“We don’t think that censorship (including through demonetizing publications) makes the problem go away.”

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.”

    • linearchaos@lemmy.worldEnglish
      201·
      6 months ago

      Toleration is a social contract. Those that break the contract should not be allowed to seek protection under it.

    • Dra@lemmy.zipEnglish
      868·
      6 months ago

      This is such a wonderfully ironic statement. It is through toleration that they are painted in a poor light.

      • ABC123itsEASY@lemmy.worldEnglish
        673·
        6 months ago

        Tolerance is a social contract not a right. If you are tolerant, you earn tolerance for yourself. If you are intolerant, you don’t deserve tolerance yourself. It’s really not that complicated imo. I don’t feel the need to be tolerant of racist, bigoted people.

        • Alsephina@lemmy.mlEnglish
          291·
          6 months ago

          Tolerance is a social contract not a right. If you are tolerant, you earn tolerance for yourself. If you are intolerant, you don’t deserve tolerance yourself.

          I’ve never heard it said that way. This is a fantastic way to put it.

        • Zengen@lemmy.worldEnglish
          13·
          6 months ago

          You dont. You just have to be tolerant of their existence because theirr existance is protected by right and law. If you punch a Nazi your still getting charged with assault and battery. If you kill a racist your still going to jail. We dont illegalize views and ideas in america.

          • Strykker@programming.devEnglish
            21·
            6 months ago

            No you don’t have to tolerate their existence.

            We fought a war against Nazis for a fucking reason.

            Their ideals are shut and anyone who pushes them is worth less than the air they breath and the dirt they shit in.

            • Zengen@lemmy.worldEnglish
              11·
              4 months ago

              The first amendment says you do in fact have to tolerate them sir. You may not commit acts of violence against them for their speech or you get put in prison. Thats the way it is.

              • Strykker@programming.devEnglish
                1·
                4 months ago

                The first amendment applies to the government’s actions. Not personal actions.

                Hate speech is not a protected class so you can be refused service for it at any business,

        • Dra@lemmy.zipEnglish
          227·
          6 months ago

          This is ideal, but falls on a simple premise - everyone believes the other party is intolerant and that they are proudly righeous in behaving like a judge, jury and executioner.

          Open and free critique means manipulation and grooming happens far less effectively, which neuters anything from its core. Society is the judge, but it must also be the metric it is measured against.

          • Tangent5280@lemmy.worldEnglish
            102·
            6 months ago

            I feel like you’re just being contrarian for its own sake.

            The first paragraph is just plain false. Everyone believes others to be intolerant? No, the parent comment just said you be intolerant to the people who prove themselves to be intolerant? “Judge, Jury, Executioner”? Word salad. And people should judge others - we already do that, thats how we know if we can trust someone and expend the energy spend guarding against them in more useful tasks. The second paragraph is just a whole lot of words that say nothing.

            Also, I’m just following your advice:

            Open and free critique means manipulation and grooming happens far less effectively, which neuters anything from its core.

            Be better.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.worldEnglish
          45·
          6 months 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.worldEnglish
            31·
            6 months ago

            there is nothing worthwhile lost silencing nazi bullshit from social media

            • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.worldEnglish
              13·
              6 months 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.worldEnglish
                31·
                6 months ago

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

                • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  13·
                  6 months 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.worldEnglish
                    21·
                    6 months 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