I cannot stress enough that I think your second bullet is missing the point by a country mile. The Substack post is specifically talking about Nazi viewpoints, not "bad" viewpoints for some shifting definition of bad. And because we're talking about Nazi views, I think your first bullet then falls apart, too. There's no new scrutiny required for Nazi views because we've already done that work.
Additionally, Substack is allowing the monetization of (and thus profiting from) Nazi viewpoints. That's more than "shining a light on it".
It doesn’t escape notice that the hit piece against Substack mentioned in both links in this comment thread came from the NYT, an organization that slanted news in favor of actual Nazis running up to the war [1] and has recently rehired a pro-Hitler reporter [2].
Having read many thousands of Substack articles, I’ve seen recommended content from a wide swath of the political spectrum from many countries but never anything Nazi related.
Given the history of Platformer, it's likely they are trying to stir up and monetize outrage. It’s also worth pointing out that Casey is currently working for the NYT as host on the Hard Fork podcast. With the on-going collaboration, this attack on Substack seems incredibly disingenuous and hypocritical.
OP's article TLDR: "Nazis are bad, Nazis are on Substack, Substack should deplatform them."
I find it difficult to imagine that expressing opposition to the most universally-opposed people on the planet counts as "Gratifying to intellectual curiosity". Gratifying, perhaps, but involves about zero intellectual curiosity.
Maybe try this one on Facebook or Twitter instead?
I think explicit Nazism is banned on SubStack - at least I have not yet seen any example of a literal Hitlerian National Socialist Aryan Ubermensch newsletter on that platform. This issue is the expansion of the term 'Nazism', which seemingly today can be applied to 'the other side' no matter the content of the argument. We have all seen opposite sides in an argument accuse each other of Nazism with both actually seeming to mean it.
How do you ban this, who does the banning? Content moderation is a really hard problem, anything other than a legalistic position is over reach
I wrote my post with complete awareness of the fact that neo-nazis, and others like them, exist. I don't really see what your comment adds to the discussion.
Yes, some of the ideas are objectively bad. That doesn't mean there isn't a growing censorship movement, which incidentally often uses "nazi" lingo as an excuse to selectively silence people.
Also note that I gave a nod to, and firmly believe in, not inciting violence as a core tenet of free speech. Nazis can believe whatever vile shit they want to, as long as they don't act on it.
For the majority of readers, for whom I presume getting the latest updates fresh from the lips of renowned neo-Nazis was not a high priority, I don't think this represented a significant drop in the blue check's value.
Either you are saying that in fact not having prominent neo-Nazis' content tagged as coming from notable sources was a meaningful problem, or you are making a slippery-slope argument with no clear indication of why we were headed to a problematic part of the slope. In either case it doesn't seem persuasive.
The line isn't drawn at "literal Nazis", because for all the criticisms one can lob at KF it is clearly not dedicated to Naziism. It platforms Nazis, for sure, but if the argument is either that a large blast radius that hits a lot of non-Nazi content is acceptable or the old "well if you platform literal Nazis you are a literal Nazi, sorry" fallacy, it's not good.
Agreed on the former. On the later, it's the why the nuance isn't presence in Nazis that I want a firmer grip on.
Nazis presumably don't wake up, get out of bed, and say "I'm going to be evil today." They have a set of racist beliefs and they pursue them.
But lots of other people have racist beliefs too. Local judges, in all probability our current Attorney General, inner city police, etc. So what makes Nazis different from them?
HelloMcFly's "actively and publicly working towards the oppression of others" seems like a decent standard.
I'd just prefer to have some framework that doesn't justify itself with "Nazis are bad because they're Nazis" (which is what my phrasing above was getting at). Essentially, the trotting out child pornographers (who nobody wants to defend) to try and enact free speech restriction (which people would otherwise want to defend).
1) IMHO, using a phrase like "Nazi propaganda" knowingly poisons the well in these discussions because basically anything just a bit out of the current political zeitgeist can be and has been labeled as Nazi propaganda in CURRENT_YEAR.
2) Since you seem to hate Nazis so much, why are you adopting the digital equivalent of their tactics? The Nazis famously burned lots of very Jewish books, right? Society used to say that this was one of the examples of why they weren't so great, and I grew up hating the idea of burning books because of this. I can't understand how using their playbook suddenly became doubleplusgood.
This article is way, way too based to be posted to HN but kudos to disgruntled phd for doing so.
I’ll also point out that the recent “sub stack has a nazi problem” tirade is coming from people like the authors example of the $50k/year school IYI. They aren’t old enough to have seen actual nazis.
Furthermore, with a growing economic inequality there will be more of these so-called “nazis.” It’s a symptom of a problem, and not the problem in itself.
It’s posturing and signalling by pampered babies who need to be slapped around a bit with a large trout.
This reeks of "both-siding" which is insanely frustrating for me. Look, I get opening a can of worms and "stay out of my business" but at the same time, we need to be able as a society be able to and be unafraid to say when things are clearly bad.
If Substack really wants to be the Nazi bar [1], then that is their prerogative. But if some of their writers don't wish to be patrons of the Nazi bar, then it is their prerogative to urge Substack's leadership to change their minds.
[1] The bartender: "You didn’t see his vest but it was all nazi shit. Iron crosses and stuff. You get to recognize them... You have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it’s always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don’t want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too. And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it’s too late because they’re entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down." https://werd.io/2023/leaving-the-nazi-bar
Another issue is how any individual frames either side and bases good and bad off of that, often using hyperbole, inaccuracies, wide brushes of their opposing views.
Where are all these “nazis” you say that word a lot. “My group” I didnt know I was in a group. You certainly seem to assume a lot and form knee jerk conclusions. Actually proving my point quite well.
Additionally, Substack is allowing the monetization of (and thus profiting from) Nazi viewpoints. That's more than "shining a light on it".
reply