Why I'm Not Leaving Substack For the Foreseeable Future (And An Answer to Casey Newton)
There’s been some talk lately about Substack supposedly allowing pro-Nazi, white supremacist, and right-wing extremist content to flourish on its platform, and certain publishers have made the decision to leave out of moral obligation. I received one such post yesterday from a publication I subscribe to, although their reason for leaving had more to do with their feed having run its course.
They mentioned a high-profile tech newsletter called Platformer, the bulk of which is written by Casey Newton. About two weeks ago Mr. Newton published a lengthy article about why Platformer was leaving Substack.
While the article seems to have a diplomatic tone, the language they use elsewhere shows what their true colors are. Pronouncements such as “We’ve seen this movie before,” for instance, indicates that someone’s beef is more political than a true act of conscience.
Me, I'm not leaving anytime soon, God willing. I like Substack.
Now, I’m not judging anyone who chooses to leave. We all have our own opinions and have to do what works best for us. However, this is why I find the “We’re leaving because white-supremacists, right-wingers and Nazis” reason suspect:
Consider the source.
It’s a little funny that only a few mainstream outlets have reported on Substack’s supposed “Nazi problem.” Naturally, they’re not above making snap judgements, with their bias so obvious that it reeks (Exhibit A: NBC News). It’s also funny that two of the people writing about this topic, Oliver Darcy and Taylor Lorenz, are more activists than journalists. Darcy has a history of going after anyone who doesn’t align with Leftist ideology. Lorenz is an attention junkie whose big claim to fame is targeting and doxxing Chaya Raichik, better known as Libs of TikTok (Incidentally, Raichik has a Substack page). That right there says this is political and likely not as widespread a problem as Platformer wants us to believe.
Not everyone is fooled, though. The Atlantic piece that supposedly started the controversy, “Substack Has A Nazi Problem” has been roundly called out by eagle-eyed journalists. Jesse Singal has showed Newton’s evasiveness when questioned on his position and tactics.
No one’s forcing anyone to read or accept objectionable content.
In his article, “Why Substack Is At A Crossroads,” Newton says this:
So long as Substack allows itself to be perceived — encourages itself to be perceived! — as a home for Nazis, they will open accounts here and start selling subscriptions. Why wouldn’t they?
At the end of the exit article, Newton doubled down:
Substack deserves credit for kicking off a revolution in independent publishing. But the world it helped to birth is now much bigger than its own platform. Next week we will move to a new home in that world. One where readers can feel confident their money is not going to accelerate the growth of hate movements. And one where we are no longer called upon constantly to defend an ideology we do not believe in.
Um, excuse me? Since when is affirming Nazi ideology or any other ideology required or encouraged by Substack? This is a flat-out LIE. If it were true, would Substack have built the platform that it has? No. This seems like desperation on Newton’s part to justify moving his publication and it’s completely unnecessary.
Also, Substack is not the first independent publishing platform, not by a long shot.
Every platform has problematic content.
Mr. Newton does acknowledge that every platform is going to have objectionable content. I agree; I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve seen content on Instagram that violates their Terms of Service, yet somehow is allowed to remain on the platform. Same thing with X or any other service, although in my experience X has gotten better lately about enforcing its rules evenly, whereas in the pre-Elon Musk days there was a concerted effort to target anything Twitter didn’t want on the platform, even if it didn’t violate TOS.
In another article criticizing Substack, Newton states that he wants Substack to enable users to avoid offending content more easily. This already exists. Don’t like something? Don’t search for it. Turn it off. Unsubscribe. Report if necessary. Block. Walk away. Move on. That’s what free-thinking adults do.
Moving a publication to Ghost or some other platform is not going to fix anything.
Ghost seems to be the ex-Substack user’s Mastadon. Users have to know how to code to publish, so unless a writer pays for GhostPro, which is nine dollars a month, it’s not a one-for-one equivalent of Substack. Growth is not possible in the same way on Ghost, so unless a publication has a hefty subscriber base going in, life is going to be frustrating. Although, from what I’ve heard, Ghost’s SEO game is on point.
On the downside, Ghost very likely features at least some of what Newton would consider objectionable, and Ghost watchdogs content even less than Substack does. Sure, Ghost’s CEO promising that the site will delete any pro-Nazi content is impressive, but odds are excellent that the promise is merely showbiz.
The vast majority of Substack users aren’t publishing problematic content.
According to Axios, as of March of last year there were over 17,000 paid writers on Substack, with two million total paid subscriptions. How many pro-Nazi newsletters are getting deleted? Five. That’s 0.0294%. Sure, there might be more, but saying an entire platform with thousands of diverse readers and writers is pro-Nazi is like acting as if a chicken piccata is ruined because a lemon seed or two fell in the sauce.
Mr. Newton himself admitted that the posts Substack recommended to him weren’t pro-Nazi or extremist or anything else he considered inflammatory. He’s also admitted so-called “extremists” don’t dominate the platform. Yet he wants people to believe that Substack is also full of Nazis. It doesn’t wash.
Networking is bad? Really?
Mr. Newton says that Substack allowing writers to network and recommend each other is a problem because it gives that supposed pro-Nazi content more reach. Welp, by that logic, Blogger and WordPress ought to remove their blogroll widgets…oh, wait. Seriously, networking has been done since the beginning of time, and just because people we disagree with network doesn’t mean the practice is evil. Everyone does it because it’s human nature.
Trendy buzzwords lose their punch sooner or later.
As anyone who’s been around today’s media and social media platforms is no doubt well-aware of, words like “right-wing,” “extremist,” “fascist,” “white nationalist” and “Nazi” are thrown around so much that they don’t mean anything except, “Everything I don’t like is right-wing, extremist, fascist, white nationalist and Nazi.”
It would be interesting to know some specifics about those supposed “extremist” and “right-wing” newsletters Platformer claims to be concerned about. The phrase, “replacement theory” gets bandied around a lot but nothing else beyond vague “violent ideas.” In fact, none of the sources propping up Mr. Newton have gotten specific about what is going on. Not that they should name names, but they should at least support their arguments better.
Yes, Casey. There IS a slippery slope.
Per Mr. Newton, the “slippery slope” argument is another way of shouting, “Squirrel!” instead of getting with the times.
Um, no.
The problem with making decisions based on current trends and mores is that current trends and mores go in cycles. Sooner or later, those who are censoring become the censored. Or those whom they enabled discard them because their usefulness is spent.
Make no mistake: Those who seek to control narratives always look for more power and control. As the ancient cliche goes, “Give ‘em an inch, and they’ll take a mile.”
In the end, it’s not about doing the right thing or even about Substack itself.
Let’s not kid ourselves. The same people complaining about Substack being pro-Nazi are the same people complaining about Elon Musk buying Twitter/X. They’re the same people who deny that the legacy media has lost trust with audiences. They’re the same people calling for the eradication of “misinformation.” It’s not about protecting anything except their narrative and silencing other narratives. They’re mad because the carte blanche they used to enjoy on X is now gone and Substack warned X workers who quit to not bring their drama to Substack.
Most of all, Newton and his cronies are mad that writers they want to shut down have a platform from which to write.
Censorship is insidious business, and Substack, while not perfect, deserves kudos for its committment to healthy discourse, something that is, sadly, almost lost in our society today. The platform doesn’t suit everyone and that’s fine. For me, although I wish I could align text in my posts, Substack is a pretty good place to be and I’m enjoying my time there.