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.”

  • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    paradox of tolerance

    From the article

    “I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.”

    • Baines@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      there is nothing worthwhile lost silencing nazi bullshit from social media

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        there is nothing worthwhile lost silencing nazi bullshit from social media

        "… as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.”

        If you don’t win the argument, the argument goes on forever.

        • Baines@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          lol imagine trying to ‘win’ an argument with an idiot instead of just mocking them for the lulz…

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            lol imagine trying to ‘win’ an argument with an idiot instead of just mocking them for the lulz…

            It’s not about winning, or replying directly to just the troll/conflict bot.

            It’s about leaving an elaboration of the initial opinion, for everyone else who comes by later to the topic and reads.

            • Baines@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              it’s not trolling to refuse to engage bad actors

              anyone who thinks you can reason those fools into enlightenment is lol

              mock, deride, condemn, move on

              social rejection is how you handle it, when they want to be a part of the social contract they can return