" of subscribers, and we don't know how many of those are paid.
Perhaps this SEC document will help.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1783191/000167025423000297/document_6.pdf
I appreciate the legwork and overall structure, thank you.
Their posture may last (at least until the next wave of even bigger writer protest), but it’s intellectually weak.
Maybe everything in T&S really does hinge on porn and Nazis at some stage 😋.
Fwiw the CEO is Chris, not Matt, Best.
Whoops! Thanks!!
Really, you should be thankful that substack has a strong enough commitment to free speech that they even let a censorious would be thoughtpolicewoman use their platform.
Sorry you've been lied to!
Substack is clearly taking a principled stance by refusing to deplatform Nazis. If the owners of Substack were motivated primarily by money they would allow porn and turn this site into Only Fans. Sex sells -- a lot. Nazis sell very little. I am grateful that the people behind Substack have integrity and backbone and are standing firm. Good for them -- and us!!!
Meg dispels this argument very well. https://substack.com/profile/83107248-meg-conley/note/c-14749388
eh....I don't think my argument is dispelled at all. Yes, Substack has made a business decision not to turn this place into Only Fans, true. It's exactly that business decision that demonstrates that they are not primarily motivated by money alone. Again, sex sells. So the argument that they are profitting from Nazis doesn't hold. It's about values (free speech) and not merely money. We'll probably have to agree to disagree here.
right, but if they truly cared about "free speech" they'd allow porn. Also, the publications people are upset about are among some of Substack's most popular- they *are* making money, and that's why people are upset. And for the record, as I note above, I and many others would be much more satisfied if they allowed the Nazi content to remain but did not monetize it.