Profit and Prejudice: Substack still has a Nazi problem

I need to first apologize for my tone last week. I don't normally drink alcohol, but we are not in normal times; the vitriol I couldn't keep down anymore spilled onto the keyboard. I won't retract anything I said about the Felon or the support he receives from nation states actively committing genocide. This isn’t about the Felon, though—this is about the Company, which in this story is Substack.

I've never written for Substack and I only read a single newsletter about dumb shit, so admittedly, I was a bit out of the loop and even flustered as to why I was being criticized for sharing a link from the Company.

For the unfamiliar, Substack is an email newsletter platform that lets writers create, spread, and charge for their content. The Company takes a 10% cut on all subscription fees which helped them reach an estimated $29 million USD in revenue in 2023.

In true capitalist spirit, despite record breaking growth, the Company just couldn't say no to more money and to this day continues to earn revenue from pro-Nazi content on their platform. This isn't exactly a new trend, Jonathan Katz reported this problem in the The Atlantic last November:

Substack Has a Nazi Problem

The newsletter platform’s lax content moderation creates an opening for white nationalists eager to get their message out.

The AtlanticJonathan M. Katz

In the article, Katz explains the problem isn't just that the Company is making money but also promoting these Nazi blogs:

Some Substack newsletters by Nazis and white nationalists have thousands or tens of thousands of subscribers, making the platform a new and valuable tool for creating mailing lists for the far right. And many accept paid subscriptions through Substack, seemingly flouting terms of service that ban attempts to “publish content or fund initiatives that incite violence based on protected classes.” Several, including [Richard] Spencer’s, sport official Substack “bestseller” badges, indicating that they have at a minimum hundreds of paying subscribers. A subscription to the newsletter that Spencer edits and writes for costs $9 a month or $90 a year, which suggests that he and his co-writers are grossing at least $9,000 a year and potentially many times that. Substack, which takes a 10 percent cut of subscription revenue, makes money when readers pay for Nazi newsletters.

After this article was published, 247 Substackers wrote & signed a collective letter entitled "Substackers Against Nazis" to the Company leadership demanding answers to a simple question:

Why are you platforming and monetizing Nazis?

Substackers Against Nazis

TOTAL PARTICIPANTS: 247 Substack publications (Updated 12/21 at 10:17am ET) In the news: The New York Times Forbes Fast Company The Hill Newser MediaPost The Verge Tech Dirt ------------------- Substackers Against Nazis A collective letter to Substack leadership Dear Chris, Hamish & Jairaj:…

Google Docs

Would the Company like to respond?

In December, founder Hamish McKenzie defended the Companies' position with "we don't like nazis, but censorship is bad":

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.

There's probably a more formal term for this, but according to researchers from the George Washington University this response is bullshit. In the dissertation Technology Stacks, Content Moderation, and the Far-Right: A Multilevel Approach to Effective Deplatforming of Extremist Groups from 2022, researchers found that when extremists are removed from platforms and forced to migrate, they lose followers and income.

Hamish McKenzie on Substack

Hi everyone. Chris, Jairaj, and I wanted to let you know that we’ve heard and have been listening to all the views being expressed about how Substack should think about the presence of fringe voices on the platform (and particularly, in this case, Nazi views). 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. As @Ted Gioia has noted, history shows that censorship is most potently used by the powerful to silence the powerless. (Ted’s note: https://substack.com/profile/4937458-ted-gioia/note/c-45421012) Our content guidelines do have narrowly defined proscriptions, including a clause that prohibits incitements to violence. We will continue to actively enforce those rules while offering tools that let readers curate their own experiences and opt in to their preferred communities. Beyond that, we will stick to our decentralized approach to content moderation, which gives power to readers and writers. While not everyone agrees with this approach, many people do, as indicated by @Elle Griffin’s post in defense of decentralized moderation on Substack, which was signed and endorsed by hundreds of writers on the platform, including some of the leading names in journalism, literature, and academia (see Elle’s post below). Even if we were in a minority of one, however, we would still believe in these principles. There also remains a criticism that Substack is promoting these fringe voices. This criticism appears to stem from my decision to host Richard Hanania, who was later outed as having once published extreme and racist views, on my podcast, The Active Voice. I didn’t know of those past writings at the time, and Hanania went on to disavow those views. While it has been uncomfortable and I probably would have done things differently with all the information in front of me, I ultimately don’t regret having him on the podcast. I think it’s important to engage with and understand a range of views even if—especially if—you disagree with them. Hanania is an influential voice for some in U.S. politics—his recent book, for instance, was published by HarperCollins—and there is value in knowing his arguments. The same applies to all other guests I have hosted on The Active Voice, including Hanania’s political opposites. We don’t expect everyone to agree with our approach and policies, and we believe it’s helpful for there to be continued robust debate of these issues. Six years into Substack, however, we have been encouraged by the quality of discourse on the platform. As Elle said in her letter: “We are still trying to figure out the best way to handle extremism on the internet. But of all the ways we’ve tried so far, Substack is working the best.” Thanks for listening, and for caring, and thanks to everyone who publishes on Substack. We are here to serve you and will continue to do our very best in that mission.

SubstackSubstack

In January, 2024 the Company seemingly not wanting to lose 200+ major sources of revenue from creators removed five Nazi newsletters that violated their content guidelines, which prohibit incitements to violence based on protected classes.

If only the Company had that historical-context and reasoning to apply this logic to all fascist rhetoric.

Let's not end it like this

Do your part. Informat your favorite creators of this ongoing problem and suggest alternatives that uphold stricter standards for community safety:

1. Ghost – An open-source platform that allows complete ownership of content and full control over audience engagement, without intermediaries taking a cut. This is also what we're using for the 32x33 Institute.
2. Beehiiv – A subscription platform with robust content moderation and tools for building independent newsletters.
3. Buttondown – A minimalist, creator-focused platform prioritizing simplicity and a harassment-free environment, with a single-owner guarantee against monetization of harmful content.