> We do not allow hate, defined as publishing content or funding initiatives that call for violence, exclusion, or segregation based on protected classes. This does include serious attacks on people based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, or medical condition. It does not include attacks on ideas, ideologies, organizations, or individuals for other reasons, even if those attacks are cruel or unfair.
And to reverse the situation: what about proponents of affirmative action, which is a call for active racial discrimination against some races like Asians and Whites? Or those calling for segregated graduation ceremonies at colleges?
How do words like “exclusion” or “segregation” apply in all these instances? Why doesn’t Substack just let all legal non-spam speech operate on its platform instead of defining vague rules that will no doubt be abused in the future?
If Substack practices the same censorship we've seen elsewhere, it really is not useful to me as a platform. We already have a whole collection of tech companies that practice biased censorship.
So first off substack currently right now hosts newsletters that are aggressively transgender-hostile and which have been nucleation sites for harassment against trans people. So at least for now it's a safe spot for your anti-trans newsletter or whatever it is you're coyly referring to here. Obviously and hopefully they might change their mind later under external pressure.
The millions of parents of girls should probably talk to their children to see what facets of life are currently causing them the most pain and distress because I doubt for most of them it's going to be trans teen athletes.
> substack currently right now hosts newsletters that are aggressively transgender-hostile
I’m sure this comes down to a hyperbolic claim, as we often see from transrights activists and those in favor of cancel culture. What does “hostile” mean to you? Did they call for violence? Or do they simply disagree with the forced assertion that transwomen are women, or that trans- and bio- athletes should have to compete against each other, or that anyone unwilling to date a trans person is a “bigot”?
> I doubt for most of them it's going to be trans teen athletes.
So all those who aspire to compete in a fair women’s league should sit aside when biological men take their opportunity away from them? Why should anyone get to trivialize their concerns? And more to the point, why call to shutdown writing and discussions about these concerns? That is plainly authoritarian.
They have one notorious writer, Graham Linehan, who's pretty cruel and mean-spirited about his opinions in this regard. I agree that "hostile" is often a false accusation in this context, and I get why they don't want to be seen as bowing to the mob on this (since many other Substack writers have much less justifiably been tarred as transphobic), but it really would make the issue a lot more clear-cut if they could find a way to get him to knock it off.
Sounds like neo-Puritan pearl clutching to me. Are we back in the 90s?
"Eminem's lyrics are so mean-spirited and hostile. It would really make the issue a lot more clear-cut if they could find a way to got him to knock it off."
It’s not bigotry, but rather just common sense. We have spaces for women for a reason, and it’s predicated on their biology, not arbitrary self-identification. Everyone has a right to discuss their views on this openly, without being subject to 1984-style authoritarian censorship from the mob. And that’s why Substack should allow these authors to write, without being subject to moderation (AKA censorship).
As for your casual use of the word “bigotry” - you’re using that label to attack my argument without actually saying anything substantial. In my view letting women’s sports be damaged in this manner is the real bigotry. We may disagree on that - so let’s both be allowed to discuss it online on Substack, in social media, and elsewhere without being subject to cancellation.
Bigots like you always label bigotry "common sense." it's quite disturbing that you regard.your personal belief as common sense while anything else is somehow not. But that is THE essence of bigotry.
I don't see how a corporate service can scale up the way substack wants to. If they editorialize , then they become the thing from which their users ran away in the first place. And they have to editorialize to survive, so really, there's no way to have the freedom they claim to offer in a corporate context. Only a public system (which is solely bounded by the legal limits on free speech) is able to offer that.
I don't understand this part of your argument. Why do they need to editorialize to survive? They can make money off readers subscribing to authors. If someone doesn't want to read a certain author's content, they don't have to click it or subscribe to it. That's it.
I'm not sure why the thinking these days is that some platform can't survive unless it editorializes. Amazon operated for years without censoring books for instance, rebuffing calls for censorship and committing to a free speech stance. Now they've changed direction (example 1 https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2021/02/when-amaz... example 2 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/technology/amazon-hitler-...) and I am not sure why. They would have no impact to their bottom line if they just stuck to their neutral stance, and I imagine the same is true for Substack.
They already are editorializing to some degree with their program of paying writers large advances.
They needed to choose who they would recruit to the platform and then pay them and that's an editorial decision. The fact that it's _also_ an open platform for anyone to write on doesn't change that.
I don't think editorializing is a simple on/off switch, and I think substack is trying to do "editorialize less" rather than "don't editorialize at all".
> Readers choose for themselves which writers to invite into their inboxes and their minds. And that’s why we have a hands-off philosophy when it comes to censorship.
If this is a PR piece, well and good. I do hope no one actually believes this.
Moderation is the product. If you succeed in scaling, then your platform will be used for everything from accounting to warfare logistics. How are you going to stop that without planning, researching and enforcing rules?
Free speech is a platonic ideal. This is, in my opinion, setting up expectations which are guaranteed to be disappointed.
> ... your platform will be used for everything from accounting to warfare logistics. How are you going to stop that without planning, researching and enforcing rules?
Is this not answered exactly by what you quoted?
> Readers choose for themselves which writers to invite into their inboxes and their minds.
No one is forced to read anything they don't choose to.
Twitter and just about any other platform is similar in that what you see is either indirectly or directly driven by you and your choices, yet people will go out of their way to find legal speech offensive.
So I guess it depends on how much they are willing to stick to their principles. I can only hope they do and don't suffer for people who seek out offense.
To me that seems like the difference I guess, the mob will always be there but it is individual writers rather than the chaotic mess of people and algo-amplified-words you are bombarded with on other platforms.
For example if you follow infosec twitter it's quite common to end up with a large amount of American political content whether you want it or not. Things like that don't really seem like a problem for substack where most have a single focus.
Not to say that a writer can't go rouge, turning from pacifist to war-monger overnight and angering a bunch of readers, but the fallout from that seems quite limited, it's far less the platform in such a case.
I've watched a few of my favourite journalists jump ship from big news companies with varying success, it's certainly not easy going full independent with your own site, even if you have a few decades of loyal readers behind you. Substack always comes across as a nice middle ground of independence with discoverability for professional writers along with less friction for readers.
It's amazing to me that a company that has been started so recently has put such little thought into editorial decisions and moderation.
> We do not allow hate,
Factually untrue. Substack is a welcome home for bigots that have been pushed off places like twitter (for exampl Graham Linehan)
Also for me, their speech on what they "tolerate" is worthless until they come clean about their editorial standards, ie, who do they pay to come write for them. Some people like Matty are honest, but it should be a requirement to disclocse that they're funded by the platfrom.
22 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 56.5 ms ] threadSo what does this mean when authors write about things like gender identity? Can Abigail Shrier (https://twitter.com/AbigailShrier/status/1277906221618487296) or Debra Soh (https://twitter.com/DrDebraSoh/status/1285649878308323328) or Ryan Anderson (https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2021/02/when-amaz...) expect to be allowed on this platform without being censored or deplatformed? What about the millions of parents of girls, who do not want transwomen (biological men) in women’s sports - would Substack label content pushing for such separation as “hateful”?
And to reverse the situation: what about proponents of affirmative action, which is a call for active racial discrimination against some races like Asians and Whites? Or those calling for segregated graduation ceremonies at colleges?
How do words like “exclusion” or “segregation” apply in all these instances? Why doesn’t Substack just let all legal non-spam speech operate on its platform instead of defining vague rules that will no doubt be abused in the future?
If Substack practices the same censorship we've seen elsewhere, it really is not useful to me as a platform. We already have a whole collection of tech companies that practice biased censorship.
The millions of parents of girls should probably talk to their children to see what facets of life are currently causing them the most pain and distress because I doubt for most of them it's going to be trans teen athletes.
I’m sure this comes down to a hyperbolic claim, as we often see from transrights activists and those in favor of cancel culture. What does “hostile” mean to you? Did they call for violence? Or do they simply disagree with the forced assertion that transwomen are women, or that trans- and bio- athletes should have to compete against each other, or that anyone unwilling to date a trans person is a “bigot”?
> I doubt for most of them it's going to be trans teen athletes.
So all those who aspire to compete in a fair women’s league should sit aside when biological men take their opportunity away from them? Why should anyone get to trivialize their concerns? And more to the point, why call to shutdown writing and discussions about these concerns? That is plainly authoritarian.
"Eminem's lyrics are so mean-spirited and hostile. It would really make the issue a lot more clear-cut if they could find a way to got him to knock it off."
If that's an important issue to parents, I'd say we're doing pretty well.
What about the millions of parents of whites that don't want blacks in their children's activities?
I'm not sure why being a parent somehow makes your desire to impose your bigotry on others more worthy of deference.
As for your casual use of the word “bigotry” - you’re using that label to attack my argument without actually saying anything substantial. In my view letting women’s sports be damaged in this manner is the real bigotry. We may disagree on that - so let’s both be allowed to discuss it online on Substack, in social media, and elsewhere without being subject to cancellation.
Maybe they can bring some light on why the lunatics are running the asylum in the west.
I don't understand this part of your argument. Why do they need to editorialize to survive? They can make money off readers subscribing to authors. If someone doesn't want to read a certain author's content, they don't have to click it or subscribe to it. That's it.
I'm not sure why the thinking these days is that some platform can't survive unless it editorializes. Amazon operated for years without censoring books for instance, rebuffing calls for censorship and committing to a free speech stance. Now they've changed direction (example 1 https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2021/02/when-amaz... example 2 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/technology/amazon-hitler-...) and I am not sure why. They would have no impact to their bottom line if they just stuck to their neutral stance, and I imagine the same is true for Substack.
They needed to choose who they would recruit to the platform and then pay them and that's an editorial decision. The fact that it's _also_ an open platform for anyone to write on doesn't change that.
Can you name any company that did not editorialize and was not shut down / forced to close etc?
Amazon is books, substack is media, and it wants to potentially replace newspapers, all of them
If this is a PR piece, well and good. I do hope no one actually believes this.
Moderation is the product. If you succeed in scaling, then your platform will be used for everything from accounting to warfare logistics. How are you going to stop that without planning, researching and enforcing rules?
Free speech is a platonic ideal. This is, in my opinion, setting up expectations which are guaranteed to be disappointed.
Is this not answered exactly by what you quoted?
> Readers choose for themselves which writers to invite into their inboxes and their minds.
No one is forced to read anything they don't choose to.
Twitter and just about any other platform is similar in that what you see is either indirectly or directly driven by you and your choices, yet people will go out of their way to find legal speech offensive.
So I guess it depends on how much they are willing to stick to their principles. I can only hope they do and don't suffer for people who seek out offense.
For example if you follow infosec twitter it's quite common to end up with a large amount of American political content whether you want it or not. Things like that don't really seem like a problem for substack where most have a single focus.
Not to say that a writer can't go rouge, turning from pacifist to war-monger overnight and angering a bunch of readers, but the fallout from that seems quite limited, it's far less the platform in such a case.
I've watched a few of my favourite journalists jump ship from big news companies with varying success, it's certainly not easy going full independent with your own site, even if you have a few decades of loyal readers behind you. Substack always comes across as a nice middle ground of independence with discoverability for professional writers along with less friction for readers.
> We do not allow hate,
Factually untrue. Substack is a welcome home for bigots that have been pushed off places like twitter (for exampl Graham Linehan)
Also for me, their speech on what they "tolerate" is worthless until they come clean about their editorial standards, ie, who do they pay to come write for them. Some people like Matty are honest, but it should be a requirement to disclocse that they're funded by the platfrom.