More than 200 Substack authors asked the platform to explain why it’s “platforming and monetizing Nazis,” and now they have an answer straight from co-founder Hamish McKenzie:
I just want to make it clear that we don’t like Nazis either—we wish no-one held those views. But some people do hold those and other extreme views. Given that, we don’t think that censorship (including through demonetizing publications) makes the problem go away—in fact, it makes it worse.
While McKenzie offers no evidence to back these ideas, this tracks with the company’s previous stance on taking a hands-off approach to moderation. In April, Substack CEO Chris Best appeared on the Decoder podcast and refused to answer moderation questions. “We’re not going to get into specific ‘would you or won’t you’ content moderation questions” over the issue of overt racism being published on the platform, Best said. McKenzie followed up later with a similar statement to the one today, saying “we don’t like or condone bigotry in any form.”
Not banning a group of people that is intolerant and promotes killing people they don’t like is totally a good idea. That worked well before…
If anyone can’t tell, my first paragraph is sarcastic.
I am aware people outside of Europe and Rwanda are absolutist on free speech but that I think it is because they have not experienced first hand what it’s like when hate speech becomes unbridled. It’s a classical liberal value to promote free speech at all cost, believing that good ideas will filter out from a stream of bad ones because they believe humans are inherently rational. Well, for many in Germany and Rwanda before, it made sense for them to kill “others” because those at the top said so. I am not going to call old school liberals naive, because of course they did not foresee free speech morphing into hate speech and then making unspeakably evil action into reality centuries later.
As a side note, the US actually thought about electronically interfering a Rwandan-government run radio station that propagates dehumanisation of Tutsis, but the US opted not to out of principle for freedom of speech. That radio station contributed to fomenting hate that led to the Rwandan genocide.
So, no-- an intolerant being intolerant has no place in society. Giving the intolerant platform will eventually stamp down others and ultimately free speech and liberty. Banning Nazis in a platform is no brainer. Like, after all they have done, why on earth would the intolerant be tolerated?
I see your point, and this is exactly why I say this shouldn’t happen on mainstream media - this should always be part of platforms one goes to in look for controversies.
We should not allow nor tolerate Nazism or other things like that on mainstream Lemmy instances, for example.
However, we have to set some place for everyone to have a voice. In many places, me calling for communism, for example, will be met with an instant permaban, with people saying I advocate gulags and bloody wars (I do not). And I always wish to have a place to voice my ideas, because I think they’re right, regardless of the sentiment that may push mainstream platforms one direction or the other. But that means you’ll end up needing a platform allowing everyone - and it should exist as well.
Those are just two systems, and both are necessary for us to prosper.