Although the platform has explicit guidelines banning content that incites violence, a November article in The Atlantic pointed out at least 16 different newsletters with Nazi symbols, as well as many more supporting far-right extremism, leading to calls for change from many Substack authors and a refusal from leadership.
My impression is that Substack markets itself as a platform that refuses to censor unpopular opinions. In that context, hosting Nazi publications is, in a sense, a positive. If they’re not even going to remove Nazis, they’re definitely not going to remove you if you say something controversial.
It looks like many Substack authors don’t agree, or don’t think that safety from being deplatformed is worth being associated with Nazis, however tenuous that association is. Substack has to be careful to avoid a cascade in which respectable authors leave, which causes the reputation of the platform to decline, which causes more authors to leave, until pretty much just the Nazis are left. But Substack also has to be careful to avoid the opposite phenomenon, where any censorship will start a cycle of greater and greater censorship.
Being a Nazi is not just having an unpopular opinion and is not tolerable in any context
No, they are just into solar patterns and uncontrollable stretches of their hand from time to time!
I need an explicit explanation of what this means.
Swastikas and seig heil throws. I was just ironizing about the presense of some controversial nazism you argued other person about. There’s none. Nazism is bad by definition.
Gotcha. Sorry I killed your joke!
Not at all. As a non-native speaker I often ask for explanations myself, and there are a lot of non-neurotypical people who don’t pick the tone as casually as most do, so I don’t see any problem (:
It’s like that saying if there’s a Nazi at your bar, it’s now a Nazi bar.
Oh bullshit. Any healthy company should have no problem sorting “controversial opinions” from “far-right extremism that grooms domestic terrorists” and they’re not going to get addicted to banning in the process.
Whenever I see these slippery slope arguments, the top of the slope always just happens to align with the views of the person arguing (or the views of the person they uncritically adopted their opinions from).
If Substack became riddled with CSAM, would you be in the comments patting them on the back? Because as we all know, deplatforming images of children being raped leads to deplatforming mask off neonazis before eventually leading to innocent Palestinians and LGBT users being banned too.
I always wonder why platforms that do this don’t get used for good things. So many horrible governments out there. Why can’t these platforms be full of people who live under those governments screaming for freedom and calling out corruption? Instead it is western basement dwelling Nazis planning school shootings.