I have a substack, and was trying to understand the excitement. After all, my Substack work is not appearing next to Nazi propaganda. Nothing I do on my substack I am aware of provides a boost to Nazis.
So how is the world a worse place because I run a substack?
Do these people get this excited about software? Would they for example, stop using MS Office because Microsoft does nothing to prevent sales to politically far right groups?
Another factor to consider: Substack creators – on whom the entire model relies – are largely overthinkers and worriers. After all, that's why a lot of us feel compelled to write – to unpick our fears and connect with those who share them. So, while I totally agree with your overall projection, I do think this user base isn't precisely comparable to other platforms. I'm writing more on this myself at the moment.
I think this misses a huge factor in all of this, which is Hamish's terrible and unprecedented response. The guy went on record to say "Nazis welcome! Hitler fans can run a profitable business here, we won't stop you!" In terms of instant brand damage, that's got to be up their with Gerald Ratner saying his shops sold "cheap crap".
After that, it doesn't actually matter how many Nazis are on Substack, even if the number is currently zero.
To make an analogy: imagine if your local swimming pool announces that they're firing all of their lifeguards. They release a statement saying, "It's very sad when people drown. We wish it didn't happen. But sometimes it does and we feel it's best to let nature take its course."
Would you swim in that pool? Would you let your kids swim in that pool? Would you feel reassured if people told you that drownings were practically zero anyway?
Substack does have Nazis--Richard Spencer has over 10k subs here and his stack is fully paywalled, so his % of paying supporters is probably much higher than the standard 4%. But that's by the by, because the real problem is that Hamish has hung a big NAZIS WELCOME sign at the door. Even when people don't see any Nazis, they're still going to see that sign. And they're going to go somewhere else.
I agree that the user revolt probably won't have any long term effects, but it doesn't matter. Hamish has tanked this site.
To be honest, I was writing a longer and more thoughtful post to respond to this; frankly though, citing Jesse Singal is a huge red flag.
The key problem with this debate is that Casey, as he admitted in his newsletter announcing his departure from Substack today, made a critical error. He narrowed his scope to literal Nazi publications -- imagery, slogans, etc -- to see if Substack would do the bare minimum to remove the absolute worst of the worst offenders, the sort of content that surely nobody would tolerate.
In doing so, he shifted the terms of the argument. Because it's not just about Nazis; it's about hate speech in general. It's about folks using the cover of saying they represent right-wing viewpoints or "just asking questions" to spread racist, anti-LGBT or anti-trans views, among others. (Jesse Singal has a history of "concern trolling" to spread anti-trans messaging.)
Now that is a tricky area; it is a more slippery slope, because it's not especially clear-cut, especially given how clever some of these writers are about masking their intent behind things like "we're just asking questions" or "we believe in free speech."
Obviously, that's not a call to ban literally every right-wing newsletter in existence. But that's the way the argument has shifted. That's how the right views this fight, that the left is coming for them. And that's why you have folks like Jesse Singal ("I’ve written many Singal-Minded posts highlighting deficiencies in both left-of-center journalism...") so keen to poke holes in the narrative, because it's become a left vs right issue, with both sides incentivized to push the narrative in their direction.
Which is why I am quite disappointed in you not to see that.
Is there another problem undermining the effectiveness of user revolts, namely that these are (by definition) "social" platforms? It is all very well being frustrated or outraged by a platform's decision making, but there is no point being on a social platform with only one user. Once a platform reaches critical mass, there is no / little alternative to being a sheep rather than a goat. The same is true of software: you can give up using Acrobat because it decides to go to a subscription model, but when the smaller alternatives start doing the same (PDF X, I am looking at you) there is little argument with Adobe when everyone is sending you PDF which have been created using it and which don't function 100% perfectly in other packages.
Nice article.
I have a substack, and was trying to understand the excitement. After all, my Substack work is not appearing next to Nazi propaganda. Nothing I do on my substack I am aware of provides a boost to Nazis.
So how is the world a worse place because I run a substack?
Do these people get this excited about software? Would they for example, stop using MS Office because Microsoft does nothing to prevent sales to politically far right groups?
Another factor to consider: Substack creators – on whom the entire model relies – are largely overthinkers and worriers. After all, that's why a lot of us feel compelled to write – to unpick our fears and connect with those who share them. So, while I totally agree with your overall projection, I do think this user base isn't precisely comparable to other platforms. I'm writing more on this myself at the moment.
Nailed it Charles in a world where nobody cares and, by implication, you can ignore everybody.
I think this misses a huge factor in all of this, which is Hamish's terrible and unprecedented response. The guy went on record to say "Nazis welcome! Hitler fans can run a profitable business here, we won't stop you!" In terms of instant brand damage, that's got to be up their with Gerald Ratner saying his shops sold "cheap crap".
After that, it doesn't actually matter how many Nazis are on Substack, even if the number is currently zero.
To make an analogy: imagine if your local swimming pool announces that they're firing all of their lifeguards. They release a statement saying, "It's very sad when people drown. We wish it didn't happen. But sometimes it does and we feel it's best to let nature take its course."
Would you swim in that pool? Would you let your kids swim in that pool? Would you feel reassured if people told you that drownings were practically zero anyway?
Substack does have Nazis--Richard Spencer has over 10k subs here and his stack is fully paywalled, so his % of paying supporters is probably much higher than the standard 4%. But that's by the by, because the real problem is that Hamish has hung a big NAZIS WELCOME sign at the door. Even when people don't see any Nazis, they're still going to see that sign. And they're going to go somewhere else.
I agree that the user revolt probably won't have any long term effects, but it doesn't matter. Hamish has tanked this site.
To be honest, I was writing a longer and more thoughtful post to respond to this; frankly though, citing Jesse Singal is a huge red flag.
The key problem with this debate is that Casey, as he admitted in his newsletter announcing his departure from Substack today, made a critical error. He narrowed his scope to literal Nazi publications -- imagery, slogans, etc -- to see if Substack would do the bare minimum to remove the absolute worst of the worst offenders, the sort of content that surely nobody would tolerate.
In doing so, he shifted the terms of the argument. Because it's not just about Nazis; it's about hate speech in general. It's about folks using the cover of saying they represent right-wing viewpoints or "just asking questions" to spread racist, anti-LGBT or anti-trans views, among others. (Jesse Singal has a history of "concern trolling" to spread anti-trans messaging.)
Now that is a tricky area; it is a more slippery slope, because it's not especially clear-cut, especially given how clever some of these writers are about masking their intent behind things like "we're just asking questions" or "we believe in free speech."
Obviously, that's not a call to ban literally every right-wing newsletter in existence. But that's the way the argument has shifted. That's how the right views this fight, that the left is coming for them. And that's why you have folks like Jesse Singal ("I’ve written many Singal-Minded posts highlighting deficiencies in both left-of-center journalism...") so keen to poke holes in the narrative, because it's become a left vs right issue, with both sides incentivized to push the narrative in their direction.
Which is why I am quite disappointed in you not to see that.
Thank you Charles, as ever.
Is there another problem undermining the effectiveness of user revolts, namely that these are (by definition) "social" platforms? It is all very well being frustrated or outraged by a platform's decision making, but there is no point being on a social platform with only one user. Once a platform reaches critical mass, there is no / little alternative to being a sheep rather than a goat. The same is true of software: you can give up using Acrobat because it decides to go to a subscription model, but when the smaller alternatives start doing the same (PDF X, I am looking at you) there is little argument with Adobe when everyone is sending you PDF which have been created using it and which don't function 100% perfectly in other packages.
I enjoyed the Random Capitals Rant too.