Substack Versus the Slippery Slope

The real reason to keep even Nazis on the platform.

Substack is once again under fire for taking free speech too far. The Atlantic declares “Substack has a Nazi problem”:

Substack’s leaders also proudly disdain the content-moderation methods that other platforms employ, albeit with spotty results, to limit the spread of racist or bigoted speech. An informal search of the Substack website and of extremist Telegram channels that circulate Substack posts turns up scores of white-supremacist, neo-Confederate, and explicitly Nazi newsletters on Substack—many of them apparently started in the past year. These are, to be sure, a tiny fraction of the newsletters on a site that had more than 17,000 paid writers as of March, according to Axios, and has many other writers who do not charge for their work. But to overlook white-nationalist newsletters on Substack as marginal or harmless would be a mistake.

The New York Times tsk-tsks at continuing inaction:

Under pressure from critics who say Substack is profiting from newsletters that promote hate speech and racism, the company’s founders said Thursday that they would not ban Nazi symbols and extremist rhetoric from the platform…

The response came weeks after The Atlantic found that at least 16 Substack newsletters had “overt Nazi symbols” in their logos or graphics, and that white supremacists had been allowed to publish on, and profit from, the platform. Hundreds of newsletter writers signed a letter opposing Substack’s position and threatening to leave. About 100 others signed a letter supporting the company’s stance.

In response to all this, Substack’s Hamish McKenzie published a J.S. Mill-flavored note defending Substack’s approach:

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.

We believe that supporting individual rights and civil liberties while subjecting ideas to open discourse is the best way to strip bad ideas of their power. We are committed to upholding and protecting freedom of expression, even when it hurts.

But the New York Times reports that the science of misinformation has recently discredited the Millian tradition:

Mr. McKenzie also argued in his statement that censorship of ideas that are considered to be hateful only makes them spread.

But research in recent years suggests the opposite is true.

“Deplatforming does seem to have a positive effect on diminishing the spread of far-right propaganda and Nazi content,” said Kurt Braddock, a professor of communication at American University who has researched violent extremist groups.

When extremists are removed from a platform, they often go to another platform, but much of their audience does not follow them and their incomes are eventually diminished, Professor Braddock said.

“I can appreciate somebody’s dedication to freedom of speech rights, but freedom of speech rights are dictated by the government,” he said, noting that businesses can choose the types of content they host or prohibit.

The leftist bias of “misinformation studies” is so overwhelming that I put little stock in any of this research. But the conclusion that harsh censorship crushes dissent is intrinsically plausible. Despite his famous support for the long-run fruits of free speech, John Stuart Mill himself acknowledged as much in On Liberty:

[T]he dictum that truth always triumphs over persecution is one of those pleasant falsehoods which men repeat after one another till they pass into commonplaces, but which all experience refutes... To speak only of religious opinions: the Reformation broke out at least twenty times before Luther, and was put down. Arnold of Brescia was put down. Fra Dolcino was put down. Savonarola was put down. The Albigeois were put down. The Vaudois were put down. The Lollards were put down. The Hussites were put down. Even after the era of Luther, wherever persecution was persisted in, it was successful. In Spain, Italy, Flanders, the Austrian empire, Protestantism was rooted out; and, most likely, would have been so in England, had Queen Mary lived, or Queen Elizabeth died. Persecution has always succeeded, save where the heretics were too strong a party to be effectually persecuted.

On reflection, however, Substack could make a far stronger argument for platforming and monetizing everyone: the woke slippery slope. “Once you censor the blatantly heinous, you’ll start censoring the arguably heinous” has a long history in arguments about toleration and free speech. What we’ve learned since 2010 is that if the slippery slope argument had never existed, wokeness would have inspired us to discover it. This Orwellian movement habitually decries even the mildest criticisms of its dogmas as the vilest forms of oppression. See the absurd yet successful efforts to smear J.K. Rowling as a “transphobe,” Roland Fryer as a “sexual harasser,” and Harald Uhlig as a racist. Indeed, the woke habitually damn even fellow leftists for bizarre neo-offenses like “misgendering” and “brown-voice.” The woke mandate new words for every occasion, yet, like Yahweh in the Old Testament, they forbid us to even pronounce their name.

My point? When faced with a movement this madly censorious, the best response is to say No to everything they ask for. Everything. Why? Because once you censor Nazis for them, they’ll just keep ratcheting up their demands until you — yes, you — live in fear of censorship, too.

This isn’t just morbid thinking. I’ve long acknowledged that appeasement often works. Just not with the woke. The New York Times article casually lumps Richard Hanania, possibly the world’s greatest living essayist, in with the Nazis. Why? Because he anonymously wrote some bad stuff in his early twenties. Months prior to his cancellation, Hanania was already defending near-open borders, but that didn’t matter to his would-be career destroyers. The woke replace “If you’re not with us, you’re against us” with “If you were ever against us on anything, we’re against you forever.”

That’s why I enthusiastically support Substack’s hard line on free speech. Indeed, I favor an even harder line. Not because free speech will ultimately wipe Nazism off the planet, but because the strict principle of free speech prevents the woke from treating the rest of us like Nazis. Thanks to their current policy, all of Substack’s writers can tell ourselves, “I have nothing to worry about, because Substack doesn’t even censor freakin’ Nazis.” So please, Substack, please: Continue to stand your ground without apology. It is no hyperbole to say that the slippery slope of censorship has never been more real.

From Build, Baby, Build, coming in April!