“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.”

  • ABC123itsEASY@lemmy.worldEnglish
    673·
    11 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·
      11 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·
      11 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·
        11 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.

    • Dra@lemmy.zipEnglish
      227·
      11 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·
        11 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.