šDang It, I Didn't See the Nazis at First
1ļøā£ A Personal Essay from Hanlon's Reader
Hi! My nameās James Hanlon, Iām pretty new on Substack - just joined in August. Itās been super chill and friendly! There seems to be a group of cool people doing cool stuff like trying to make fiction Substacking happen.
š I write science fiction and post free content on Thursdays sorry plug over š
šNon-Fiction
In this series, and probably most of my šNon-Fiction, Iām going to use A LOT of links. I hate ads, which is why I love Substack, but when venturing out into the wild wild web you wonāt be so lucky. To prevent ad-itis, try these all-natural remedies:
š¦ Firefox - privacy-focused web browser with Read Mode (š)
š« uBlock Origin - extension to uBlock shitty ads
š» Ghostery - extension to make you a ghost, but in a good way
šµ If you donāt know where to start, tag me in a comment š
šDang It, I Didn't See the Nazis at First
A Personal Essay by James Hanlon - 12/15/23
1ļøā£ Dang It, I Didnāt See the Nazis at First
2ļøā£ ā¦Because America Has a Fascism Problem
3ļøā£ Garden of Shadows
Summary of Contents:
Apparently Substack Has a Nazi Problem
This topic really seems to be blowing up on Substack, which I think indicates that the Nazisā presence here is reaching a crossroads, or maybe an inflection point. Does Substack kick them out? Pull their ability to get payments? Moderate their posts?
Or do nothing, as people continue toā¦ make a racket?
HateĀ
Substack cannot be used to publish content or fund initiatives that incite violence based on protected classes. Offending behavior includes credible threats of physical harm to people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, disability or medical condition.
Based on what I can tell here from Substackās hate speech policy, this seems to indicate theyād be looking for a specific instance of incitement to violence or threats. Like if they were harrassing or calling for violence against someone in particular based on their race, ethnicity, etc. But I wanted to understand more:
We believe in the free press and in free speech āĀ and we do not believe those things can be decoupled.Ā
These beliefs inform how we have designed Substack, which is why, for instance, we donāt support advertising in the product despite many calls to do so, and itās why we will never use algorithms that optimize for engagement. However, we believe that our design of the product and the incentive structure we have built into it are the ultimate expression of our views. We do not seek to impose our views in the form of censorship or through appointing ourselves as the judges of truth or morality.Ā
I love the stance, love the transparency. Structuring the company around freedom of expression is great and I really do think much of the āshapeā of Substack is why itās appealing. Nothing shoved down your neck, but also the ability to say what you want. And I love that my email list is MY email list, not SubstackāsāI can pack up and leave with it if I choose. But this is where something doesnāt sit right with me.
Substack does moderate their content already:
Of course, there are limits. We do not allow porn on Substack, for example, or spam. We do not allow doxxing or harassment. We have content guidelines (which will evolve as Substack grows) with narrowly construed prohibitions with which writers must comply.
To take a step back, it was a random Note in my feed from a Substacker I didnāt know to
at The Elysian which started my descent earlier this morning into this wormhole of interconnected historical events. The Substacker later deleted the Note as part of a yearly cleanup (I followed up by email to confirm), but it was non-confrontational, polite, and I found myself very compelled by this small quote I had copied before the Note was deleted:ā¦ I donāt think we can absolve the company of the responsibility to limit hate speech.
Respectful disagreement about Nazis, on the internet? On the internet?? Substack, you really are something special. š¢
So then Iām wondering what Elle Griffin has said to trigger such a thoughtful and restrained response.
Free Speech Absolutism and Substack
I read Elleās article before jumping to any conclusions:
She makes many fair points about the way Substack is different from other platforms like Twitter and Facebook because it doesnāt force content on its usersāthey choose everything that gets sent to their inbox. So, to a degree, there is a sort of institutional or structural protection from hate speech just by self-sorting like that.
But again, something didnāt sit right with me.
From The Elysian:
I, and the writers who have signed this post, are among those who hope Substack will not change its stance on freedom of expression, even against pressure to do so.Ā
Because weāve seen that before and it hasnāt worked. Other social media platforms have actively given reach to an enormous amount of divisive content, and moderation has amounted to private companies deciding who to deplatform based on their own agenda. Facebook has struggled with hate speech and misinformation no matter what it has tried with its moderation policies, and Twitterās moderators have actively suppressed stories that might sway an upcoming election, among other discrepancies.
Make sure and take a gander at those two links, because this is where my red flags started going up. Weāre dealing with rhetoric through and through here when she says āmoderation has amounted to private companies deciding who to deplatform based on their own agenda.ā I mean, thatās not a serious statement right there.
I also donāt think the scale of moderation needed at Substack is anywhere near what companies like Facebook and Twitter are dealing with. In monthly pageviews (as of Dec 2023), itās the difference between 43.5 million (Substack) vs 5.9 billion (Twitter) and 16.1 billion (Facebook). Given their size, not taking action on this stuff isnāt a matter of Substackās ability, but a principled choice not to.
In the first Elysian link about Facebook struggling with misinfo/hate speech:
From Karen Hao at MIT Technology Review 11/5/21: āThe Facebook whistleblower says its algorithms are dangerous. Hereās whyā
The machine-learning models that maximize engagement also favor controversy, misinformation, and extremism: put simply, people just like outrageous stuff.
Sometimes this inflames existing political tensions. The most devastating example to date is the case of Myanmar, where viral fake news and hate speech about the Rohingya Muslim minority escalated the countryās religious conflict into a full-blown genocide. Facebook admitted in 2018, after years of downplaying its role, that it had not done enough āto help prevent our platform from being used to foment division and incite offline violence.ā
So I meanā¦ this is the kind of thing weāre talking about here. Where companies didnāt take enough responsibility over the power of their tech platform, and people did what people do: they used a tool for evil. Genocide. Nazi shit.
Letās not pretend that reasonable content moderation means no freedom of expression. Yes, content moderation is an extremely fine line. It takes balance, people are always going to try to work the refs, and we absolutely need to ensure that the power to moderate is never abused.
But itās presenting a false dichotomy to imply that completely unrestricted freedom of speech is the only solution. Thatās where, to me, people lose credibility. We have to draw the line somewhere. And so I was intrigued again when I saw this list of co-signers at the bottom of the article:
Sorry, kinda small, but itās a long list! Bari Weiss and Matt Taibbi are two names I am familiar with, and I donāt trust either of them. Iām not accusing anyone on that list of co-signers of anything, but I absolutely do not trust these two because I think theyāve both acted disingenuously in the past with this whole āwhy I left the leftā shtick. Which brings me back to the second link from The Elysian! ITāS MATT TAIBBI!!! (Bari Weiss also participated in the Twitter Files.)
š¦ Post-Vampire-Squid-Matt-Taibbi š¦
Youāre squidless, Matt! Absolutely squidless!! Make Taibbi Cool Again!! Get back to your roots and stop helping billionaires suck more money out of us, I want more of this unrepentant tomfoolery from you:
āThe worldās most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.ā
ā Matt Taibbi back before he jammed his blood funnel into Elonās moneyhole ā
If youāve never heard of the Twitter Files, hereās an article from The Nation that I thought did a good job picking apart the legitimate worries we should take from it.
And hereās another explanationāor perhaps visceration šāof the saga with some of my very favorite left political commentators, Sam Seder and Emma Vigeland of the Majority Report:
Conservatives are most upset about the Twitter Files because they think the Hunter Biden laptop + dick pic wombo combo would have won Trump the election in 2020, if only Twitter, the FBI, and their stupid talking dog hadnāt foiled their plans. That would have meant Trump wouldnāt have been forced to attempt Brooks Brothers Riot 2.0 by overturning the election results on Jan 6. Lucky for us, Mike Pence didnāt have the courage to do something he knew he didnāt have the legal authority to do by refusing the count.
I remember I was working from home on January 6, 2021 when Donald Trump, the biggest traitor to the US since Robert E. Lee, sent an angry, armed mob of his supporters to attack the US Capitol and disrupt the process of formally counting the Electoral College votesāall based on the lie that the election had been stolen. Key figures appointed by Trump refused to send help for Capitol Police during the attack.
January 6th had never really been a significant date in my mind before that point. The whole ceremony was, well, ceremonial before. The swearing in, the speeches, were all part of this politics-as-ritual beforeāas long as the right words are said, the power magically transfers from one person to another. And every single US President until Donald Trump engaged in a peaceful transfer of power.
Bottom line, I think Taibbi, Weiss, and others exaggerated claims and generally tried to make hay out of a story that was handed to them by a billionaire to serve his own interests. They want it to seem like conservatives are being censored by these social media companies, but conservatives are often the most amplified voices on these platforms. Part of that strategy is working the refs, getting them to be more lenient.
Itās not like Iām not worried about government censorship and surveillance, that kind of overreach 100% happens. But these types of historically right-wing institutions like the FBI tend to have an anti-left-wing, not anti-conservative, slant:
From Branko Marcetic at The Nation 4/26/23: What Were the Twitter Files?
Take the FBI, which just in recent years has turned its spying power on Black activists protesting police brutality in ways that the ACLU has said are ābuilt on anti-Black racial stereotypes,ā investigated and infiltrated the Standing Rock protest movement, and carried out a nationwide sweep of Muslim households on the eve of the 2016 election. There is alarming evidence of far-right sympathies within the Bureau and its collaboration with far-right extremists for the purpose of targeting anti-fascists. The FBI most recently made headlines for its role in the prosecution of āCop Cityā protesters in Atlanta and its surveillance of connected activist groups.
I think this is all really interesting because the Twitter Files actually ties in to this whole current Nazi-free-speech-absolutism conversation happening now on Substack. Part of what caused a falling out between Elon and Matt is that Elon tried to censor Substack on Twitter (like all links from the entire company) after Substack Notes launched, and Matt left Twitter over the OBVIOUS conflict between Elonās censorship of a direct competitor and his claims of being a free speech absolutist:
Whatever was going on between Twitter and Substack had nothing to do with me or with other Substack writers, and if Twitter was going to label our work unsafe and not allow us to share my articles, I couldnāt endorse all this by using the platform, and said so.
Richard Spencerās Substack, the Unite the Right Rally, and Heather Heyerās Murder
Yup, there it is. I wonāt link it but itās easy to find. Pretty innocuous-looking, which is what someone like Richard Spencer is there for. Nice, uhā¦ pure white bust. Just a subtle dash of the olā western chauvinism.
From Southern Poverty Law Centerās bio on Spencer:
His clean-cut appearance conceals a radical white separatist whose goal is the establishment of a white ethno-state in North America.
Iāve seen interviews, podcasts, etc with Spencer openly saying this. Some choice quotes (censored) here from leaked audio when Spencer thought he was only talking to other bigots like Milo Yiannopoulos and Nick Fuentes.
What we all need to understand is that fascists are fundamentally not obligated to take language seriously. They will say ANYTHING. They donāt care about the truth, they donāt even really care about freedom of speech, they just care about the freedom of their speech. The second they have the power, or it becomes inconvenient, they walk back on those claims, just like Elon Musk with his professed virtuous free-speechiness. The argument is designed to make you put your guard down.
And they often get away with it because they know that many people in America are unable to reckon with our countryās history, and conflate criticism of our own racist past with anti-American sentiment. Itās likeā¦ white supremacy kind of goes with the grain here.
Which is what the entire āUnite the Rightā rally was aboutāprotecting the statue of Robert E. Lee (which the citizens of Charlottesville VOTED to remove) because a lot of Americans have a soft spot for white racist leaders of insurrections.
So whatās stopping Richard Spencer, or other Nazis, from using the money they are currently getting from Substack paid subs for another event like Unite the Right?
Spencer and others who organized the rally lost a civil lawsuit which ended with a jury ordering ā17 white nationalist leaders and organizations to pay more than $26 million in damages Tuesday over the violence that erupted during the deadly 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville.ā
This also resulted in the infamous quote from Trump refusing to initially condemn the neo-Nazis and Confederates at the event, claiming there were āvery fine people on both sidesā and that, basically, the anti-racist protesters started it.
From Jonathan Lemire and Julie Pace at AP News 8/15/17: Defiant Trump insists anew: Blame both sides for violence
Trumpās remarks were welcomed by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, who tweeted, āThank you President Trump for your honesty & courage to tell the truth.ā
Justā¦ guysā¦ letās take a look around here at whatās really happening. Right-wingers literally tried to overthrow the government on Jan 6. They donāt care about democracy, they donāt care about the rules, they care about power. Donāt let yourselves fall into this rhetorical trap where if we donāt allow ALL discourse, everythingās going to get censored. Itās good to stop Nazis from being able to organize and fund their movement.
Richard Spencer & co used PayPal to organize the āblood and soilā march at Charlottesville University where a bunch of white bigots chanted āJews will not replace us,ā as well as the Unite the Right Rally itself, which ended in neo-Nazis and Confederates murdering Heather Heyer and injuring others. Itās pretty clear that the money Spencer used incited bigoted violence, and his beliefs havenāt changed.
PayPal revoked his ability to do business with them after it was proven by Southern Poverty Law Center that Spencer and other organizers ārelied on the platform to move funds in the run up to the ultimately deadly event.ā
This isnāt mindless thought-police censorship, itās due diligence. Fine, you want to let him and other Nazis speak? I understand the conviction to stick to your guns and protect the pro-free-speech position youāve staked out. But this guy, and others heās helping promote, have actively harmed people. Are you going to wait for them to do something again using the money theyāre getting through Substack?
You donāt have to completely remove the Nazis if you really donāt want to kick them out, but at least you could prevent them from getting funding. Free posts are still free speech. Just donāt let them make a safe, comfortable, paid home here. Donāt promote their content with āBestsellerā badges. There are multiple places where you could draw that line with varying degrees of severity.
Again, Substack DOES moderate by removing pornographic content so itās not like itās a glorious walled garden with 100% free speech. So is porn worse than Nazisāor is it just that porn is worse than Nazis for the business? You donāt want Substack to be the new OnlyFans, I get that, but can Substack not be the new Stormfront either?
Like I think people would be cool if you want to set another rule on top of āno pornā thatās just āno Nazi shitā and you can pretty much bet thatās gonna be a winner for everybody except the Nazis. Take it slow, go case by case. But do something.
Substack doesnāt have to worry about pushback from advertisers because they donāt have any. The way I see it, the best way to move the needle on this is continuing to speak out, monitoring their activity, and specifically not letting Substack leadership off the hook. Make them speak to this. They should be questioned since they are the ones making these decisions.
Iām going to end with one last quote from the Atlantic article that seems to have sparked this little firestorm on Substack:
From Jonathan M. Katz at The Atlantic 11/28/23: Substack Has a Nazi Problem
The platform has shown a surprising tolerance for extremists who circumvent its published rules. Patrick Casey, a leader of Identity Evropa, a defunct neo-Nazi group, had been banned from Twitter and TikTok and suspended from YouTube after running afoul of those platformsā terms of service. (Elon Musk, Twitterās owner, subsequently announced an āamnestyā that restored Caseyās account, among others.) Perhaps most damagingly to a content creator, Stripe had prohibited Casey from using its services.
But Substack was willing to let a white supremacist get back on his feet. Casey launched a free Substack newsletter soon after the 2020 election. Months later, he set up a paywall, getting around Stripeās ban by involving a third-party payment processor. āIām able to live comfortably doing something I find enjoyable and fulfilling,ā he wrote on his Substack in 2021. āThe cause isnāt going anywhere.ā Caseyās newsletter remains active; through Substackās recommendations feature, he promotes seven other white-nationalist and extremist publications, one of which has a Substack ābestsellerā badge.
1ļøā£ Dang It, I Didnāt See the Nazis at First
2ļøā£ ā¦Because America Has a Fascism Problem
3ļøā£ Garden of Shadows
You made it all the way down here?? Thanks!
So likeā¦ maybe you want a palate cleanser? Some science fiction, perhaps? š„ŗ
Or you loved it and want more like this? Best way to get more šNon-Fiction content like this is to Donate at Ko-Fi or Subscribe for free now from this post! š§”
šShort Stories | šBooks | šPersonal Essays | šNewsletter | āAbout | š”Home
This is the most complete, best contextualized explanation and argument for action I have seen on this topic thus far. Thank you.
The "free speech absolutists" are disingenuously conflating Substack and the "Marketplace of Ideas" - and are encouraged by Substack to do so. Substack doesn't give a rat's ass about "free speech" - they just want to be the sole and whole "Marketplace of Ideas" to maintain the delusion of "infinite growth" to justify their nose-bleed VC valuations. Full stop.