Explaining its content moderation policy, Substack says it will “resist public pressure to suppress voices that loud objectors deem unacceptable”
Building a system that puts readers and writers in charge — As Substack grows, there is increasing interest in the stance we take on content moderation.
Substack Blog
Context & Ripple Effects
This policy statement is the opening move in a running argument over who moderates Substack. The company had already been pushed to disclose its Pro program lineup after criticism that it was subsidizing controversial writers, and the [[a:975411|Center for Countering Digital Hate later estimated at least $2.5M/year flowing from anti-vaccine posts]] — pressure this 'resist public pressure' stance was written to absorb.
First-order effects
Writers whose views get them deplatformed elsewhere gain an explicitly protected home, since Substack commits to removing content only under narrow categories rather than advertiser or activist campaigns.
Second-order effects
Watchdog groups like the Center for Countering Digital Hate shift tactics from demanding removals to documenting and publicizing what the platform hosts, attacking Substack's brand rather than its rules; rivals such as Twitter face the mirror-image critique when they tighten moderation, which is exactly the contrast Substack's founders later drew in criticizing Twitter's abrupt changes as proof writers need a free-speech-protecting platform.
Third-order effects
If the subscription-funded model holds, platform governance splits into two camps — ad-supported networks that moderate to protect advertiser relationships versus direct-payment platforms that moderate only enough to keep legal exposure down — making moderation policy itself a competitive differentiator rather than a compliance function.
The trend: Direct-to-reader payment platforms are replacing advertiser-driven moderation incentives with subscriber-driven ones, turning each platform's tolerance threshold into a market position.
Substack's grand federalist experiment: platforms should leave moderation up to communities, with a thin layer of global policy, rather than presuming a moral code that works for everyone. https://blog.substack.com/...
Substack's view of content moderation is intelligent and persuasive— to me. Worth reading. One thing I didn't like: the use of the “there are those who say...” device. Better to quote real people and argue with their stated views. And links to them. https://blog.substack.com/...
“When engagement is the holy metric, trustworthiness doesn't matter. What matters more than anything else is whether or not the user is stirred. The content and behaviors that keep people coming back - the rage-clicks - help sustain giant businesses.” https://blog.substack.com/..…
One of the most compelling visions for online moderation I've seen in some time. I am convinced this model will gain market share to the detriment of the global ToS model https://blog.substack.com/...
1/ Substack has laid down a liberal stance on open discourse and moderation that is likely to get the site in trouble with many progresive journalists, but which is (in my view) broadly popular across the (normie) political spectrum — and very pro-writer. https://blog.substack.co…
Substack lays out it's position on moderation and what's interesting is what it doesn't say. A position on moderation is “we'll ban Nazis”. This post argues since they aren't advertising based & people choose to subscribe, their moderation bar's lower. https://blog.substack.com/.…
this seems reasonable and also goes to lengths to highlight how substack is different than say...a newspaper op-ed page. No content is pushed and spread to readers/exalted by appearing on the platform. Readers directly fund the voices they find valuable https://blog.substack.com/…
This is encouraging and I hope it holds. Substack is going to face tremendous pressure from the cancel crowd as more people utilize the service. *** Substack's view of content moderation https://blog.substack.com/...
“Many Silicon Valley technology companies strive to make their platforms apolitical, but we think such a goal is impossible to achieve.” @SubstackInc outlines their philosophy & approach to content moderation https://blog.substack.com/...
What will Substack do when someone violates the guidelines? This whole piece lacks nuance and my only takeaway was “we will see when it happens lest it affect our growth” https://twitter.com/...
It is almost 2021 and platforms are still using “arbiters of the truth” as the convenient extreme to define oneself as opposed to — From Substack's view of content moderation, h/t @evelyndouek https://blog.substack.com/... https://twitter.com/...
This is pretty well done, but it doesn't describe the criteria by which they choose which writers they'll subsidize to move to the platform. That's the analogy to the algorithms they rightfully criticize on other platforms, and matters because they've been courting faux-martyrs. …
“A lot of people suppose that we started Substack to be the next big thing in journalism. But what we're actually trying to do is subvert the power of the attention economy. We want people, not engagement-motivated platforms, to ultimately be in control.” https://blog.substack.co…
I'm sorry but platforms don't get to enjoy “free speech defender” status if they're going to censor content they deem “pornographic.” https://blog.substack.com/...
Substack's view of content moderation https://blog.substack.com/... “A lot of people suppose that we started Substack to be the next big thing in journalism. But what we're actually trying to do is subvert the power of the attention economy.”
This is impressive, though you'll also notice that the words “liability,” “legal,” “lawsuit,” and “sue” appear nowhere in the post. https://blog.substack.com/... https://twitter.com/...
Substack will not censor writers based on political belief, and really, why should they? Censorship is not deciding what you personally read, you always have that power, censorship is deciding what other people can read. https://blog.substack.com/...