- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
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.”
The Kochs are Nazis. That’s not an ad hominem, that’s just a fact.
https://www.mockingbirdpaper.com/content/david-koch-industrialist-and-holocaust-denier-dies-age-79-american-politicians-scramble-new
They were even partly raised by a Nazi.
https://www.npr.org/2016/01/19/463565987/hidden-history-of-koch-brothers-traces-their-childhood-and-political-rise
And no, it doesn’t seem like a problem to me to call Nazis Nazis. Because they’re Nazis.
“Ad hominem” refers to ignoring the content of a message, and making your argument based on who is speaking. It doesn’t mean that your statement about the speaker isn’t factual, or that understanding more about who is speaking might not be relevant – it simply refers to the idea that you should at some point address the content of the message if you’re going to debate it.
In this case, I said something, you ignored the content and instead focused on the fact that I’d linked to something, and criticized the source of the thing I’d linked to. Okay, fair enough, the Koch brothers are Nazis. I don’t like them either. If you want to respond to the content of my message, I’ve now reframed it so the stuff I’m saying is coming directly from me, so that “but Reason.com!” isn’t any longer a way to dismiss it because of who is speaking.
I’m aware. And that is perfectly valid when the content of the message is defending monetizing Nazis is funded by Nazis.
You missed what I’m saying. I’m not funded by Nazis. You took my message and ignored what I was saying in favor of criticizing Reason.com. Fair enough. I was inviting you to continue the conversation, if you have an argument against the content, now that I’ve removed anything that could be construed as “because Reason.com says so” and simply said what I think about it.
Was your message based on what you read on a Nazi website? Otherwise, why did you link to it?
So no, I’m not suggesting you’re funded by Nazis. I’m suggesting that’s who you get your information from in order to make your argument, hence your linking to it.
Honestly? I didn’t read the Reason.com article. Someone else linked to it, I skimmed it and agreed with parts of the take that I saw, and threw a link in there as sort of an expansion of what I was saying so I wouldn’t have to keep typing the same types of arguments over and over. I just skimmed it again, from the beginning, and I have to say that broadly I agree with almost everything I see.
Quick work with
wcindicates that I’ve typed about 4500 words on this topic within this post. I typed one sentence where I linked to Reason.com, and somehow out of all the thousands of words, it seems like that one sentence is all you want to talk about. I don’t know how many times to say this before it sinks in, but it’s a lot more valid way to discuss with me, if you want to address directly what I’m saying as opposed to pointing to a certain source and saying I’m invalid because I used that source. I can assure you that the Reason.com article had 0% to do with forming these opinions in my mind.Additionally, I’ll say that this whole model you seem to have in mind, where I read an article on Reason.com and inhaled it like a AI language model and now I’m just parroting whatever I was exposed to, and blame for anything I’m saying attaches to the article because I was powerless to resist anything wrong in it, is kind of telling as to why you want to ban Nazi speech. The thing is, people can use judgement. I do. I read stuff and I consider it critically. I might see something with a swastika and read it, and come away somehow without having become a Nazi. I might agree with something even if I find the source reprehensible personally (as I do the Koch brothers, to whatever extent they were personally involved in this article), or I might just not care what the source is, and evaluate it on its own merits. That’s a good way to do it. Right? That’s why I genuinely just don’t care about the Reason.com article as a thing to argue about, and want to get back to discussing the facts of this actual discussion.
That you broadly agree with everything you see on a website funded by Nazis, that doesn’t speak highly of you.
Also, I said nothing about banning speech. I have been talking about not monetizing Nazis this entire time. Do not lie and put words in my mouth.
This thing I’m broadly agreeing with, in addition to being a viewpoint of this one article which you’ve managed to construct a connection back to some Nazis from, is also a viewpoint of the list of cosigners on this essay, which includes Edward Snowden and Richard Dawkins. Does that all of a sudden change your viewpoint on whether this is a valid thing for me to agree with? If, all of a sudden, some “good people” are saying it instead of some “bad people”?
I also agree with Winston Churchill on some things, even though he was a colonizing racist. I agree with some things Thomas Jefferson said, even though he was a literal slaveowner, which is arguably a much worse thing to be than an internet Nazi. Yes. I evaluate things on the merits, not on who agrees or disagrees with me. I’m not sold on the connection between “this essay” -> “the editors of Reason” -> “the Koch brothers giving it funding” -> “Nazis” meaning I’m directly agreeing with Nazis if I agree with this essay. But the big point is, I mostly just don’t care who said it when evaluating whether it’s true.
To me, it sounds like you’re so attached to saying viewpoints are good or bad depending on the people who said them that I’m not going to talk you out of it. Best of luck with it then, I guess.
If you’re only advocating for “demonetizing,” allowing the Nazis to remain on Substack but not get subscription revenue, my feeling on that is pretty much the same. The platform shouldn’t be in the business of rewarding or punishing people depending on whether they agree with the viewpoint. That should be up to the person reading.
It wasn’t a deliberate lie; I just assumed you wanted to ban them, but I’m happy to talk about it in terms of demonetizing instead. I apologize if I was misconstruing anything. I gave a quick stalk to your profile just now and you did say “If you do not support removing Nazis from the public sphere, you aren’t necessarily a Nazi. But you do support Nazis,” which some people could construe as advocating for banning them.
Substack makes money from the Nazis being monetized. They don’t monetize out of the kindness of their heart. They take a cut. It should be unacceptable to you that a mainstream company is profiting off of Nazis. It’s worrisome that it isn’t.
And before you ask me to define Nazi, we are talking about literal Nazis using Nazi symbology on Substack. Substack makes money from them. Why are you okay with that?
Also, I’m worried that you’re defending them making money from Nazis and not their banning sex workers. From OP’s article:
Do you “broadly agree” with that? If not, were you even aware of it? Did you read the article?