A Primer Regarding Nazis on Substack
A Compendium of Arguments
(1) This article is intended for folks who, like me, are relatively new to Substack and are trying to make sense of the cacophony of noise surrounding the Nazi presence here. I’m endeavoring to be honest and objective without bias or vitriol. Probably impossible, but I’m trying. You can be the judge if I succeeded. I’ve numbered the paragraphs to make referencing specific arguments easier. Before beginning, though, I should make it clear that I believe everyone agrees that Substack, as a private entity, is legally justified to handle Nazi speech however they see fit. The controversy stems primarily from people expressing their opinions about how Substack is or should be handling Nazi speech. I don’t make any claims about what is right, but I do poke at inconsistencies and funky reasoning.
(2) Substack management has stated that they do not believe that censoring or demonetizing fringe voices (Nazis, in this particular case) makes the problem go away. I think this amounts to an acknowledgement that Nazis are publishing on Substack and earning money from paid subscriptions, but even if the Nazi population is currently zero, the statement indicates that management does not plan to censor or prevent them from earning money if they do show up in the future.
(3) The phrasing about making “the problem go away” is interesting. They don’t specify which problem they are referring to, but from context I believe that they mean the existence of Nazis in our society. I think that Substack is addressing the people who believe that the number of Nazis in our society would be reduced if society makes it more difficult for Nazis to spread their ideas. From their statement, I gather that Substack management disagrees with this proposition. They believe that making it more difficult for Nazis to spread their ideas has no effect on the number of Nazis in our society. Actually, that’s not true. They claim that it “makes it worse,” which I assume means that if society makes it more difficult for Nazis to spread their ideas, then more people will become Nazis.1
(4) Whether or not you agree with that idea, other people seem to have a different problem with Nazis on Substack. They simply find Nazi speech offensive and don’t want to view it. This is probably similar to how some people find graphic descriptions of sex offensive and don’t want to view it either. Substack has already addressed this problem when it comes to sex. Their content guidelines ban porn and make it clear that Substack may limit the exposure of other sexual content. Readers even have a toggle they can use to indicate if they wish Substack to filter and hide explicit content. I believe it is accurate to call this treatment of porn and explicit content censorship. The statement made by Substack management indicating that they will not censor fringe and Nazi voices leads me to conclude that they have no plans to implement similar sorts of controls for Nazi speech, even though doing so would make the Substack experience better for people who find Nazi hate as offensive as others find explicit sex.
(5) You will find many claims that Substack allows Nazi speech because Substack is against all censorship. Other folks respond that Substack is not against all censorship because they censor porn (and other types of speech as detailed in their content guidelines). It is worth noting that folks advancing this argument are not necessarily advocating that Substack should allow porn. They are simply arguing that it is incorrect to claim that Substack does not censor speech.
(6) Another common argument is that because readers typically subscribe to specific newsletters, Substack effectively prevents undesired content from reaching them. Most people seem to agree that this is largely true, but there are some key exceptions and those exceptions are apparently why Substack implemented the policies and controls to manage explicit sexual content. The exceptions seem to be the promotional emails that Substack sends, the Explore feature that displays Notes and newsletters from writers to which you don’t subscribe, and the search function. Undesired content can reach your eyes through any of these channels.
(7) Some folks believe that the number of Nazis on Substack will be small enough that their presence won’t pose any sort of problem, or if it does pose a problem, it will be minor and easily addressed with the tools currently available, such as blocking and muting. As a counter-example, people point to other social media sites where unrestricted Nazi speech has, they feel, become a significant problem. They also argue that the tools Substack currently provides are insufficient to effectively block Nazi content (especially if the volume increases considerably). To be fair, it seems that many of the folks who believe that Nazis won’t have a disruptive presence also hold a wait-and-see approach. If the Nazis do become a problem, then Substack should consider revisiting their hands-off policy.
(8) You will also find people who argue that all censorship and content bans are wrong, even when implemented by a private entity.2 These arguments can be very slippery. One person claimed that no one should ban anyone and then banned comments from everyone except paid subscribers. Other anti-censorship folks attempt to censor Nazi objectors by telling them to “shut up” or “just leave already.” Like I said, this is very slippery terrain. I don’t believe that the anti-censorship folks think that I or they should be forced to publish content they disagree with, but they do seem to think that media businesses, such as Substack, should be forced to (or at least have a moral obligation to) publish all speech.3 I think the anti-censorship argument would be stronger if it was clear when those of us who run a business publishing a newsletter should be considered a media business required or obligated to publish all speech. This is a complex and nuanced topic, and I have a forthcoming essay that digs into it more deeply.
(9) There are some who believe that any promotion of Nazi propaganda is morally wrong and that ethical behavior demands that we always object to it and advocate for its removal whenever and where ever we encounter it. These folks feel that concerns regarding free speech and censorship carry less moral weight than the immorality of promoting Nazis. Basically, they think that while it is generally wrong to restrict speech, it is more evil to promote Nazis.
(10) I’ve seen insinuations that some people here wish to censor all speech they disagree with. I haven’t actually seen that position held by anyone, though I’ve seen hard-core anti-censorship folks stray in that direction if they start to back away from the view that all speech must be allowed. I think everyone agrees that the power to censor is easily abused. Ambiguities in the definition of the thing to be censored can be exploited to block speech that should be allowed. Transparency is offered as a solution, but then folks point out that you must trust the censors to actually be fully transparent. This potential abuse of power is often a primary concern for folks who are reluctant to promote censorship.
(11) For some, allowing Nazis to publish here is a tolerable evil, but allowing them to earn money through paid subscriptions is too much. These folks want Nazis to be prohibited from monetizing their hate. Most of the arguments I’ve seen against this position stem from the belief that restricting monetization is a form of censorship. The demonetization folks disagree that it’s a form of censorship because the actual speech is not being restricted, just the ability to earn money from it.
(12) Unsurprisingly, many people don’t have a logical, well-thought out philosophy about Nazis here on Substack. Some just aren’t interested enough to spend time thinking it through, and others simply lash out against any opinion they feel represents an ideological stance they disagree with. These folks will usually claim one of the arguments listed here, but if you actually get them to discuss the issue, they will freely and uncritically adopt different arguments as it suits the moment, even if the new argument contradicts their previous arguments. You’ll have to decide if they just don’t care that much or if they are trolling for lols.
(13) Finally, there are people who think that there’s nothing wrong with hosting Nazis and that the proper course of action is to engage them in debate whenever you encounter their hate. This will, they argue, persuade others who read the debate that Nazi ideas are evil and wrong. Arguments against this point out that Nazis aren’t really interested in debate and can simply block and delete folks who pursue this strategy. Nazis have no qualms about censoring folks who disagree with them so a reader wandering into their space will see no dissent.4
Most arguments I’ve seen are similar to one of the above or are at least a variation of one of the above. In the discussions I’ve had, people usually have concerns that I can sympathize with, but they obscure those points with endless name calling and efforts to score points against whatever abstract enemy—the left, the right, the sympathizers, the snowflakes, the elites, the liberals, the extremists, etc.—they currently find most annoying. My recommendation is to stay nice and treat everyone with respect and compassion. Don’t try to convince someone who already holds a firm opinion. Respect their position and ask questions in an effort to truly understand what they think. This will help you refine your position, and if you can keep it cordial, will help other people refine their positions when they read through your dialogue.
Stay safe out there.
You will often see comments claiming that the suppression or censorship of Nazi ideas will simply drive those ideas underground where they will “fester.” For their part, the anti-Nazi people don’t seem too concerned about ideas that are festering. They are more interested in hindering the spread of Nazi ideas because they believe that will reduce the number of Nazis in our society (or at least reduce the Nazi growth rate), and they see that as a good thing.
Most everyone seems to agree that the government’s ability to censor speech should be far more restricted than a private entity’s. The main area of disagreement is identifying the speech a private entity should be discouraged or prohibited from censoring. Some folks believe that a private entity should have the freedom to censor any speech they wish, while others think they should not be allowed to censor certain types of speech.
I assume that they also believe that Substack’s policy of censoring porn is wrong, but I haven’t seen any anti-censorship folks offer to champion that cause.
More extreme versions of this counterargument claim that while we are busy debating, the Nazis will happily seize control of the government, eliminate all free speech, and begin executing people they don’t like. Apparently something like this might have happened elsewhere at some point in the past.