Too bad. I think Substack's policies are the right ones, and I think Casey's beliefs about content moderation are both shallow and mistaken (that said, I do respect his willingness to back his beliefs with actions).
For those interested in wiser perspectives on both the Substack debate and content moderation more generally, I would recommend the following pieces:
(Freddie also wrote this https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/these-rules-about-platforming-nazis, which is specifically about the current controversy but combines some points I agree with a bunch of personal attacks and invective that I don't; to be clear, I think folks like Jonathan Katz and Casey are sincere, just misguided).
Finally, I will just add one point. Casey's fundamental case for switching to Ghost from Substack is his belief that Substack's features beyond hosting means it will "accelerate the growth of hate movements." Given that we're 3+ years into Substack's existence and there is literally no evidence that this is the case would, one would think, give Casey reason to reconsider whether his beliefs about content moderation are true. But apparently not.
I think the point is that these features haven’t existed for all of that three years. The app redesign especially has made it harder for me to see recent editions of all the things I subscribe to and much much easier to see new things I don’t. The ‘Today In’ box always contains at least one conspiracist publication I would never read and would rather not be aware of so it stands to reason that other people who would read them are finding them too. Discovery is a major part of the draw for new publications to launch of Substack instead of elsewhere, and I personally don’t think it’s unreasonable to say hate speech shouldn’t be pushed as part of that ecosystem.
Fair point Sam. Notes is certainly a (relatively) new feature, though I don't think the other features that I think Casey and others have highlighted as concerns (leaderboards and suggested Substacks, as well as their in house newsletter) are. Certainly, I have never been recommended or discovered anything on Substack the least bit Naziesque.
I’m still torn on whether this reporting was entirely fair to Substack. The thing that sticks out to me is that it isn’t really “Substack’s nazi issue” but rather “Substack’s potential nazi issue”. To me, those two things are not the same.
It was a bit smearing to not mention from the get go that this is more an issue of principles, not of the scope of actual hateful content on the platform.
By "reporting" I should add that I mean not just Platformer's reporting, but also the activity by other outlets, publications and users.
I do admire Casey for acting in accordance with his own morals. But still, I do wish it was more respectfully handled with less fingerpointing (from both sides) considering that this is a very complex issue with no clear answers, and I think both parties have a point in this situation.
This isn't a both sides issue. One side cares about their content and their business. The other side has Nazis. If you think Nazis deserve a fair shake, I'm not sure what else to say.
You're a great writer and I've come to rely on your reporting in a significant way. Count me as one of your many subscribers who will remain regardless of the platform you're on.
That said I'm also glad you took a stand here because your leadership on this will help bring some much needed clarity and accountability for the "free speech at all costs" platform ideology that seems to be metastasizing during a dangerous time.
I was worried that the absolute bare minimum effort done by Substack would be the end of it. I really appreciate the care and thought that went into this decision. Excited to remain a paying supporter of Platformer without feeling torn about where that money is going.
As a paying subscriber, I'm really relieved by this decision and 100% support you folks.
One question though: all the unchallenged Substack claims of 'deplatforming Nazis only makes it worse' - my understanding was that a strong body of research indicates that that position is exactly wrong, isn't it?
Oh, i thought you just wanted a link. Sorry bout that. Wasn't trying to get out of work.
I mean, in a slightly obvious way, it's not dissimilar to the account you gave of how the social and recommendation elements of Substack boosted your rates of growth in ways that wouldn't have happened "naturally." Extremists also get boosts from platforms, and taking them off those platforms lowers their reach. Most consumers give up, and the most extreme ones briefly get more extreme before also chilling out.
It also aligns to how tech treats product: making people work harder makes them more likely to give up trying, so we spend lots of time making things as frictionless and user-friendly as possible. Extremists, like the rest of us, are also a little lazy and annoyed when things aren't convenient?
This is why I think it's pretty disingenuous of Substack to make the claim. Their product is awesome and will grow your audience substantially and also depriving these other folks of that awesome product will have no effect or even unexpectedly make them MORE popular? That makes no sense.
Stephen: Because the PNAS study only measures the impact of removing someone from Facebook on the content on Facebook itself, I don't think it's very compelling. I think some of the research studies referenced near the end of this NY Times piece (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/business/substack-nazis-content-moderation.html) do a better job of making your case, particularly the last link to Lorcan Neill's thesis on deplatforming at multiple tech stack levels: https://www.proquest.com/docview/2672014386
Having said that, I don't find any research study as persuasive as simply looking at what has happened over the last three years with both Donald Trump and the anti-vaccine movement. Social media companies deplatformed Trump in the wake of January 6th and have deplatformed huge numbers of anti-vaccine posters. Do you think that tactic has been effective in either case? I certainly don't.
"Do you think the tactic has been effective in either case?"
Probably not for reasons listed below. But, that doesn't negate private companies from making responsible decisions to remove content which is 'lawful but awful', such as hate speech or disinformation.
There are more than just tech platforms promoting misinformation, so deplatforming a public figure like Trump doesn't prevent his messaging from reaching large audiences through other means (ask Fox if there is a monetary value to that messaging post-January 6th).
Also, Trump specifically was deplatformed from tech platforms well after all he did months of messaging on both vaccine and election results.
Deplatforming occured long after the potential for significant impact.
Sorry it’s come to this. I’m sure it is causing no small amount of anxiety. But happy and excited to see what the next chapter brings. Thanks for leading and standing up on this. I hope many more follow suit.
Ultimately the platform has little value. The content is what is important, and I'll go whereever I need to go to read your inciteful content. Most appropriately, you are taking action to address a serious issue, something you have written about and pointed out the lack of action among those in similar positions. So this is simply practicing what you preach. Thank you for taking this action. Let us know how to follow you and how to sign up for a multi-year subscription.
Driving the Nazis back underground is self-defeating because then you do not know who your enemies are. Troubled times ahead. I want to know who the brown shirts and torch bearing rabble are. I am not arguing against leaving Substack. That's your call. But deplatforming people just makes them find their audience somewhere else. Somewhere that lets most of the rests of us think there are no fascists, racists, or militant white Christian nationalists left to contend with. And that is very dangerous. That is how we got here, to the point we are on the cusp of potentially re-electing a fascist, cultist, moron god-king.
I'm very confident Nazis will continue to post everywhere on the internet, as they always have. I don't know how you could watch cable news for even one day in this country and come to the belief that "there are no fascists, racists, or militant white Christian nationalists left to contend with." It is more than OK to let someone else choose to volunteer to build a library and fundraising platform for them.
A load of newsletters I pay for have left Substack and I fully support them and understand why, but it's frustrating as a reader on a few levels. I use filters on my email app to put all the newsletters into folders, so these need to be redone. All my billing on Substack is handled centrally in one place so i can update that when I need to, but now I need to go to different locations. And their reader app has been great, in fact I'd turned off emails for my favourite Substacks and just relied on the app notifications to read them there. But none of these are dealbreakers to follow them to wherever they end up.
I do like Ghost, one newsletter I pay to subscribe to moved over a year ago. It would be great if they had some networked system that would let me manage subscriptions centrally too, making it sort of like a federated Substack.
Casey, you have made the right moral choice, which are never easy.
“Back in the 1940s, the philosopher Karl Popper came up with something called “The Paradox of Tolerance.” It goes like this:
If everyone is tolerant of every idea, then intolerant ideas will emerge. Tolerant people will tolerate this intolerance, and the intolerant people will not tolerate the tolerant people. Eventually, the intolerant people will take over and create a society of intolerance. Therefore, Popper said, to maintain a society of tolerance, the tolerant must be intolerant of intolerance… hence the paradox.”
There is a limit to the phrase, "don't hate the player, hate the game." Totally respect your decision and will follow you anywhere you go. But my feelings with Substack is a fortunate one where I can curate my news and conversations under one "app."
Loyal listener to Hard Fork and hope you can recommend a place where we can bring multiple conversations under one "platfomer er," platform. Recommendations please!
Too bad. I think Substack's policies are the right ones, and I think Casey's beliefs about content moderation are both shallow and mistaken (that said, I do respect his willingness to back his beliefs with actions).
For those interested in wiser perspectives on both the Substack debate and content moderation more generally, I would recommend the following pieces:
- Elle Griffin's open letter: https://www.elysian.press/p/substack-writers-for-community-moderation
- Ben Dreyfuss: https://www.calmdownben.com/p/substack-doesnt-have-a-nazi-problem
- Freddie DeBoer: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/you-cant-censor-away-extremism-or
(Freddie also wrote this https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/these-rules-about-platforming-nazis, which is specifically about the current controversy but combines some points I agree with a bunch of personal attacks and invective that I don't; to be clear, I think folks like Jonathan Katz and Casey are sincere, just misguided).
It's also worth reading Jesse Singal's piece about Casey, which he alludes to but doesn't link: https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/platformers-reporting-on-substacks
Finally, I will just add one point. Casey's fundamental case for switching to Ghost from Substack is his belief that Substack's features beyond hosting means it will "accelerate the growth of hate movements." Given that we're 3+ years into Substack's existence and there is literally no evidence that this is the case would, one would think, give Casey reason to reconsider whether his beliefs about content moderation are true. But apparently not.
I think the point is that these features haven’t existed for all of that three years. The app redesign especially has made it harder for me to see recent editions of all the things I subscribe to and much much easier to see new things I don’t. The ‘Today In’ box always contains at least one conspiracist publication I would never read and would rather not be aware of so it stands to reason that other people who would read them are finding them too. Discovery is a major part of the draw for new publications to launch of Substack instead of elsewhere, and I personally don’t think it’s unreasonable to say hate speech shouldn’t be pushed as part of that ecosystem.
Fair point Sam. Notes is certainly a (relatively) new feature, though I don't think the other features that I think Casey and others have highlighted as concerns (leaderboards and suggested Substacks, as well as their in house newsletter) are. Certainly, I have never been recommended or discovered anything on Substack the least bit Naziesque.
I'm happy to follow you over to Ghost. I don't care about the tool, I care about the content. And I really hate Nazis.
https://anatomyofajoke.substack.com/p/substack-has-a-my-little-pony-problem
I’m still torn on whether this reporting was entirely fair to Substack. The thing that sticks out to me is that it isn’t really “Substack’s nazi issue” but rather “Substack’s potential nazi issue”. To me, those two things are not the same.
It was a bit smearing to not mention from the get go that this is more an issue of principles, not of the scope of actual hateful content on the platform.
It has both a current Nazi issue and potentially much larger Nazi issue, and I describe both in this piece over thousands of words.
not really it doesn’t.
I think the nuance and specificity you’re looking for is there, and maybe you’re choosing not to see it.
By "reporting" I should add that I mean not just Platformer's reporting, but also the activity by other outlets, publications and users.
I do admire Casey for acting in accordance with his own morals. But still, I do wish it was more respectfully handled with less fingerpointing (from both sides) considering that this is a very complex issue with no clear answers, and I think both parties have a point in this situation.
This isn't a both sides issue. One side cares about their content and their business. The other side has Nazis. If you think Nazis deserve a fair shake, I'm not sure what else to say.
thanks for leading by example 🙏
You're a great writer and I've come to rely on your reporting in a significant way. Count me as one of your many subscribers who will remain regardless of the platform you're on.
That said I'm also glad you took a stand here because your leadership on this will help bring some much needed clarity and accountability for the "free speech at all costs" platform ideology that seems to be metastasizing during a dangerous time.
Thanks Mike!
https://anatomyofajoke.substack.com/p/substack-has-a-my-little-pony-problem
Wonderful news. 👏
I was worried that the absolute bare minimum effort done by Substack would be the end of it. I really appreciate the care and thought that went into this decision. Excited to remain a paying supporter of Platformer without feeling torn about where that money is going.
Also, welcome to Ghost!
As a paying subscriber, I'm really relieved by this decision and 100% support you folks.
One question though: all the unchallenged Substack claims of 'deplatforming Nazis only makes it worse' - my understanding was that a strong body of research indicates that that position is exactly wrong, isn't it?
i mean feel free to link me to something ...
Just a quick Google to find things I'd seen, but for a start?
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2214080120
I mean you're going to have to make the argument if you want me to engage here
Oh, i thought you just wanted a link. Sorry bout that. Wasn't trying to get out of work.
I mean, in a slightly obvious way, it's not dissimilar to the account you gave of how the social and recommendation elements of Substack boosted your rates of growth in ways that wouldn't have happened "naturally." Extremists also get boosts from platforms, and taking them off those platforms lowers their reach. Most consumers give up, and the most extreme ones briefly get more extreme before also chilling out.
It also aligns to how tech treats product: making people work harder makes them more likely to give up trying, so we spend lots of time making things as frictionless and user-friendly as possible. Extremists, like the rest of us, are also a little lazy and annoyed when things aren't convenient?
This is why I think it's pretty disingenuous of Substack to make the claim. Their product is awesome and will grow your audience substantially and also depriving these other folks of that awesome product will have no effect or even unexpectedly make them MORE popular? That makes no sense.
Stephen: Because the PNAS study only measures the impact of removing someone from Facebook on the content on Facebook itself, I don't think it's very compelling. I think some of the research studies referenced near the end of this NY Times piece (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/business/substack-nazis-content-moderation.html) do a better job of making your case, particularly the last link to Lorcan Neill's thesis on deplatforming at multiple tech stack levels: https://www.proquest.com/docview/2672014386
Having said that, I don't find any research study as persuasive as simply looking at what has happened over the last three years with both Donald Trump and the anti-vaccine movement. Social media companies deplatformed Trump in the wake of January 6th and have deplatformed huge numbers of anti-vaccine posters. Do you think that tactic has been effective in either case? I certainly don't.
See also this Freddie DeBoer piece (https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/you-cant-censor-away-extremism-or) from back in March of 2021, which looks at the impact of censorship at the country level. Think it's both wise (not a word I generally use with Freddie) and prescient.
"Do you think the tactic has been effective in either case?"
Probably not for reasons listed below. But, that doesn't negate private companies from making responsible decisions to remove content which is 'lawful but awful', such as hate speech or disinformation.
There are more than just tech platforms promoting misinformation, so deplatforming a public figure like Trump doesn't prevent his messaging from reaching large audiences through other means (ask Fox if there is a monetary value to that messaging post-January 6th).
Also, Trump specifically was deplatformed from tech platforms well after all he did months of messaging on both vaccine and election results.
Deplatforming occured long after the potential for significant impact.
There are some papers indicating some mixed-bag aspects, but by and large the topline seems to hold.
Sorry it’s come to this. I’m sure it is causing no small amount of anxiety. But happy and excited to see what the next chapter brings. Thanks for leading and standing up on this. I hope many more follow suit.
Ultimately the platform has little value. The content is what is important, and I'll go whereever I need to go to read your inciteful content. Most appropriately, you are taking action to address a serious issue, something you have written about and pointed out the lack of action among those in similar positions. So this is simply practicing what you preach. Thank you for taking this action. Let us know how to follow you and how to sign up for a multi-year subscription.
https://anatomyofajoke.substack.com/p/substack-has-a-my-little-pony-problem
Driving the Nazis back underground is self-defeating because then you do not know who your enemies are. Troubled times ahead. I want to know who the brown shirts and torch bearing rabble are. I am not arguing against leaving Substack. That's your call. But deplatforming people just makes them find their audience somewhere else. Somewhere that lets most of the rests of us think there are no fascists, racists, or militant white Christian nationalists left to contend with. And that is very dangerous. That is how we got here, to the point we are on the cusp of potentially re-electing a fascist, cultist, moron god-king.
I'm very confident Nazis will continue to post everywhere on the internet, as they always have. I don't know how you could watch cable news for even one day in this country and come to the belief that "there are no fascists, racists, or militant white Christian nationalists left to contend with." It is more than OK to let someone else choose to volunteer to build a library and fundraising platform for them.
A load of newsletters I pay for have left Substack and I fully support them and understand why, but it's frustrating as a reader on a few levels. I use filters on my email app to put all the newsletters into folders, so these need to be redone. All my billing on Substack is handled centrally in one place so i can update that when I need to, but now I need to go to different locations. And their reader app has been great, in fact I'd turned off emails for my favourite Substacks and just relied on the app notifications to read them there. But none of these are dealbreakers to follow them to wherever they end up.
I do like Ghost, one newsletter I pay to subscribe to moved over a year ago. It would be great if they had some networked system that would let me manage subscriptions centrally too, making it sort of like a federated Substack.
https://anatomyofajoke.substack.com/p/substack-has-a-my-little-pony-problem
100% supportive of this Casey and team.
👏👏👏Greatly appreciate your integrity in this decision. I commit to at least 3 years of annual subscription in support of you and the move.
https://markmanson.net/the-paradox-of-tolerance
Casey, you have made the right moral choice, which are never easy.
“Back in the 1940s, the philosopher Karl Popper came up with something called “The Paradox of Tolerance.” It goes like this:
If everyone is tolerant of every idea, then intolerant ideas will emerge. Tolerant people will tolerate this intolerance, and the intolerant people will not tolerate the tolerant people. Eventually, the intolerant people will take over and create a society of intolerance. Therefore, Popper said, to maintain a society of tolerance, the tolerant must be intolerant of intolerance… hence the paradox.”
Happy to follow you wherever you all go -- I’m here for the content, and frankly was happier when substack wasn’t trying to be so many things.
There is a limit to the phrase, "don't hate the player, hate the game." Totally respect your decision and will follow you anywhere you go. But my feelings with Substack is a fortunate one where I can curate my news and conversations under one "app."
Loyal listener to Hard Fork and hope you can recommend a place where we can bring multiple conversations under one "platfomer er," platform. Recommendations please!