I think it's important to note that the Nazis they announced they're kicking off the platform are all tiny little newsletters that aren't making them any money. They kept the ones they profit from.
I.e., this isn't them turning over a new leaf and trying to do better. It's them trying _again_ to distract people by saying/doing something p…
I think it's important to note that the Nazis they announced they're kicking off the platform are all tiny little newsletters that aren't making them any money. They kept the ones they profit from.
I.e., this isn't them turning over a new leaf and trying to do better. It's them trying _again_ to distract people by saying/doing something performative while continuing to profit just as much from Nazis on their platform.
The unequivocal fact remains: Substack is perfectly OK with profiting from Nazism.
The stance they've come to is "okay fine we will enforce terms of service in extreme cases." That's hardly bold moral leadership on Substack's part.
But there is, I think, a meaningful difference between "we are literally fine with actual Nazis here. Not our problem." and "We don't want to start traveling down a slippery slope, but there are lines and we will take action when they are crossed."
The former makes you Gab. The latter makes you, well, Twitter before the Elon takeover.
I just don't think this is them taking action because of crossed lines. The distinguishing feature of the accounts they suspended isn't that they crossed any particular line that they're unaware of other accounts crossing; it's that they're not making any money for Substack.
They left in place Nazi accounts they know about that are making money.
But, reportedly, that's the list Casey submitted to them.
I had assumed the leaks about, "it was only 6 accounts" was just spin, but apparently Casey did say, "here are the 6 worst accounts I found, let's start there."
Sadly, I don't think it will be clear. I'm sure other people will start reporting account and, in most cases, nothing will happen, and there won't be any clear information about what does get flagged as violating the TOS.
Personally, the thing I want to keep at the forefront is a push for transparency -- which would also be valuable for legitimate free speech concerns.
Is this proven? Katz asserts he’s found sixteen such newsletters, but as far as I know he (perhaps understandably) hasn’t identified them. Newton independently tried to find Nazi content on Substack and the tiny ones you mention were apparently the best he can come up with. Is there any independent corroboration of Katz’s claim?
I think it's important to note that the Nazis they announced they're kicking off the platform are all tiny little newsletters that aren't making them any money. They kept the ones they profit from.
I.e., this isn't them turning over a new leaf and trying to do better. It's them trying _again_ to distract people by saying/doing something performative while continuing to profit just as much from Nazis on their platform.
The unequivocal fact remains: Substack is perfectly OK with profiting from Nazism.
Good note, yes.
The stance they've come to is "okay fine we will enforce terms of service in extreme cases." That's hardly bold moral leadership on Substack's part.
But there is, I think, a meaningful difference between "we are literally fine with actual Nazis here. Not our problem." and "We don't want to start traveling down a slippery slope, but there are lines and we will take action when they are crossed."
The former makes you Gab. The latter makes you, well, Twitter before the Elon takeover.
I just don't think this is them taking action because of crossed lines. The distinguishing feature of the accounts they suspended isn't that they crossed any particular line that they're unaware of other accounts crossing; it's that they're not making any money for Substack.
They left in place Nazi accounts they know about that are making money.
I think you're giving them too much credit here.
But, reportedly, that's the list Casey submitted to them.
I had assumed the leaks about, "it was only 6 accounts" was just spin, but apparently Casey did say, "here are the 6 worst accounts I found, let's start there."
Fair enough. I guess we wait and see where their line is then.
Sadly, I don't think it will be clear. I'm sure other people will start reporting account and, in most cases, nothing will happen, and there won't be any clear information about what does get flagged as violating the TOS.
Personally, the thing I want to keep at the forefront is a push for transparency -- which would also be valuable for legitimate free speech concerns.
That said, I also think this is correct and well said: https://substack.com/@russellnohelty/note/c-46934312
Is this proven? Katz asserts he’s found sixteen such newsletters, but as far as I know he (perhaps understandably) hasn’t identified them. Newton independently tried to find Nazi content on Substack and the tiny ones you mention were apparently the best he can come up with. Is there any independent corroboration of Katz’s claim?