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.
Thanks for taking your time to do the absolute bare minimum, Substack!
After Casey Newton, founder of Substack tech news publication Platformer, flagged a list of publications violating content guidelines to the company, Substack says it is removing five.
None of the nixed newsletters have paid subscribers and, in total, account for about 100 active readers, according to the company.
I saw. I would call “We removed five Nazis” the bare minimum.
Exactly
my substack was a Palestinian i only know because he is dead af now and ceased posting
way too little, way too late
Good move by Substack.
I vehemently disagree. It’s a terrible affirmation of their indifference to the harms that may come about as a direct result of content hosted on their platform.
Honestly, this is as close to inaction as they can get away with. So, unless the bare minimum is good enough for you, I strongly urge you to reconsider your position.
I mean, Substack lit all the benefit of the doubt I had for them on fire with their previous response.
This new action doesn’t restore that, but all things being equal, I do want nazi shitheads to be de-platformed and have their funding cut off.
I think one can both acknowledge that they finally did a move in the correct direction and still think that they suck overall
They didn’t, though. This is a PR move. They banned 5 people, none of whom had a substantial following. The popular Nazis remain. As I said above, they did the absolute bare minimum.
I agree with you; I think it is indeed the absolute bare minimum they had to do but I also agree with xc2215x that it’s a good move. They moved from -100 to -99 on my shithead-o-meter scale
Fair enough. Pretty sure I can agree with that!
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!
