“We don’t think that censorship (including through demonetizing publications) makes the problem go away.”

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.”

  • 𝔇𝔦𝔬@lemy.lolEnglish
    28141·
    1 year ago

    Hearing some one out and not changing your viewpoint after the conversation, doesn’t make you one of them. 🙄

    • Tikiporch@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1103·
      1 year ago

      Thing is, we’ve heard out the nazis before. We don’t need to do that anymore.

        • NaibofTabr@infosec.pubEnglish
          362·
          1 year ago

          I like Michael Okuda’s take on this:

          The Paradox of Tolerance disappears if you look at tolerance, NOT as a moral standard, but as a social contract. If someone does not abide by the terms of the contract, they are not covered by it. In other words, the intolerant aren’t deserving of your tolerance.

          (twitter link)

          Personally, I think there’s some value in allowing the Nazis to publicly self-identify, because then we know who the Nazis are. We (society) don’t need to tolerate what they say just to prove that we’re tolerant, but it’s probably useful to know who they are, and for them to volunteer that information. Then we respond with public ridicule and name-and-shame.

          Also, that doesn’t require that a privately owned business (e.g. substack) should provide a platform for Nazi bullshit.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldEnglish
            8·
            1 year ago

            Michael Okuda is one of the great contributors to design thanks to the influences of Star Trek: The Next Generation and later shows- he was behind a lot of the look- and almost no one knows who he is. It’s a real shame since, as you showed here, he’s smart in other ways too.

    • db2@lemmy.worldEnglish
      884·
      1 year ago

      There are some things not worth listening to. Not all opinions are created equal.

    • xkforce@lemmy.worldEnglish
      341·
      1 year ago

      My viewpoint is that I dont have any obligation to “hear out” a nazi. And neither does anyone else. GTFO with this “even nazis should be given a fair shake” shit.

      • winterayars@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        3·
        1 year ago

        issuing correction on a previous post of mine, regarding the terror group ISIL. you do not, under any circumstances, 'gotta hand it to them

        -Dril

    • z3rOR0ne@lemmy.mlEnglish
      203·
      1 year ago

      When it comes to listening to hate speech and not condoning it outrright then and there, even if you don’t explicitly support it, it does make you complicit, and it shows you’re willing to turn a blind eye to it, and that speaks negatively to your character.

      Don’t be a Nazi sympathizer, don’t let them off the hook, don’t let them spread their hate and lies. You disagree with Nazism? Then don’t give it even an inch to spread. Kill it in the cradle.