The other thing about the “sunlight” argument is that ... paid-subscription blogs actually don’t get sunlight. They’re posting in private more or less and building their business like the rest of us, from their audience recruiting for them. Substack is actually more dangerous in form if not in scale than other platforms because a giant white supremacist network, for instance, could prosper here without any of us knowing.
It has the potential to break Substack and turn it into the Twitter for newsletters. I just don't want it to happen because I truly believe it's still the greatest platform to publish my content and I love the ecosystem.
But as a German citizen Substack's position doesn't sit well with my audience. Some of the content they distribute is against German law and I even wonder if the EU will take notice of the recent developments.
The "sunlight is the best disinfectant" approach doesn't work because the people writing these things will STILL claim they are being censored, even when they're not. So they have their cake and eat it too, and their views get to be seen with no repurcussions.
It's like when MAGA Republicans claim they're being cancelled and censored literally at the same time as they're being interviewed on Fox News, the most popular cable news channel in the country.
No, the approach that works is to remove the content and don't hide away from it. Don't succumb to "free speech" arguments that don't apply to private organizations.
They can do this without being political. They need to state their rules, follow them, and own it.
Also, just to clarify: I don't want a social media site that only has my views. I don't like Twitter clones like Tribel that only marketed to the left.
I like having debates with people I don't agree with, it's been a part of the internet since its inception and it should never go away.
I just don't want to see content from fucking Nazis.
" ... [S]ince its inception " 3rd party content including personal attacks, suicide triggering, outing, advertisements, thread disruptions, civil torts, fraud, defamation among many civil wrongs & contractual breaches & of course, not so "fine people". The issues are much broader & go much deeper.
There's one other critical piece of Substack's actual business model that Casey didn't mention in this stalwart article: Substack paid piles of money to writers to build a critical mass of readers and subscribers. People here may know this better than I do (it's not something I per se have time to research in depth this morning) but weren't established journalists (including Matt Taibbi) given eye-watering sums to join Substack exclusively? Those contractual arrangements completely wipe out the "we're just software" position.
When you pay an individual to create content for you, and you as a part of that agreement make that relationship exclusive, congratulations. You're officially a publisher. To pretend to be otherwise, isn't just disingenuous. It's a form of intellectual gaslighting. If your company needs writers who still insist the 2020 election was stolen, that COVID is a government plot, and that the Holocaust was either justifiable or didn't actually happen to remain profitable, at least be transparent about that. I mean, if sunlight is your thing. Shine it on yourself. As a jew, a writer, a tech professional (of nearly 25 years), and a woman: I'm pretty much insisting on it. I'd even argue that position is easier to swallow.
Today, Taibbi (and this is according to my very unvetted GPT4 research) is likely a millionaire on the back of Substack; a relationship that started with a pretty handsome payout that led to his leaving Rolling Stone. If Substack can facilitate in the radicalization of someone who I once respected, what can it do to independent writers who need to build an audience today?
The prospects are not great. And this is all very exhausting. I'm betting that if you leave in protest of this, you and Zoe won't be alone (at least not for long), Casey. I won't punish you financially for staying (yet). But I left Twitter the second Elon replatformed Project Veritas. It won't take much for me to unsubscribe to my Substack newsletters.
Is there another platform you think is doing a better job? That you think would be the right model for Substack to follow? You mention that Facebook will not allow certain accounts and that YouTube restricts certain accounts from showing up in search, but also that both platforms viralized and spread fringe movements into much bigger ones. And it is that viralizing of extremist views that worries me.
My perspective has been that Substack’s product design has been much more effective at curbing hate than the moderation other platforms have implemented. It is very hard to go viral here, and especially for hate content. Even with notes and recommendations. As you mentioned yourself, you have only been recommended boring accounts and essays. To me, that makes it seem unlikely that a fringe extremist movement would be able to grow here?
I very much agree that the platform should remove incitations of violence as you have called for, and that when it comes to hate accounts "there ought to be ways to see them less; to recommend them less; to fund them less." But is there any platform that does that better than Substack? Because my experiences on other platforms (including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.) has been to see them more and be recommended to them more, and I have to imagine that means the platform is making more money from them?
But I'd love to know your thoughts on better platforms and ideas for curbing hate on the internet, you might know of some better case studies than I do!
The idea that Substack’s design makes it “unlikely that a fringe extremist movement would be able to grow here” can be debunked by Choire Sicha’s point above. Hateful publishers are able to thrive under the cover of paid subscriptions without any of us knowing. And Substack is still profiting and giving them the tools to flourish.
But paid content can't go viral. That only makes that content less read, and by a much smaller population. In my mind that makes it even less likely for extremist views to spread?
In your original comment, you said it was unlikely for a fringe extremist movement grow. Going viral is something different. If the question is whether or not hateful communities can grow on here, the answer is yes.
Surfacing something to the masses is what makes it grow. The more people that get eyes on something and that share and spread it make it grow. There can be no doubt that extremist movements actively grow and gain steam on platforms like Facebook and Twitter, as mentioned in this essay, and I do find that very dangerous. (It's why I am not on those platforms.)
You're right that hateful communities *could* grow here too, and that is definitely something we have to watch out for, but so far that has been much harder to achieve here than it would be on any other platform I'm aware of just because of the way the platform is designed. Unless you know of a platform that does an even better job?
No, they *are* growing here. That’s the problem. Platformer has paid subscriptions and reaches tens of thousands of people. Just because other people on Substack don’t know about it or read it doesn’t negate the fact that it’s reaching “the masses.” And any extremist on here has the exact same tools at their disposal--in addition to the recent open invitation by the founders.
Well yes, I realize that anybody can grow a following here. But the model doesn't reward hate the way other platforms do. A hot take just won't go as far here as it will anywhere else which is why there is less of it here than anywhere else. That's why I only want to understand if there is a platform that is doing an even better job at eradicating the hate problem. Because I think all the platforms are trying to figure this out in real-time and I'm very open to case studies if there is a better model!
I've been thinking of leaving Substack over it indeed. In France, the type of content they let on the platforme is actually outlawed. I'm not sure if the'vemade sure we don't see it (but I'm sure if they hadn't thought about it before, our lovely regulators would remind them as they seem keen on pinning down big tech lately).
I appreciate people like you are trying to reason with Substack and make them see how it's not OK to act like this. But I'll follow you elsewhere if you decide to leave.
stop messing with substack. They permit a high level of openness, which is good for society. If we’re exposed to extremist views and extremist interact with mainstream society then the impact of their ideas are mitigated. (See Strossen, 2020, “Hate”) The kind of censorship through public action being advocated here is explicitly addressed and refuted by John Stuart Mill in his essay “On Liberty” - it stultifies society, as we all benefit from constantly engaging with ideas adjacent to extremists ones. Taking those ideas away and making them hard to find leads to mainstream notions becoming “dead dogmas.”
I hope you will reconsider immediately, otherwise I will cancel my subscription to you, not substack.
Online businesses want to maximize profits. And it's more profitable to accept money from everyone, even if those people have awful viewpoints. So I'm not surprised that Substack is saying that they believe in free speech, that they're open to all viewpoints, etc. Until and unless it costs them serious money, they won't change their tune.
I'm guessing that means a combination of (a) publishers leaving the platform, (b) Substack's investors seeing their investment disappearing, (c) hate-speech laws in Europe and elsewhere making their product illegal and (d) middlemen like Stripe refusing to work with them because they promote hate speech.
I particularly think that (c) and (d) could be effective pressure points.
I've been pretty happy with Substack since starting my newsletter nearly a year ago. There are clear benefits to this platform. But if they continue to be indifferent to the suffering that they're causing, then I'll likely switch, too.
The other thing about the “sunlight” argument is that ... paid-subscription blogs actually don’t get sunlight. They’re posting in private more or less and building their business like the rest of us, from their audience recruiting for them. Substack is actually more dangerous in form if not in scale than other platforms because a giant white supremacist network, for instance, could prosper here without any of us knowing.
This is a great point, thanks Choire.
It has the potential to break Substack and turn it into the Twitter for newsletters. I just don't want it to happen because I truly believe it's still the greatest platform to publish my content and I love the ecosystem.
But as a German citizen Substack's position doesn't sit well with my audience. Some of the content they distribute is against German law and I even wonder if the EU will take notice of the recent developments.
Let's hope they'll change their minds!
Oh, that's very interesting. What are the EU's laws about content distribution?
Have a look at the Digital Service Act
Spot on, Casey. I’ll follow you anywhere you take Platformer.
The "sunlight is the best disinfectant" approach doesn't work because the people writing these things will STILL claim they are being censored, even when they're not. So they have their cake and eat it too, and their views get to be seen with no repurcussions.
It's like when MAGA Republicans claim they're being cancelled and censored literally at the same time as they're being interviewed on Fox News, the most popular cable news channel in the country.
No, the approach that works is to remove the content and don't hide away from it. Don't succumb to "free speech" arguments that don't apply to private organizations.
They can do this without being political. They need to state their rules, follow them, and own it.
Also, just to clarify: I don't want a social media site that only has my views. I don't like Twitter clones like Tribel that only marketed to the left.
I like having debates with people I don't agree with, it's been a part of the internet since its inception and it should never go away.
I just don't want to see content from fucking Nazis.
" ... [S]ince its inception " 3rd party content including personal attacks, suicide triggering, outing, advertisements, thread disruptions, civil torts, fraud, defamation among many civil wrongs & contractual breaches & of course, not so "fine people". The issues are much broader & go much deeper.
You can have debate without that. I don't like being in an echo chamber.
There's one other critical piece of Substack's actual business model that Casey didn't mention in this stalwart article: Substack paid piles of money to writers to build a critical mass of readers and subscribers. People here may know this better than I do (it's not something I per se have time to research in depth this morning) but weren't established journalists (including Matt Taibbi) given eye-watering sums to join Substack exclusively? Those contractual arrangements completely wipe out the "we're just software" position.
When you pay an individual to create content for you, and you as a part of that agreement make that relationship exclusive, congratulations. You're officially a publisher. To pretend to be otherwise, isn't just disingenuous. It's a form of intellectual gaslighting. If your company needs writers who still insist the 2020 election was stolen, that COVID is a government plot, and that the Holocaust was either justifiable or didn't actually happen to remain profitable, at least be transparent about that. I mean, if sunlight is your thing. Shine it on yourself. As a jew, a writer, a tech professional (of nearly 25 years), and a woman: I'm pretty much insisting on it. I'd even argue that position is easier to swallow.
Today, Taibbi (and this is according to my very unvetted GPT4 research) is likely a millionaire on the back of Substack; a relationship that started with a pretty handsome payout that led to his leaving Rolling Stone. If Substack can facilitate in the radicalization of someone who I once respected, what can it do to independent writers who need to build an audience today?
The prospects are not great. And this is all very exhausting. I'm betting that if you leave in protest of this, you and Zoe won't be alone (at least not for long), Casey. I won't punish you financially for staying (yet). But I left Twitter the second Elon replatformed Project Veritas. It won't take much for me to unsubscribe to my Substack newsletters.
Is there another platform you think is doing a better job? That you think would be the right model for Substack to follow? You mention that Facebook will not allow certain accounts and that YouTube restricts certain accounts from showing up in search, but also that both platforms viralized and spread fringe movements into much bigger ones. And it is that viralizing of extremist views that worries me.
My perspective has been that Substack’s product design has been much more effective at curbing hate than the moderation other platforms have implemented. It is very hard to go viral here, and especially for hate content. Even with notes and recommendations. As you mentioned yourself, you have only been recommended boring accounts and essays. To me, that makes it seem unlikely that a fringe extremist movement would be able to grow here?
I very much agree that the platform should remove incitations of violence as you have called for, and that when it comes to hate accounts "there ought to be ways to see them less; to recommend them less; to fund them less." But is there any platform that does that better than Substack? Because my experiences on other platforms (including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.) has been to see them more and be recommended to them more, and I have to imagine that means the platform is making more money from them?
But I'd love to know your thoughts on better platforms and ideas for curbing hate on the internet, you might know of some better case studies than I do!
The idea that Substack’s design makes it “unlikely that a fringe extremist movement would be able to grow here” can be debunked by Choire Sicha’s point above. Hateful publishers are able to thrive under the cover of paid subscriptions without any of us knowing. And Substack is still profiting and giving them the tools to flourish.
But paid content can't go viral. That only makes that content less read, and by a much smaller population. In my mind that makes it even less likely for extremist views to spread?
In your original comment, you said it was unlikely for a fringe extremist movement grow. Going viral is something different. If the question is whether or not hateful communities can grow on here, the answer is yes.
Surfacing something to the masses is what makes it grow. The more people that get eyes on something and that share and spread it make it grow. There can be no doubt that extremist movements actively grow and gain steam on platforms like Facebook and Twitter, as mentioned in this essay, and I do find that very dangerous. (It's why I am not on those platforms.)
You're right that hateful communities *could* grow here too, and that is definitely something we have to watch out for, but so far that has been much harder to achieve here than it would be on any other platform I'm aware of just because of the way the platform is designed. Unless you know of a platform that does an even better job?
No, they *are* growing here. That’s the problem. Platformer has paid subscriptions and reaches tens of thousands of people. Just because other people on Substack don’t know about it or read it doesn’t negate the fact that it’s reaching “the masses.” And any extremist on here has the exact same tools at their disposal--in addition to the recent open invitation by the founders.
Well yes, I realize that anybody can grow a following here. But the model doesn't reward hate the way other platforms do. A hot take just won't go as far here as it will anywhere else which is why there is less of it here than anywhere else. That's why I only want to understand if there is a platform that is doing an even better job at eradicating the hate problem. Because I think all the platforms are trying to figure this out in real-time and I'm very open to case studies if there is a better model!
Happy new year Casey !
I've been thinking of leaving Substack over it indeed. In France, the type of content they let on the platforme is actually outlawed. I'm not sure if the'vemade sure we don't see it (but I'm sure if they hadn't thought about it before, our lovely regulators would remind them as they seem keen on pinning down big tech lately).
I appreciate people like you are trying to reason with Substack and make them see how it's not OK to act like this. But I'll follow you elsewhere if you decide to leave.
Oh that's very interesting. What kind of content is outlawed in France? I'd love to learn more about how other countries handle this kind of thing!
Anything that promotes hate is outlawed, and there are specific laws around Nazi ideology and antisemitism
ty casey
stop messing with substack. They permit a high level of openness, which is good for society. If we’re exposed to extremist views and extremist interact with mainstream society then the impact of their ideas are mitigated. (See Strossen, 2020, “Hate”) The kind of censorship through public action being advocated here is explicitly addressed and refuted by John Stuart Mill in his essay “On Liberty” - it stultifies society, as we all benefit from constantly engaging with ideas adjacent to extremists ones. Taking those ideas away and making them hard to find leads to mainstream notions becoming “dead dogmas.”
I hope you will reconsider immediately, otherwise I will cancel my subscription to you, not substack.
Online businesses want to maximize profits. And it's more profitable to accept money from everyone, even if those people have awful viewpoints. So I'm not surprised that Substack is saying that they believe in free speech, that they're open to all viewpoints, etc. Until and unless it costs them serious money, they won't change their tune.
I'm guessing that means a combination of (a) publishers leaving the platform, (b) Substack's investors seeing their investment disappearing, (c) hate-speech laws in Europe and elsewhere making their product illegal and (d) middlemen like Stripe refusing to work with them because they promote hate speech.
I particularly think that (c) and (d) could be effective pressure points.
I've been pretty happy with Substack since starting my newsletter nearly a year ago. There are clear benefits to this platform. But if they continue to be indifferent to the suffering that they're causing, then I'll likely switch, too.
Casey -- Any word from Stripe?
Casey, your discussions with Substack are going mainstream... please keep it up. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/rcna132593