More than 200 Substack authors asked the platform to explain why it’s “platforming and monetizing Nazis,” and now they have an answer straight from co-founder Hamish McKenzie:
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.
While McKenzie offers no evidence to back these ideas, this tracks with the company’s previous stance on taking a hands-off approach to moderation. In April, Substack CEO Chris Best appeared on the Decoder podcast and refused to answer moderation questions. “We’re not going to get into specific ‘would you or won’t you’ content moderation questions” over the issue of overt racism being published on the platform, Best said. McKenzie followed up later with a similar statement to the one today, saying “we don’t like or condone bigotry in any form.”
That logic is in conflict with itself. It’s literally advocating for intolerance to get rid of intolerance.
People are against nazies but meanwhile advocate we treat other groups they dont like the way nazies would treat jews. Be that millionaires/billionaires, capitalists, republicans or whatever. “Eat the rich”
I can’t get behind that. Daylight is the best disinfectant. I want nazies to be allowed to announce publicly that they’re nazies.
Maybe you should read the whole page. Maybe then you’d learn why so many of us are against a fundraising platform which allows Nazi writers to earn money.
this is why it’s called “the paradox of tolerance” my guy. did you even read the name?
this is a bad faith representation of his argument. also, in this case, “people” is Karl Popper, a renowned philosopher with countless awards for his work on political science and philosophy. maybe you would understand his argument better if you actually read it.
It has nothing to do with his argument. By “people” I mean the people commenting on this thread and just lemmy in general.
“The paradox of tolerance” as originally stated is not “in conflict with itself”, it is pointing out a conflict that exists within the idea of “tolerance as a moral good”. The point is that “tolerance” will eventually give way to “intolerance”… one way or another. So: pick your side wisely.
I think there are problems with the concept as it is started (others have proposed some in this post) but it’s trying to address the conflict.