Substack Does Have a Nazi Problem. But I’m Not Leaving Them.

An unpopular opinion

Last December, a Medium writing buddy alerted me to the now infamous article from The Atlantic about Jonathan Katz’s discovery of the “Nazi problem” on Substack. In a nutshell, “scores of” publications pushing white supremacy, the great replacement conspiracy theory, and other harmful and hateful content were discovered to be on Substack. Collectively, these publications were earning a minimum of tens of thousands of dollars and Substack was profiting off them.

It was not a surprise to me that these publications already existed. Or that someone was making money off them. I bet there are many more on Substack and hundreds more on other writing platforms, and not just written in the vein of this particular kind of hate.

Immediately, Substackers, approximately 250 of them, wrote an open letter to Substack, asking them to clarify their content guidelines, specifically related to the propagation of hate content. This policy, still unchanged, is below:

Substack cannot be used to publish content or fund initiatives that incite violence based on protected classes. Offending behavior includes credible threats of physical harm to people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, disability or medical condition.

The operative words are “incite violence.” Those words continue to be debated still today. However, it didn’t matter. People took issue to the platform allowing this type of content and profiting from it.

Substack authors had to make a personal choice. Would they stay or would they go? This situation created chaos, uncertainty, anger, and more.

I used to write on Substack. After not being able to figure it out for a couple of years, I kept my content there, returned to writing on Medium, and started following and reading other Substackers instead.

I love the authors I follow there. In a world where everyone’s trying to compete for your attention, I look forward to reading their Substack posts on a weekly basis. I also really enjoy Substack as a platform. You, the reader, get to decide who you want to follow. You only see the content you subscribe to. Your Substack author fully controls the content their varying subscriber tiers get to see.

It’s not perfect, but it’s unique enough to keep me there as a reader.

Substack authors waited to see what Substack would do. One of the active authors I follow there mentioned the Nazi article, pulled out, and moved to a new platform.

Substack responded in an unusual manner, stating that, while they didn’t like Nazis either, they would not be revising their guidelines. Instead, they’d continue their “hands-off” policy on content moderation.

This caused some authors to leave the platform for once and for all. I haven’t heard of or seen a report on how many authors…and how much revenue…departed Substack. But what happened next makes you wonder.

In this new year, things suddenly changed. As I always say, money talks. Or, perhaps the founders of Substack had a change of heart. Or maybe it was both.

This week, Substack decided to “reconsider” how they “interpret” their guidelines, but would not be revising them. They would also not be proactively removing any hate content in the future. But, they decided to terminate some of the Nazi publications discovered and called out in the original Atlantic article.

In a quote they left for Platformer, one of the large Substack publications that threatened to leave if Substack didn’t do anything, they stated (note that the following is only a portion of the text — see the link in the paragraph above for the full quote):

Relatedly, we’ve heard your feedback about Substack’s content moderation approach, and we understand your concerns and those of some other writers on the platform. We sincerely regret how this controversy has affected writers on Substack.

There have been mixed reviews to Substack’s new messaging. The one Substack author I follow considered it to be an acceptable remedy and returned to Substack. My original list of Substackers who I follow is now back in action.

The truth is, while I considered it once or twice, I never intended to leave Substack. To me, what happened is another example of cancel culture.

I hate cancel culture.

It relies on rumors instead of the truth. It creates knee-jerk reactions instead of waiting for the full story to reveal itself. And most importantly, it doesn’t allow for second chances.

However, my decision to stay or go didn’t really impact me either way. I haven’t written anything on Substack for years. I don’t have paid subscribers. And if the authors I follow there decided to move, I would just follow them wherever they went.

My decision to stay was about something bigger that I value greatly. As a writer, I take the right to free speech very seriously, as well as censorship. Right now America is under attack by censorship. Books are being banned in nearly every state. Democracy, our freedoms, and how history will be recorded during this time is all in jeopardy. And once you start censoring one area, the dominos start falling everywhere…and it’s a slippery slope. We’re watching it play out right now.

To be very clear, I don’t promote, subscribe to, or support Nazi (and other racist and hateful) ideas. Substack has publications that promote hate. Guess who else sells hateful artifacts or supports people who promote hate? Amazon, Walmart, Spotify, and many other extremely large retailers and content providers. (I double-checked to confirm my theory.)

If you’ve decided to ban Substack, are you going to drop all of those companies as well? Will you pick and choose based on what’s convenient to you? The argument that cancel culture rests upon is all or nothing. No pressure.

Note this is not a case of “everyone else does it so we should just ignore it”. I’m on your side. I don’t want to see hate-filled content on the internet. I don’t want impressionable young minds to be exposed to it. And I don’t want another person to be converted to hateful ideology.

But I’m also not in the business of moderating the internet. And neither are you. No one person or group can do it. This is the wrong fight. We can’t control the internet. We need to fight the war and not be consumed by the distracting battles that zap our energy and time.

I have a different approach based on my value system. Instead, what I propose is to help people:

• understand how to interpret what they’re reading and listening to
• avoid falling for these brainwashing schemes
• spot conspiracy theories and learn how to disprove them and seek out the truth
• adhere to a strong code of ethics, and
• influence others to do the right thing

Because, if you remove the audience, the preachers no longer have someone to preach to. I don’t know exactly how this all comes together, but I’m confident it starts with smart people, strong values at home, surrouding yourself with good humans, and choosing and promoting to do the right thing.

I guess what I’m saying is that I would prefer to stay and fight. It’s a longer game — it’s the war — but one I think is worth winning in the end.

So instead of canceling Substack, I will stay there, maybe write on there again one day in the future, and continue reading my favorite Substackers (who also decided not to leave). And I will spread the story of what happened with Substack, warn everyone in my circles again of the harmful content that can be found online, and teach the younger generations how to read between the lines and think for themselves.

If you’ve made it this far, thanks for reading.

What are your thoughts on what happened with Substack and how people responded?