When Joe first wrote about the issue of Nazi writers on Substack, many of us responded with hot takes. Myself included. Since then, I have read more and learned more. Joe has said he will make his decision on whether or not to leave Substack in February. So here I am, on the last day of January (2/1 by the time I got it edited and posted), with a much-too-long post, marshalling the reasons why “stay” is the better choice.
1) Substack does not have a “Nazi problem”
Jonathan Katz of The Atlantic claims he found 16 Substacks with Nazi content and imagery. Out of 17,000. I say “claims” because he’s been very cagey with his list and hasn’t named them all. Public News investigated the ones he did name, and found that Katz’ most prominent example was grossly exaggerated: the site had 800 total subscribers, fewer than 100 paid; engagement in terms of likes and comments was low to non-existent; and contrary to Katz’ claims, it was not earning money through Substack.
Casey Newton of Platformer did his own search and found a whopping six Nazi sites. He sent this list to Substack, which told him that none of these sites had any paid subscribers; combined they had about 100 readers total; and five of the six violated the terms of service and were subsequently booted off. Nazis were not making money off of Substack; Substack was not making money off of Nazis.
To call this making a mountain out of a molehill is an insult to hard-working moles everywhere. One Nazi on Substack is one too many, but we mustn’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
Which leads us to…
2) Everybody has a “Nazi problem”
As Freddie DeBoer points out, we actually won a war against fascism, and yet fascism didn’t go away. You're not going to stop it by tweaking the terms of service. There are racists, sexists and bigots using Ghost, using Wordpress, using Blogger, using every platform. The problem lies not with the platforms; the problem lies with the fact that some percentage of human beings will always be ugly and stupid, and will always find a way to make themselves known.
Which is a good thing, because…
3) Sunlight is the best disinfectant
Robert Grayboes notes that free speech is not a defense *of* malevolent people; it is our defense *against* malevolent people. The way to defeat bigots is not to silence them; it is to let them speak. Let people hear what hateful, ignorant fools they are. He describes a debate at the University of Virginia in 1975 between a white supremacist and a black biologist over the relationship between race and intelligence. The supremacist got absolutely creamed, as everyone got a chance to hear what utter nonsense he was spewing.
The leaders of the civil rights movement of the ‘50s and ‘60s understood the advantages of letting segregationists speak. It told them who their enemies were, where they were, how many they were, and what they were thinking, so they could be effectively countered. Silencing evil does not end it; you merely push it underground, where it can fester and grow unobserved. As Grayboes notes, cutting the rattle off the rattlesnake doesn’t make the snake go away; it simply puts all of us in danger.
Censorship backfires. The Weimar Republic censored the Nazis in the ‘20s and early ‘30s. It simply gave them more attention. Today, France and Germany have stringent anti-Nazi laws; they also have a virulent Nazi problem. Censorship creates martyrs, who can then claim victimhood and moral authority. Don't help them.
4) Tolerating intolerance has its own rewards
In his book The Tolerant Society, Lee Bollinger argues that allowing objectionable speech, even of the most extreme variety, actually benefits us. Practicing tolerance trains us not to lash out – reflexively, emotionally, ineffectually – at ideas we find objectionable. It robs the bigots of their power to rile us up if our response is less “I can’t stand to be on the same Internet as you!” and more “OK, here’s why you’re wrong, now go sit in the corner and sulk.”
5) The real danger is censorship
Bretigne puts it more crudely than I would, but his point is valid: a half-dozen Hitler fanboys LARPing it up on Substack may be vile and grotesque, but it hasn’t killed anybody. Censorship has. Not metaphorically; I’m talking real dead bodies, in this country, in this decade. I’m talking covid.
Bari Weiss, Matt Taibbi, and Michael Shellenberger – three Substack writers – uncovered the many ways that the government, the media and big tech colluded to prevent any discussion of covid that did not toe the establishment’s line. Working treatments that could have saved thousands, like ivermectin, hydrochloroquil, vitamins C and D, could not be discussed. The cost-benefit ratio of activities like lockdowns, forced closures, remote schooling – activities that led to depression, suicide, a wrecked economy and years of lost learning – could not be discussed. As a result, many more people died than should have. Mothers, fathers, grandparents, spouses: killed by censorship.
Now, one may argue that silencing a known evil such as Naziism is totally different than trying to control misinformation during a public health emergency. Perhaps. But remember, during the height of the pandemic, people who raised these issues – even respected doctors who signed the Great Barrington Declaration – were called murderers, were compared to Nazis. Pretty much every politician since Dewey has been likened to Hitler. Godwin’s Law tells us we are always just one hyperbole away from a perfectly reasonable position being cast out of polite society.
6) Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater
Substack supports free speech, something Nazis oppose. And while this means there are a handful of ugly sites here, Substack also publishes hundreds of Jewish writers, writers who would not have a platform, let alone an income, without it. And LGBTQ writers. And writers offering a black perspective, or Asian, or Hispanic, or indigenous, etc. Investigative reporters. Establishment-bashing comedians. Liberals, libertarians, libertines. A thousand voices that Nazis would want crushed are flourishing on Substack. Including yours. Spaces like Substack are without a doubt our best defense against tyranny, fascism and oppression.
= = =
We don’t defeat evil by running away. There is no safe island where we can hide. Evil will follow. And if we try to erect barriers to keep the people we consider evil out… well, we just became our own enemy in the instant that we preach.
Leaving Substack will not hurt the Nazis one bit. (They may even take it as a victory: they drove another one away!) It *will* hurt the thousands of writers who depend on it as a way to get their voices heard, and to make a living doing what they love. Just as you have done. And it will hurt the entire writing ecosystem. It tells all the other platforms, and all the other writers: step out of line, and someone will gin up some controversy over you, undermine your business model, get you silenced.
Joe, when you first outlined your dilemma, a lot of readers offered unconditional support. Wherever you go, I will follow, they said. I was not one of them. You are a gifted writer, and I have enjoyed reading your work immensely. But if you cannot stand up to the censors, if you undermine the very free speech ethos that makes your own writing possible, then I can no longer support you. I’ll find two other baseball Substacks and subscribe to them. I’ll put my money where it will do the most good.
Please, Joe. Do the right thing. Fight the power. Stay.
Thinking about this some more, I (and I suspect most of your readers) would have been blissfully unaware of whatever Nazi content there is without the Atlantic article. Substack does not push content on us, as opposed to most sites, which constantly push and suggest content in order to increase clicks. If we believe in free speech it means speech with which we disagree, sometimes violently. Substack is not trying to increase their monetization of the Nazi content, and that makes them unusual, if not unique. Like I said, I'll follow you wherever you go, but I'm not going to leave the other Substacks that I follow. This is not a hill I choose to die on.
I'm onboard for whatever you decide, Joe. It would be nice if a small portion of the seven bucks I send every month didn't end up in the Nazi apologists' pockets, though. If another option is available, I'd take it.
I don't like Nazis either ... but I do appreciate your Joe Blogs emails arriving on time. Whether that's via Substack or some other company is fine by me. ... But I'd probably leave Substack.
Dear Joe. The internet, in all its wonderfulness, has passed its peak as a beneficial communication platform and has begun what appears to be a rather rapid decline. Platforms on the internet aren’t interested in me, you, others. We are just content for them to channel product, collect data on us for feeding their AI so they can … manipulate us and channel more product. In short. We don’t matter. Except to each other. Perhaps you can start a print version of Joe Blogs. Sort of like why we still have mail. Print doesn’t mean either/or, but it does provide a place for you to directly generate and send content to us. A few of us will even write back. It’s prettier cheap these days. And in meantime, you can check around for another platform. Besides. One of downsides of internet is it appears to make people stupider. Candidly that’s not to be funny, but sadly is factual. Hamish is but one example. Fortunately schools are beginning to belatedly pick up on this, and ban phones. Good plan. People need to be present while they learn. Let us know what you choose to do.
Leave Substack. I already plan to follow Craig Calcatera. I don't mind signing up again or whatever it would take on a new platform. I am reluctant to renew and keep paying Substack money.
Lot of people offering thoughtful opinions. A few making strenuous arguments on multiple threads to make sure Nazis continue to have a place to congregate. Shake the Nazi dust off your shoes, Joe. We’ll find you.
I’ll find your work if you leave, just like I will with Craig and anyone else who leaves Substack over this idiocy. Substack is a private company that provides a service allowing people to share their thoughts and profit from them. They’ve chosen to feel comfortable selling Nazis access to their microphones.
I’ve chosen to not want them to have more of my money.
Nazis used to be shorthand for the bad guys. They didn’t need to explain why Indiana Jones fought Nazis. Siding with them, really in any way, just isn’t something I’d want to do, no matter how much I’m getting paid.
And Substack can spare me the freedom of speech/slippery slope talk. A private company not selling access to people who espouse the viewpoint of a regime that tried very hard to systematically eradicate entire subsets of humanity from this earth isn’t the start of any slopes, slippery or otherwise.
In the movie "Sneakers," the antagonist Cosmo describes his efforts to manipulate perception for his own means. "There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information. What we see and hear, how we work, what we think... it's all about the information!"
Cosmo: "I learned that everything in this world, including money, operates not on reality..."
Bishop: "But the perception of reality."
Cosmo: "Posit: People think a bank might be financially shaky."
Bishop: "Consequence: People start to withdraw their money."
Cosmo: "Result: Pretty soon it *is* financially shaky."
Bishop: "Conclusion: You can make banks fail."
Let's try a related posit: "Atlantic posts a headline saying Substack has a Nazi problem. Consequence... here we go."
And let's not pretend that Atlantic is a neutral observer in this. Substack is a model that is in direct competition to the old publishing model, in which the Atlantic operates. To get into another movie analogy, it's like thinking this is a conflict about right and wrong only to step back and realize, like Captain Picard and Commander Riker in "Star Trek: Insurrection", it's just a blood feud between competing parties.
Does Substack really have a Nazi problem? Is "a few Nazi centered" out of millions a problem, to use the Atlantic's verbage? If anyone had told me yesterday that among the millions of Substacks there are a few rotten ones run by rotten people who are trying to advocate for awful stuff--I would not have been surprised. Nor would any of us. This is the internet. In the end, we could scale up and say everything the Atlantic reports about the internet in general... does Joe want to publish on a platform (the internet) that calls porn its number one mover of traffic?
The immediate question is what is Substack all about. And not what Atlantic says about Substack, because Atlantic is manipulating perception to critiqe a competitor.
Substack, to me, is just about the only place on the internet where I am NOT bombarded with stuff I don't want to see or read. Everywhere else, because they make money on advertising, constantly push stuff on me against my preferences. But not here. Here, I read what I want to read. I search for topics I want. Substack puts me in control of what I see and read more than most other platforms. So when Atlantic makes its "Nazi problem" claim, on one hand I'm not surprised. As I said, this is the internet. On the other hand, I didn't know. Because I have yet to encounter anything on Substack that isn't what I chose to view. In my mind, in the internet world, this is a rare gift—and not one to be treated lightly.
And another issue: In the internet world, the terms "nazi" and "fascist" are pretty notorious for being thrown around pretty easily to label anything that someone disagrees with. I don't know if this applies to the stacks Atlantic is reporting because, as I have said, Substack makes it easy for me to never go there and find out. But as soon as a platform decides it will not tolerate "Nazi" content, well, it's not hard to see that label getting thrown around pretty liberally—much like how school kids are able to use the words "bullying" and "anxiety" to manipulate teachers and administrators as a means to get their way.
Now, I am very small potatoes. I don't claim to be anyone important at all. But I have occasionally posted unpopular ideas and found myself targeted for removal, deplatforming, blocking, etc. There is something appealing to me about Substack because I have greater trust in them than many places I have chosen to write before.
To me, the good of Substack far outweighs the bad that comes from a few Nazi stacks that I didn't even know existed.
The original Atlantic article said that, in addition to 16 Nazi sites, there were "dozens" of "extremist" sites -- an extraordinarily elastic term which can be stretched to include Catholics, school moms, and anyone else the writer disagrees with.
When Joe first wrote about the issue of Nazi writers on Substack, many of us responded with hot takes. Myself included. Since then, I have read more and learned more. Joe has said he will make his decision on whether or not to leave Substack in February. So here I am, on the last day of January (2/1 by the time I got it edited and posted), with a much-too-long post, marshalling the reasons why “stay” is the better choice.
1) Substack does not have a “Nazi problem”
Jonathan Katz of The Atlantic claims he found 16 Substacks with Nazi content and imagery. Out of 17,000. I say “claims” because he’s been very cagey with his list and hasn’t named them all. Public News investigated the ones he did name, and found that Katz’ most prominent example was grossly exaggerated: the site had 800 total subscribers, fewer than 100 paid; engagement in terms of likes and comments was low to non-existent; and contrary to Katz’ claims, it was not earning money through Substack.
Casey Newton of Platformer did his own search and found a whopping six Nazi sites. He sent this list to Substack, which told him that none of these sites had any paid subscribers; combined they had about 100 readers total; and five of the six violated the terms of service and were subsequently booted off. Nazis were not making money off of Substack; Substack was not making money off of Nazis.
To call this making a mountain out of a molehill is an insult to hard-working moles everywhere. One Nazi on Substack is one too many, but we mustn’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
Which leads us to…
2) Everybody has a “Nazi problem”
As Freddie DeBoer points out, we actually won a war against fascism, and yet fascism didn’t go away. You're not going to stop it by tweaking the terms of service. There are racists, sexists and bigots using Ghost, using Wordpress, using Blogger, using every platform. The problem lies not with the platforms; the problem lies with the fact that some percentage of human beings will always be ugly and stupid, and will always find a way to make themselves known.
Which is a good thing, because…
3) Sunlight is the best disinfectant
Robert Grayboes notes that free speech is not a defense *of* malevolent people; it is our defense *against* malevolent people. The way to defeat bigots is not to silence them; it is to let them speak. Let people hear what hateful, ignorant fools they are. He describes a debate at the University of Virginia in 1975 between a white supremacist and a black biologist over the relationship between race and intelligence. The supremacist got absolutely creamed, as everyone got a chance to hear what utter nonsense he was spewing.
The leaders of the civil rights movement of the ‘50s and ‘60s understood the advantages of letting segregationists speak. It told them who their enemies were, where they were, how many they were, and what they were thinking, so they could be effectively countered. Silencing evil does not end it; you merely push it underground, where it can fester and grow unobserved. As Grayboes notes, cutting the rattle off the rattlesnake doesn’t make the snake go away; it simply puts all of us in danger.
Censorship backfires. The Weimar Republic censored the Nazis in the ‘20s and early ‘30s. It simply gave them more attention. Today, France and Germany have stringent anti-Nazi laws; they also have a virulent Nazi problem. Censorship creates martyrs, who can then claim victimhood and moral authority. Don't help them.
4) Tolerating intolerance has its own rewards
In his book The Tolerant Society, Lee Bollinger argues that allowing objectionable speech, even of the most extreme variety, actually benefits us. Practicing tolerance trains us not to lash out – reflexively, emotionally, ineffectually – at ideas we find objectionable. It robs the bigots of their power to rile us up if our response is less “I can’t stand to be on the same Internet as you!” and more “OK, here’s why you’re wrong, now go sit in the corner and sulk.”
5) The real danger is censorship
Bretigne puts it more crudely than I would, but his point is valid: a half-dozen Hitler fanboys LARPing it up on Substack may be vile and grotesque, but it hasn’t killed anybody. Censorship has. Not metaphorically; I’m talking real dead bodies, in this country, in this decade. I’m talking covid.
Bari Weiss, Matt Taibbi, and Michael Shellenberger – three Substack writers – uncovered the many ways that the government, the media and big tech colluded to prevent any discussion of covid that did not toe the establishment’s line. Working treatments that could have saved thousands, like ivermectin, hydrochloroquil, vitamins C and D, could not be discussed. The cost-benefit ratio of activities like lockdowns, forced closures, remote schooling – activities that led to depression, suicide, a wrecked economy and years of lost learning – could not be discussed. As a result, many more people died than should have. Mothers, fathers, grandparents, spouses: killed by censorship.
Now, one may argue that silencing a known evil such as Naziism is totally different than trying to control misinformation during a public health emergency. Perhaps. But remember, during the height of the pandemic, people who raised these issues – even respected doctors who signed the Great Barrington Declaration – were called murderers, were compared to Nazis. Pretty much every politician since Dewey has been likened to Hitler. Godwin’s Law tells us we are always just one hyperbole away from a perfectly reasonable position being cast out of polite society.
6) Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater
Substack supports free speech, something Nazis oppose. And while this means there are a handful of ugly sites here, Substack also publishes hundreds of Jewish writers, writers who would not have a platform, let alone an income, without it. And LGBTQ writers. And writers offering a black perspective, or Asian, or Hispanic, or indigenous, etc. Investigative reporters. Establishment-bashing comedians. Liberals, libertarians, libertines. A thousand voices that Nazis would want crushed are flourishing on Substack. Including yours. Spaces like Substack are without a doubt our best defense against tyranny, fascism and oppression.
= = =
We don’t defeat evil by running away. There is no safe island where we can hide. Evil will follow. And if we try to erect barriers to keep the people we consider evil out… well, we just became our own enemy in the instant that we preach.
Leaving Substack will not hurt the Nazis one bit. (They may even take it as a victory: they drove another one away!) It *will* hurt the thousands of writers who depend on it as a way to get their voices heard, and to make a living doing what they love. Just as you have done. And it will hurt the entire writing ecosystem. It tells all the other platforms, and all the other writers: step out of line, and someone will gin up some controversy over you, undermine your business model, get you silenced.
Joe, when you first outlined your dilemma, a lot of readers offered unconditional support. Wherever you go, I will follow, they said. I was not one of them. You are a gifted writer, and I have enjoyed reading your work immensely. But if you cannot stand up to the censors, if you undermine the very free speech ethos that makes your own writing possible, then I can no longer support you. I’ll find two other baseball Substacks and subscribe to them. I’ll put my money where it will do the most good.
Please, Joe. Do the right thing. Fight the power. Stay.
A lot of good reporting on this - the more I read the more I’m inclined to see you stay on Substack.
I'm glad that Substack has reconsidered. If this had happened in two weeks, I would have been gone.
https://www.platformer.news/p/substack-says-it-will-remove-nazi?publication_id=7976&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email-share&triggerShare=true&r=9uf5
Thinking about this some more, I (and I suspect most of your readers) would have been blissfully unaware of whatever Nazi content there is without the Atlantic article. Substack does not push content on us, as opposed to most sites, which constantly push and suggest content in order to increase clicks. If we believe in free speech it means speech with which we disagree, sometimes violently. Substack is not trying to increase their monetization of the Nazi content, and that makes them unusual, if not unique. Like I said, I'll follow you wherever you go, but I'm not going to leave the other Substacks that I follow. This is not a hill I choose to die on.
I followed you through a bunch of moves, you once promised me there would be no more moves...
I'm onboard for whatever you decide, Joe. It would be nice if a small portion of the seven bucks I send every month didn't end up in the Nazi apologists' pockets, though. If another option is available, I'd take it.
I don't like Nazis either ... but I do appreciate your Joe Blogs emails arriving on time. Whether that's via Substack or some other company is fine by me. ... But I'd probably leave Substack.
Dear Joe. The internet, in all its wonderfulness, has passed its peak as a beneficial communication platform and has begun what appears to be a rather rapid decline. Platforms on the internet aren’t interested in me, you, others. We are just content for them to channel product, collect data on us for feeding their AI so they can … manipulate us and channel more product. In short. We don’t matter. Except to each other. Perhaps you can start a print version of Joe Blogs. Sort of like why we still have mail. Print doesn’t mean either/or, but it does provide a place for you to directly generate and send content to us. A few of us will even write back. It’s prettier cheap these days. And in meantime, you can check around for another platform. Besides. One of downsides of internet is it appears to make people stupider. Candidly that’s not to be funny, but sadly is factual. Hamish is but one example. Fortunately schools are beginning to belatedly pick up on this, and ban phones. Good plan. People need to be present while they learn. Let us know what you choose to do.
My subscription is up in January. If you don't leave, I won't be renewing.
But I'd urge you to leave regardless.
leave Substack
drop the nazis
Leave Substack. I already plan to follow Craig Calcatera. I don't mind signing up again or whatever it would take on a new platform. I am reluctant to renew and keep paying Substack money.
Lot of people offering thoughtful opinions. A few making strenuous arguments on multiple threads to make sure Nazis continue to have a place to congregate. Shake the Nazi dust off your shoes, Joe. We’ll find you.
I’ll find your work if you leave, just like I will with Craig and anyone else who leaves Substack over this idiocy. Substack is a private company that provides a service allowing people to share their thoughts and profit from them. They’ve chosen to feel comfortable selling Nazis access to their microphones.
I’ve chosen to not want them to have more of my money.
Nazis used to be shorthand for the bad guys. They didn’t need to explain why Indiana Jones fought Nazis. Siding with them, really in any way, just isn’t something I’d want to do, no matter how much I’m getting paid.
And Substack can spare me the freedom of speech/slippery slope talk. A private company not selling access to people who espouse the viewpoint of a regime that tried very hard to systematically eradicate entire subsets of humanity from this earth isn’t the start of any slopes, slippery or otherwise.
Let’s go somewhere else.
Re Substack: We've followed you across many platforms before!
In the movie "Sneakers," the antagonist Cosmo describes his efforts to manipulate perception for his own means. "There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information. What we see and hear, how we work, what we think... it's all about the information!"
Cosmo: "I learned that everything in this world, including money, operates not on reality..."
Bishop: "But the perception of reality."
Cosmo: "Posit: People think a bank might be financially shaky."
Bishop: "Consequence: People start to withdraw their money."
Cosmo: "Result: Pretty soon it *is* financially shaky."
Bishop: "Conclusion: You can make banks fail."
Let's try a related posit: "Atlantic posts a headline saying Substack has a Nazi problem. Consequence... here we go."
And let's not pretend that Atlantic is a neutral observer in this. Substack is a model that is in direct competition to the old publishing model, in which the Atlantic operates. To get into another movie analogy, it's like thinking this is a conflict about right and wrong only to step back and realize, like Captain Picard and Commander Riker in "Star Trek: Insurrection", it's just a blood feud between competing parties.
Does Substack really have a Nazi problem? Is "a few Nazi centered" out of millions a problem, to use the Atlantic's verbage? If anyone had told me yesterday that among the millions of Substacks there are a few rotten ones run by rotten people who are trying to advocate for awful stuff--I would not have been surprised. Nor would any of us. This is the internet. In the end, we could scale up and say everything the Atlantic reports about the internet in general... does Joe want to publish on a platform (the internet) that calls porn its number one mover of traffic?
The immediate question is what is Substack all about. And not what Atlantic says about Substack, because Atlantic is manipulating perception to critiqe a competitor.
Substack, to me, is just about the only place on the internet where I am NOT bombarded with stuff I don't want to see or read. Everywhere else, because they make money on advertising, constantly push stuff on me against my preferences. But not here. Here, I read what I want to read. I search for topics I want. Substack puts me in control of what I see and read more than most other platforms. So when Atlantic makes its "Nazi problem" claim, on one hand I'm not surprised. As I said, this is the internet. On the other hand, I didn't know. Because I have yet to encounter anything on Substack that isn't what I chose to view. In my mind, in the internet world, this is a rare gift—and not one to be treated lightly.
And another issue: In the internet world, the terms "nazi" and "fascist" are pretty notorious for being thrown around pretty easily to label anything that someone disagrees with. I don't know if this applies to the stacks Atlantic is reporting because, as I have said, Substack makes it easy for me to never go there and find out. But as soon as a platform decides it will not tolerate "Nazi" content, well, it's not hard to see that label getting thrown around pretty liberally—much like how school kids are able to use the words "bullying" and "anxiety" to manipulate teachers and administrators as a means to get their way.
Now, I am very small potatoes. I don't claim to be anyone important at all. But I have occasionally posted unpopular ideas and found myself targeted for removal, deplatforming, blocking, etc. There is something appealing to me about Substack because I have greater trust in them than many places I have chosen to write before.
To me, the good of Substack far outweighs the bad that comes from a few Nazi stacks that I didn't even know existed.
The original Atlantic article said that, in addition to 16 Nazi sites, there were "dozens" of "extremist" sites -- an extraordinarily elastic term which can be stretched to include Catholics, school moms, and anyone else the writer disagrees with.
I find Substack difficult to navigate. Please find another, more user-friendly, that is easier for old guys like me (I’m 66) to navigate.