I feel like this is such a moral dilemma for both writers and readers. But due to the fact that Silicon Valley companies seem to range from amoral to immoral I will support writers regardless of whether they leave or stay. I admit on a purely aesthetic level, I prefer Substack. I enjoy reading in the app, saving articles to read later, perhaps dropping a comment. It’s more chaotic in my email inbox. I do subscribe to newsletters that aren’t housed here so I can live with it. But at the moment, it’s an inferior experience. So either way I will support your decision on this thorny issue.
I think your points about the current commercial viability of this platform are probably correct, they're always worth bearing in mind and it probably drives the founders' decision making and actions more than we realize.
I think there's a real danger in believing that somehow this model has freed writers from the challenges of the marketplace where a publication can go under or layoffs come calling. If someone gets large enough here, they probably can make a soft landing somewhere else if Substack doesn't last (for whatever reason), but I think it's a mistake to think what's going on now is a new permanent state going forward.
I share your point of view about about commercial viability of this platform. It's one reason why I had maintained my own WordPress blog and still crossposted everything to that blog and Dreamwidth. I had hopes that maybe I wouldn't need to do this in the future but...sigh. Meanwhile, this has also been an incentive to do more to control what I can of my own work--setting up individual income streams that don't depend on the success or failure of any one platform.
That's been my major takeaway from the Nazi issue. Ensure that I have control of my work and that there's always an escape/backup for any platform.
Thanks for your thoughts on Substack’s Nazi problem. I back your decision to rage against the machine from inside the machine. And I really hope enough writers leave so Substack will reverse their decision. I’ll continue to read writing on Substack, but I just pulled the plug on introducing the platform to my writing students. I thought it was the perfect place for them to explore self-publication, but I cannot in good faith invite high school students to a party where Nazis are hanging around.
Incidentally - and this really is incidental in the context - I learned a great deal several years ago from collaborating with Eugene Smith on his powerful memoir Back to the World: A Life after Jonestown. And part of what I learned was that the expression “drinking the Kool-Aid” - which has become so ubiquitous - is very hurtful to actual Jonestown survivors.
But I say that not to scold but to share a small dollop of my own recent education.
Thank you again for all that you do and are about.
My comment has nothing to do with sub stack or Nazi’s, but it regards an old book that I believe is very relative to today’s world; I have given this book before as gifts a couple of times, I think am going to buy four copies to give away - Mockingbirds by Walter Tevis, any thoughts?
I haven't read it, or had even heard of it, but it reminds me of what an interesting array of books Walter Tevis wrote. The guy really was all over the place in terms of subject matter and genre.
I bought three copies to give away as gifts, it would be my pleasure to send you one. A short quick read that I think is relevant right now with the uncertainty being caused by AI. A cautionary tale, if you will. Best Wishes for a Healthy & Happy New Year!
Disappointed to see you speaking out in favor of restrictions on speech. As someone who loves books, you should know the chilling effect of censorship on the arts.
I'm sorry to see you go, as I was sorry to lose a handful of subscribers who said they were leaving Substack because of its decision to allow over Nazi newsletters to continue to monetize their content. These folks indicated that they did not want to see any of the subscription money go to a company that had made this decision.
I think it's important to frame this discussion accurately, and your use of "censorship" strikes me as not particularly on point. We're in the realm of content moderation, choices a private platform (like Substack) makes in terms of what is allowable on that platform. Almost every platform (certainly any large one) has at least some content moderation policies, and that includes Substack, which restricts sexually explicit content from being posted. If you believe kicking Nazis off Substack is censorship, you'd also have to believe that restricting pornography is censorship.
We are also not talking about "the arts" here, given that there is no artistic intent behind the overt Nazi newsletters that Substack hosts and (in at least a small way) profits from.
So, given that we're talking not about censorship, but content moderation, we can now have good faith disagreements that get at the actual complexities. My view is that Nazis are beyond the pale, not suitable for a platform like Substack and that the founders' explanation for their decision to continue to allow Nazis on the platform is both disingenuous and poorly reasoned on the available evidence.
In terms of the chilling effects of deplatforming, this is, IMO, the goal of not having Nazis here. If kicking Nazis off Substack prevents the Nazis from having as much reach and influence, I'm good with that outcome.
Now, it's possible that kicking them off would have no effect on the bigger picture, but even in that case, speaking from my own point of view, it makes me uncomfortable to associate with an organization that has time for Nazis, the same way I would hesitate from frequenting a bar that is at least partially populated by overt Nazis.
As I say, different people draw different lines on this stuff, but if we're going to draw lines, we should draw lines on the issues as they exist (content moderation), rather than ones that don't (censorship).
You’ve gained one here, if that’s any consolation 🤣
I’m really glad you’ve dug into the writers’ utopia style proclamations from Substack’s founders. Dissing ‘old media’ (with their old fashioned, well-considered, thoughtful and nuanced editorial standpoints) is particularly nauseating given the current state of affairs here.
I’ve been pretty vocal about why I pulled my stuff off of this platform. I only had just over 100 subscribers and 4 of those were paid. I could afford to walk away. And I know it come across as kinda hypocritical that I haven’t nuked my account here yet. I want to be able to support the people I subscribe to, who, for whatever reason they are choosing to stick around. I found an amazing community of writers here who have been a huge supporter of my writing and were my biggest cheer leaders when three of my stories were accepted for publication in lit mags. I’ll keep writing and submitting stories, for now, though, I’m choosing to not go anywhere else. (I’m also REALLY burnt out on social media in general)
I want to repeqt that on a very basic level Substack is no Utopi unless Utopia has hierarchies too.
Why must people have to "SUBSCRIBE " - AT ALL? In order to participate in ALL "discussions"- supposedly of literature people bring toshare and diiscuss.If the discussion deepens or expands is there some Jolly Orange Censor with Star Wars paling and peeeling waters saying, ' ALL NONSUBSCRIBERS ATTENTION,: YOU MUST LEAVE THE PREMISES. TURN IN ANY BOOK OR REFERENCE'
I CALL THIS - WELCOME TO THE SUBSTACK DELI. WE SPECIALIZE IN BOLGNA. I AM NOT SUBSCRIBING TO A SINGLE STACK. I DONT BELIEVE I SHOULD PAY ANYONE TO READ THEIR WORK. I STAY ON SUBSTACK BECAUSE IT HASTWO OF MY FAVORITE WRITERS- ETGAR KERET, THE VISIONARY AND DEADPAN HILARIOUS KING OF QUIRK, AND SHERMAN ALEXIE, ONE OF THE MOST DARING AND ORIGINALWIT
I feel like this is such a moral dilemma for both writers and readers. But due to the fact that Silicon Valley companies seem to range from amoral to immoral I will support writers regardless of whether they leave or stay. I admit on a purely aesthetic level, I prefer Substack. I enjoy reading in the app, saving articles to read later, perhaps dropping a comment. It’s more chaotic in my email inbox. I do subscribe to newsletters that aren’t housed here so I can live with it. But at the moment, it’s an inferior experience. So either way I will support your decision on this thorny issue.
I think your points about the current commercial viability of this platform are probably correct, they're always worth bearing in mind and it probably drives the founders' decision making and actions more than we realize.
I think there's a real danger in believing that somehow this model has freed writers from the challenges of the marketplace where a publication can go under or layoffs come calling. If someone gets large enough here, they probably can make a soft landing somewhere else if Substack doesn't last (for whatever reason), but I think it's a mistake to think what's going on now is a new permanent state going forward.
I share your point of view about about commercial viability of this platform. It's one reason why I had maintained my own WordPress blog and still crossposted everything to that blog and Dreamwidth. I had hopes that maybe I wouldn't need to do this in the future but...sigh. Meanwhile, this has also been an incentive to do more to control what I can of my own work--setting up individual income streams that don't depend on the success or failure of any one platform.
That's been my major takeaway from the Nazi issue. Ensure that I have control of my work and that there's always an escape/backup for any platform.
Thanks for your thoughts on Substack’s Nazi problem. I back your decision to rage against the machine from inside the machine. And I really hope enough writers leave so Substack will reverse their decision. I’ll continue to read writing on Substack, but I just pulled the plug on introducing the platform to my writing students. I thought it was the perfect place for them to explore self-publication, but I cannot in good faith invite high school students to a party where Nazis are hanging around.
Very well said indeed, as always. Thank you.
Incidentally - and this really is incidental in the context - I learned a great deal several years ago from collaborating with Eugene Smith on his powerful memoir Back to the World: A Life after Jonestown. And part of what I learned was that the expression “drinking the Kool-Aid” - which has become so ubiquitous - is very hurtful to actual Jonestown survivors.
But I say that not to scold but to share a small dollop of my own recent education.
Thank you again for all that you do and are about.
"I have a self-righteous streak that I haven’t been able to squelch no matter how much I try." Ditto, John. Ditto.
My comment has nothing to do with sub stack or Nazi’s, but it regards an old book that I believe is very relative to today’s world; I have given this book before as gifts a couple of times, I think am going to buy four copies to give away - Mockingbirds by Walter Tevis, any thoughts?
I haven't read it, or had even heard of it, but it reminds me of what an interesting array of books Walter Tevis wrote. The guy really was all over the place in terms of subject matter and genre.
I bought three copies to give away as gifts, it would be my pleasure to send you one. A short quick read that I think is relevant right now with the uncertainty being caused by AI. A cautionary tale, if you will. Best Wishes for a Healthy & Happy New Year!
Get out the swim fins. The poison is filling the pool. If your subscribers are barking about convenience, well...a greater adventure awaits.
The “Nazi problem” is a red herring.
Disappointed to see you speaking out in favor of restrictions on speech. As someone who loves books, you should know the chilling effect of censorship on the arts.
You’ve just lost a subscriber.
I'm sorry to see you go, as I was sorry to lose a handful of subscribers who said they were leaving Substack because of its decision to allow over Nazi newsletters to continue to monetize their content. These folks indicated that they did not want to see any of the subscription money go to a company that had made this decision.
I think it's important to frame this discussion accurately, and your use of "censorship" strikes me as not particularly on point. We're in the realm of content moderation, choices a private platform (like Substack) makes in terms of what is allowable on that platform. Almost every platform (certainly any large one) has at least some content moderation policies, and that includes Substack, which restricts sexually explicit content from being posted. If you believe kicking Nazis off Substack is censorship, you'd also have to believe that restricting pornography is censorship.
We are also not talking about "the arts" here, given that there is no artistic intent behind the overt Nazi newsletters that Substack hosts and (in at least a small way) profits from.
So, given that we're talking not about censorship, but content moderation, we can now have good faith disagreements that get at the actual complexities. My view is that Nazis are beyond the pale, not suitable for a platform like Substack and that the founders' explanation for their decision to continue to allow Nazis on the platform is both disingenuous and poorly reasoned on the available evidence.
In terms of the chilling effects of deplatforming, this is, IMO, the goal of not having Nazis here. If kicking Nazis off Substack prevents the Nazis from having as much reach and influence, I'm good with that outcome.
Now, it's possible that kicking them off would have no effect on the bigger picture, but even in that case, speaking from my own point of view, it makes me uncomfortable to associate with an organization that has time for Nazis, the same way I would hesitate from frequenting a bar that is at least partially populated by overt Nazis.
As I say, different people draw different lines on this stuff, but if we're going to draw lines, we should draw lines on the issues as they exist (content moderation), rather than ones that don't (censorship).
You’ve gained one here, if that’s any consolation 🤣
I’m really glad you’ve dug into the writers’ utopia style proclamations from Substack’s founders. Dissing ‘old media’ (with their old fashioned, well-considered, thoughtful and nuanced editorial standpoints) is particularly nauseating given the current state of affairs here.
I bailed in early Dec, but wrote some thoughts on enshittification before I left https://tumshie.substack.com/p/so-long-and-thanks-for-all-the-bile
Again, thank you.
Thank you for everything. I appreciate reading your thoughts.
I’ve been pretty vocal about why I pulled my stuff off of this platform. I only had just over 100 subscribers and 4 of those were paid. I could afford to walk away. And I know it come across as kinda hypocritical that I haven’t nuked my account here yet. I want to be able to support the people I subscribe to, who, for whatever reason they are choosing to stick around. I found an amazing community of writers here who have been a huge supporter of my writing and were my biggest cheer leaders when three of my stories were accepted for publication in lit mags. I’ll keep writing and submitting stories, for now, though, I’m choosing to not go anywhere else. (I’m also REALLY burnt out on social media in general)
I want to repeqt that on a very basic level Substack is no Utopi unless Utopia has hierarchies too.
Why must people have to "SUBSCRIBE " - AT ALL? In order to participate in ALL "discussions"- supposedly of literature people bring toshare and diiscuss.If the discussion deepens or expands is there some Jolly Orange Censor with Star Wars paling and peeeling waters saying, ' ALL NONSUBSCRIBERS ATTENTION,: YOU MUST LEAVE THE PREMISES. TURN IN ANY BOOK OR REFERENCE'
I CALL THIS - WELCOME TO THE SUBSTACK DELI. WE SPECIALIZE IN BOLGNA. I AM NOT SUBSCRIBING TO A SINGLE STACK. I DONT BELIEVE I SHOULD PAY ANYONE TO READ THEIR WORK. I STAY ON SUBSTACK BECAUSE IT HASTWO OF MY FAVORITE WRITERS- ETGAR KERET, THE VISIONARY AND DEADPAN HILARIOUS KING OF QUIRK, AND SHERMAN ALEXIE, ONE OF THE MOST DARING AND ORIGINALWIT