
In December, we published a statement about our philosophy on content moderation. In the time since, content moderation policies across all platforms have become only more consequential and debated. This post is an attempt to offer further clarity on how and why we make our moderation decisions.
We believe in putting writers and readers in charge. Writers own their content and their mailing lists and have full editorial control on Substack. Readers choose for themselves which writers to invite into their inboxes and their minds. And that’s why we have a hands-off philosophy when it comes to censorship.
We believe in the importance of a free press and free expression, allowing writers to explore ideas even when they are unpopular, and empowering readers to thoughtfully evaluate an argument’s merits for themselves.
Yet our hands-off approach does not mean anything goes. We do have content guidelines, which, narrowly construed, reflect our intent to protect writers’ ability to openly express themselves while prohibiting harmful or illegal behavior.
Our enforcement of these guidelines is not decided by public accusations or pressure campaigns. We recognize that this approach will invite inevitable criticism, but we believe our principle of protecting free expression is important enough to uphold even in the face of strong opposition. All writers on Substack can expect us to give them fair and equal treatment under these rules.
For the official version of the up-to-date rules, you should always refer directly to our content guidelines. To offer more clarity and transparency, we elaborate below on how we interpret these rules.
Interpreting our content guidelines
We do not allow spam or phishing. While challenging technically, these cases are straightforward philosophically: we feel we can fight spam ruthlessly without jeopardizing free expression, and so we do. We even have automated systems that guard against spam to protect the platform for readers and writers.
We do not allow harassment or threats. We believe that critique and discussion of controversial issues are part of a robust discourse, but we draw the line at harassment and threats. This does not include writing about someone unfavorably, even repeatedly, but does include threatening violence or explicitly organizing others to do so.
We do not allow doxxing, defined as the public sharing of private information (such as a home phone number or physical address) without their permission, or threatening to do so. This does not include acts of legitimate journalism, which often involves publishing information that some would rather be kept private, but does include attempts to intimidate people by publishing private information, especially for the purpose of inciting harassment or threats.
We do not allow hate, defined as publishing content or funding initiatives that call for violence, exclusion, or segregation based on protected classes. This does include serious attacks on people based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, or medical condition. It does not include attacks on ideas, ideologies, organizations, or individuals for other reasons, even if those attacks are cruel or unfair.
We do not allow impersonation, though we appreciate a good parody.
We do not allow plagiarism. We take a standard approach; see our Copyright Dispute Policy.
We do not allow porn or sexually exploitative content. This does not include artistic expressions of nudity and erotica, and in general we will err on the side of being permissive while excluding outright (you know it when you see it) porn.
As we interpret and enforce these rules, we know that there will always be writers on Substack with whom we strongly disagree or who strongly disagree with us – any writer can feel free to criticize us, and many have. We will continue to support their right to do so, and they can count on the same protection: so long as they haven't broken the rules, we will resist any calls that may come for their own deplatforming.
We will always err on the side of respecting writers’ right to express themselves and readers’ right to decide for themselves what to read. That is what it takes to make Substack the best place for independent writing.
Good. Not great but good. Most concerning is the portion of the article on not allowing 'hate' which is always the trap door used for illiberal censorship.
I'd say "porn" is always the first censorship door - but "hate" makes its case too.
It's porn - far and away, porn.
Try being hated on by a Right Wing Right Male like e.pierce, and tell me that!
Thank you for standing up for free speech and independent writers. I certainly don't agree with every writer on here, but I appreciate you letting us (the readers) decide what we read. People on both the right and left are becoming increasingly censorious, and having a platform committed to free ideas is refreshing. P.S. Heather Cox Richardson's daily overview is my favorite read of the day. Thank you for introducing me to her work.
It blows my mind; Substack’s utter insistence in using common sense to interpret their content guidelines.
If this doesn’t convince you that those trying to cancel Substack are simply malcontents and misanthropes, nothing will.
You folks are working this out and so far I like the effort and direction--it's not perfect, but what is especially now when the slightest move left or right (up or down) has someone climbing up your ass. Glad to be on the platform and pleased with your biz model (which also helps MINE) and I'll continue to support it and recommend it to my colleagues.
This is bullshit, Graham Linehan is actively violating your supposed anti hate, doxxing, and harassment rules. Absolutely embarrassing for you to publish this.
Not at all, he is fighting/attacking an ideology he disagrees with. No different than having a writer who defends communism and a writer who vehemently opposes communism. Secondly, even though the web is international Substack is US based and as far as I know, the 1A has not been repealed.
Well, these "dating profiles" are by autogynephiliac men who claim the right to transgress against women as their civil right. Paraphilias are not civil rights, and our sex-segregated spaces, including the right to date lesbians without harassment by men, are not the stage for your sissy pornographic fetish.
This is sexual harassment and Graham Lineham is calling it out. He's the Ronan Farrow for women, calling out how heterosexual transwomen are threatening biological women on dating sites, in women's shelters, in women's prisons, in changing rooms, and in competition for woman-only seats and awards.
Graham Linehan is a man who signed up for the dating app, and he harassed the women who are on there in good faith and for the purposes of the app, not to shame and abuse the users. THAT is sexual harassment. As a woman, don't I have the right to tell Linehan to get the fuck off that site? Him and his cohorts are the only threats I see.
If Linehan identifies as a lesbian tomorrow, do you still have the right to tell him to "get the fuck off a site" for lesbians/queer people etc?
Because that's the entire point. In Trans ideology, any heterosexual male at any time can simply "identify" as a "lesbian" and the instant he declares it, the rest of us must pretend it's true. The HER app literally has males with full lumberjack beards listing themselves as 'lesbians'.
So Caroline, how do we tell a heterosexual predatory male with a full beard abusing gender ideology to be in lesbian spaces, vs a heterosexual male with a full beard who claims he is a lesbian and...idk, somehow apparently is one? What's the difference?
"So Caroline, how do we tell a heterosexual predatory male with a full beard abusing gender ideology to be in lesbian spaces, vs a heterosexual male with a full beard who claims he is a lesbian and...idk, somehow apparently is one? What's the difference?"
Perfect response. And << c r i c k e t s >>
It seems like he isn't violating the rules though.
This is the part where it seems you have lost the plot. He didn't ATTACK anyone here. He merely listed them as examples of what he is talking about.
Try this. quote the part of his piece where he attacked any of those persons or even commented on them specifically. I'll wait.
You do understand that these profile are available to any one with the ability to code a power shell expression. These files are floating around. If you're on social media, you're not a private person anymore. Using these profiles is the same as screen shooting a tweet.
No, it isn't an attack. They might not like that he used their profiles to make his point, but that doesn't make it an attack.
I don't quite understand what you mean by "unwittingly-targeted private citizens". That's a lot of words when "people" would probably work. If that is what you meant . . .
Nahh, I wasn't implying that. You see people, for sure. I was wondering more about the "unwittingly-targeted". Private citizens vs Public citizens question can be for another day,
Personally i have no problem with trans women who state they are trans putting up profiles on lesbian dating sites. If someone puts up an honest profile on a dating site, then others can make an informed decision as to whether they want to contact that person.
What I believe is that these men are not women--they are predators--and that men cannot become women for the purposes of then having sex with lesbians--and women have a natural right to defend ourselves against transgressors into our spaces. Otherwise, we are barn animals and pets without agency and the capacity for self-defense.
Nm, I saw that some of their names were posted.
The only defense I can think of is that it's public information.
It's poor taste to do such a thing though, in my opinion
First names, as put up on the platform. Some observations:
1. a first name typically isn't enough to identify someone
2. Substack's policy doesn't ban mentioning names
3. as name someone uses on a dating site is just a handle; it may not be there real name
Having said all that, if I was Graham Linehan I would have blocked out the names.
Maybe also Substack could have an explicit policy on whether they consider it OK to match real world names with online identities.
Yes, our thinking is alike on this.
It's not public, you have to create an account and agree to their terms of services to see people's profiles.
Also, there's no public interest rule here! This isn't journalism! It's a hateful, obsessed man's rants.
If someone earns their money writing for Substack, how is that any less journalism than earning their money writing for a newpaper?
Writing isn't automatically journalism. There are journalists on sub stack, he's not one of them. His post is like, 80 words and a series of screenshots.
Writing for a journal -- which originally just meant a daily publication -- absolutely is journalism. And a lot of journalism is hateful obsessed rants, so even if Linehan's stuff is that, that does not stop it from being journalism.
Nor does being pictorial preclude a work from being journalism. There's even a word for it: photojournalism.
However much you dislike what Linehan does, saying it isn't journalism misses the mark IMO.
We eagerly await your newsletter.
Because a Professional Editor didn't get his/her cut.
How is this information not in the public interest?
Are you violating the "hate rule" by posting this link? In case you forgot, you are on a slippery slope.
Get off of the slope and you won't have this censorship problem.
I get your point and this one is a bit more borderline but I would argue that it falls under the public interest rule, that it's in the interest of the public to learn that men are invading women only spaces. Secondly, as he's British, the media there have a long tradition of mud racking journalism. Definitely not highbrow but still considered journalism.
If they have done something wrong you need to call the police.
Some names were erased; some weren't.
In case no one knows- Linehan exposed a pedophile sympathizer/enabler of being hired by Reddit. This person moderated many forums aimed at young people. They are a well known public figure who was suspended from 2 political parties in the UK for questionable activities/judgment related to children. No doxxing occurred, and everything was in the public realm. This person then started deleting and banning all mention of their name on Reddit, abusing their power. Enter Streisand effect.
So now, Trans activists and Woke alike are gunning for Linehan, wanting him destroyed because he takes a very critical stance on how people who assume certain identities seem to filter into positions of power they readily abuse, and how safeguarding is ignored when it comes to Identity politics.
I'm thankful Substack isn't bending to the mob.
That has nothing to do with it. I didn't even know who that reddit person was. Linehan's behavior is well documented and extensive.
BS. Trans activists are all over social media, creating campaigns to destroy any target that questions their orthodox. They use the most insane, underhanded tactics I've seen for a so-called "right side of history" movement. Take JK Rowling. She has scarcely ever said anything remotely transphobic, but the hateful insanity aimed at her by the woke mob has been going on for over a year. Article after article trying to smear and cancel her for simply believing biology is real. Trans activists have tried to get her books banned and are accusing her of every sin they can using the language of "progress". This is what happens to anyone who pushes back against the lunacy. Lesbians are regularly banned from their apps for stating they only want to date female people. Same with gay men who state they are strictly same-sex attracted. Trans women have become moderators of almost every lesbian forum, website, dating app. Reddit's largest lesbian sub, r/actuallesbians has NO lesbian moderators. They are all Transwomen who center themselves and ban anyone who questions the colonization. They organized to nuke any forum that tried to be for female people only.
Journalist Jesse Singal is constantly targeted by the Trans mob and they harass him regularly, declaring him some "far right" boogeyman when he is clearly left wing but simply writes objectively which used to be a journalists *job*.
The fact is, mainstream media is captured by the woke mob and refuses to report honestly on these issues. If you don't like Linehan, *don't read his stuff*. If you resent Substack for allowing people to write against the Orthodox, *don't use it*. Take your authoritarianism back to Twitter, where they allow MAPS to flourish but ban lesbians for stating they are female homosexuals. Utopia!
Actually the first victim of the GayKK cancel culture could have been Anita Bryant waaaay back in the 70's. The war on Dr Laura was a long time ago also. The civil war amongst the alphabet people is both funny and scary. Funny to see the homosexuals getting to endure the same type of bullying straight people have been putting up with for decades. A bit of their own medicine. It is scary for obvious reasons. Anytime the media supports a bullying campaign, it is scary.
Ahh, the @SadyDoyle Defense!
Maybe someone else has already made the point (I haven't read all the comments), but has it occurred to you that most readers would never have heard of Graham Linehan had you not complained about his posts? Caroline, ironically, you and others like you, may be Graham Linehan's greatest promoters.
I would never had read his work if it were not for Caroline. Thanks!
I actually watched his TV for years! I haven't since I discovered how hateful he is. I have faith that bigots don't need my help to find other bigots. What I find ironic is that everyone here arguing on behalf of Linehan doesn't seem to have any facts about him beyond that he hates trans people and is thus worth defending, whereas I actually had stake in Linehan being a successful, worthy person, and I am a woman online, who everybody is sooooo worried about defending, and yet you all trot out the same talking points without showing a hint of insight, empathy or wit. But since I have the power to convince you to read, might I suggest one of those books with a thinly veiled metaphor to teach small children how to have empathy and compassion?
No one is arguing for a specific person. They are arguing for academic freedom, even for whats-his-name-object-of-your-bulleying.
Only first names are there, names that the people themselves posted to the site. No addresses or phone numbers are listed. It's not doxxing.
Nor is it harassment or anti hate. Just because you disagree with, and don't like something, doesn't make it hate or harassment. Nor should something be banned just because you don't like it.
It's really simple. Don't read his articles.
It is harassment and hate. The site is a private site that requires you to make a profile and agree to their terms to join. He's not doing this for any reason other than to target and harass trans people. It should be banned because he is providing targets to his audience, targets he picked solely based on hate. That's not simply annoying or distasteful, it's dangerous.
It would appear that he's bringing attention to the fact that Trans men have signed up on a LESBIAN dating app. And the photos of those profiles are the proverbial "receipts".
For a person who takes the stand that Trans men are NOT women, and definitely not lesbians, it's actually a pretty powerful piece.
I get that you apparently disagree with him, and that's fine. But, as I noted elsewhere, the world doesn't have to bend to your view or interpretation.
Um, Linehan is a MAN who signed up for a lesbian dating app. Those are women. If you're so concerned about men being in women's spaces why aren't you condemning Linehan for being on there?????
The people that are in the pictures in Linehan's piece are hairy men - to a man.
"meet millions of lesbian, bisexual, & queer people" is what Her claims. Quite different from what you claim.
What on earth are you talking about? I didn't make any claim other than that Linehan is using the app under a false identity to harass people. If you are refuting that it is a "lesbian dating app," take it up with your anonymous buddy, who characterized it that way in the first place.
Sorry, I understand what you are saying/claiming now.
No, those are trans men. At least to anyone who actually believes science.
You are completely sidestepping my point. Linehan violated the spirit of the site and the users. Science is undeniably not on your side, so I wouldn't bring that into this if I were you.
I didn't sidestep a thing. And no, science is not on your side on this.
I believe he chooses these targets, using info they've provided, because they've actively attacked, deplatformed, and/or threatened another woman. There are tens of thousands of rape and death threats sent online by transactivists to women and girls each year who question how biological males are able to enter their spaces. I'm proud to be one of his subscribers. Graham is advocating for vulnerable women. Why are you so obsessed with us? Why do you need to police our speech?
How the fuck would that work? How would he access location based profiles of people on HER? You have to go on the app, give your gender identity, and agree to their terms of services. He is the only man who went on the site illicitly and violated the terms of services. He made the site more dangerous for the women on it with HIS presence.
The comments on substack are clearly in need of slashdot style moderation if it hopes to have a future.
They are not closeted if they have a Grindr profile. That would be the opposite of closeted.
An app that almost anyone can join and participate in is "everybody on the internet".
PUBLIC PROFILE.
You don't have to be so desperate just yet. So maybe you can lay off any thoughts of "burner account" being an insult to me, etc.
Thanks, now I understand your definitions.
No. You are doubling down in the face of a logic burn.
If you out on Grindr, you are out to anyone who uses Grindr, which is quite likely to include people who know IRL who don't know you're gay.
Others have already addressed this. If you've made a Grindr profile, then you've outed yourself.
And any of them could take a screenshot and post it up on FB, Twitter, Tik Tok or any other social media site.
Thanks for conceding the point.
No my friend, you're the one reaching here. FWIW, I'm against "outing". That is, a deliberate and targeted attempt to tell the entire world that a closeted person is gay or whatever.
This isn't the same thing.
Substack is awesome.
You guys will feel unbelievable pressure from above to fold. You need to protect your access to financial institutions as well, because they will come after that.
But always remember, you have a winning hand, because, when it starts getting tough, we subscribers will support you.
If you need help, you should call on us, and we will detect our talent, time and resources to protect what is being created here!
The cast majority of us care, and while you shouldn't take us for granted, our combined effort is a powerful resource you can deploy.
Remember it.
detect = dedicate. cast = vast.
“We do not allow hate, defined as publishing content or funding initiatives that call for violence, exclusion, or segregation based on protected classes. This does include serious attacks on people based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, or medical condition.”
This is an extremely vague and troubling standard, particularly its reference to “exclusion, or segregation.” In fact, will you forgive my expression: I hate it. Are you going to block my comment because of my virulent dislike of the way your standard is worded? If I start a religion and sanctify it, will you be okay with it?
I am biracial, black and white, bisexual, and non religious (and an atheist). And I mention this so people don’t just assume I’m some evangelical Christian white supremacist trump worshipper and thus just dismiss my perspective. There is a lot of *hatred* toward such a stereotypical “right-wing extremist” and unfortunately some people won’t listen to anyone who even likes the same food as someone categorized as such. So let me make myself clear: I’ve never eaten Chick-Fil-A.
Would it be a violation for an author to suggest that atheists shouldn’t be allowed to vote? Would it be a violation for an author to suggest that black people be made to sit at the back of a bus? Would it be a violation for an author to suggest that it should be permissible to have black only public schools? Would it be a violation for an author to suggest that atheists not be permitted to attend a Christian ceremony? Would it be a violation for an author to suggest that transgender women be excluded from women only college sports leagues? Would it be a violation for an author to suggest that white people be allowed to be excluded from black fraternities on college campuses? Would it be a violation for a Catholic to suggest that an atheist be excluded from eating their magical crackers? All of these things would arguably be problematic based on your policy, while I think any platform that actually honors free speech should not find them problematic—even if owners of platform may find some of them bad.
Unfortunately your rules regarding “hate”—I’m guessing you don’t care if people tell nazis to go to hell—is bullshit. Hate is not immoral—hating particular things is arguably immoral. Banning all hate, regardless of its target, is itself immoral—and ironically, an act of hate.
Religions particularly express their own forms of hatred—it is logically impossible to both protect the free expression of religion and ban “hate”. And it is absurd to expect people who are objects of religious hatred never to express hostility to that irrational hatred. That too, could arguably be “hate”, and toward particular religions.
So please reconsider your rules. I’d suggest starting by reading some classical liberal perspectives on free speech and that which are the foundation of the first amendment. I mean only if substack actually doesn’t want to end up just being controlled by the Church of the Awoken like so many other corporate entities out there. It is not enlightened, it is not progressive. It is degenerate.
Yeah I've ranted to Casey Newton several times on that very point. How do we define hate, too often it's political
I would also note that religions often exclude people from other religions. So such a religion wouldn't be allowed to promulgate its doctrines on Substack. Which means that Substack would be excluding people based on religion!
To be fair the line between "incitement" and journalistic reporting has always been a bit hazy. Which is why many countries provide journalists bit more protection than usual. Protections which most american journalists now sadly abuse in their witch hunts.
You can't have yellow journalism without journalistic reporting.
Twitters crybullies already in the comments section whining that you don't cave to them. Good for you to show some backbone and allow people to write what they want, as long as its not illegal by law.
Still, if I were you I would just cordon off erotica/porn to a different section with disclaimer on the site. Allowing both makes the rules less vague, while at the same time porn is like an anchor on any internet site, that makes sure theres always going to be an active community in it, ad infinitum. Also makes reporting about kink-communities or erotic art much easier.
Thank you for this statement. Increasing censorship online - especially when prompted by organized campaigns by ideological and/or bad faith actors - is exactly why many of us support Substack. The platform is a little bit of hope in a very bleak landscape and I genuinely hope you continue this transparent commitment to “the marketplace of ideas”. As long as that is the case you will find a lot of people to support your mission. Thank you.
Sounds ok to me . I can not begin to tell you how many sites I’ve been knocked off for simply stating cdc facts off of a pubic website because it does not fit there point of view. I joined this site specifically to talk about ideas and actually specific policy to repair problems that the USA and the world has . 🙏 thank you
Transphobia is hate. "We do not allow hate." I'm confused.
What you call 'transphobia' is often not actually transphobic. This is the problem.
Yep; well said; People rushing to get offended should understand the method first before playing the victim or virtue signal
"Transphobia" is becoming meaningless as a term since it's applied to just about everything that isn't 100% empathically in agreement with the current Gender ideology.
No. Transphobia would be fear. Hatred is not fear although fear may lead to hatred. Likewise white Supremacist phobia is just as likely to lead to hatred. But I’m guessing you have no problem with people hating white supremacists. Am I wrong?
Transphobia doesn't literally mean fear of trans people, just like homophobia doesn't literally mean fear of gay people. That is an absurd argument.
And transphobia doesn't literally mean HATE of trans people
The "Other" is a long time fear of animals and humans
Actually, fear was associated with the term homophobia when it first emerged. And fear--anxiety--is not an uncommon response from people who I have told I am bisexual.
But then the term "phobia" was used by many people to refer to anything that some other person disliked and feel they shouldn't dislike. The absurdity is not with my argument, it is with people who continue to use words that have -phobia attached to them with no intent to describe a fear but rather just to express their hatred. It is irrational for a person who hates people who are bigoted against homosexuals labeling such bigots "homophobes" when they don't even think the bigots are afraid of homosexuals. It doesn't matter that I may sympathize with their contempt for the bigots; I do not sympathize with the irrational use of language to express our emotions and judgements.
If you you don't use "transphobia" as including the meaning "fear of trans", you should probably use another word because "phobia" has an uncontroversial meaning. Personally I am opposed to butchering language out of ignorance or ideology.
Furthermore, there are people who literally are afraid of people who are trans or transgenderism in general. There is a fear of what the acceptance of people who are trans will do to their society, etc. In fact, I have not come across anyone who has a bigotry against transgender people who do not simultaneously fear something about them. Have you?
Word associations lead to censorship and fear of words.
Haha, okay, you are actually a pretty excellent troll
The meat for the psychoanalyst
Irigaray:"The littel girl is a little boy."
You're mistaken. It actually "literally" does. Read more. Learn more. Do better.
If you want to convey your thoughts more precisely, learn to use correct terms to express yourself instead of trying to redefine the centuries old agreed on definition of "phobia" to suit whatever your ever changing nonsensical, politically motivated, vacuous, empty virtue signalling whims of the day are.
Language poverty leads to all of this.
“Transphobia” means something, while “virture signaling” is precisely the empty politically motivated untalk that you speak of. So many conservatives accuse people of what they consistently do, snowflake.
lololololol. bro, google the paradox of tolerance plz.
Already have. Its not a good argument. You are welcome to make it yourself here, though, so I can dissect and demolish it.
But regardless -- did I say anything about tolerance? No I didn't. Try responding to my actual comment. People who say they are "anti-hate" are being hypocritical and illogical. A better stance is that we are anti particular hate.
the only thing that can't be tolerated is intolerance. put simply.
Popper was talking about a very specific kind of intolerance, viz, intolerance that seeks to suppress the free expression rights of others through threatened or actual violence.
Oddly enough it is the people who talk casually about "punching Nazis" who are much closer to what Popper suggests society doesn't tolerate, but that rarely comes up in the use of the meme.
When someone changes the DISCOURSE that one is ostracized eventually. How you speak/write is how you think. And someone who does not heel to the DISCOURSE will be tossed out. Galileo well knew this and would have been burned if he had not recanted that the earth followed around the sun instead of being the center of the universe. Example: Trump destroyed the Insatitutionalized Pilitical Discourse so now the transparency is obvious to all of us. A bright light shines on the lies we used to let go as ideoology we did not identify.
wrong.. I WILL NEVER tolerate, crimes against children..better a millstone be hung round the neck of such perpetrators.
TOLERATE..WHAT A WEEK INSIPED DIVISIVE WORD " TOLERATE " is..
Infact I think the dictionary definition of tolerate should read, " absence of love"
yes. WE need to embrace the other, not tolerate the other
Zizek says that tolerance is the poison pill that is the seed of destruction in liberalism.
Lol who is hating on anyone?
Thank you! We have such problems like claustrophobia and agoraphobia. These are example of acute and of severe 1) fear of small rooms, elevators and so on and 2) a fear of open spaces. Xenophobia etc. can more easily be transformed into hate, but is nevertheless based on fear.
What sort of examples is substack not reining in?
I doubt that you are actually confused. Redefining opposition to a controversial ideology as "hate" is a tactic used by ideologues to avoid criticism of their programme. I would think it more likely that you are committed to that tactic than confused. Substack is right to uphold free expression even the teeth of this tactic being widely deployed.
doesn't phobia mean fear? not hate? and therefore better addressed by the courage of dialog, education and honesty? Rather than the darkness and suppression of censorship? would we defeat insanity and fear by becoming propagators of fear and insanity ourselves?
"trans ideology" lmao
Excellent, sensible way to moderate. Thank you for not caving in to the pitchfork mob.
Sounds reasonable, as the consumer, I will decide to stay or go based on how I am treated.
As a Substack writer, I remain deeply disappointed by these posts. This narrowing of your terms today seem purely defensive and even specious, a narrowing that retroactively excuses bad behavior and leaves room for more organized harassment campaigns that launch or thrive on this very platform.
You're free to go back to Twitter or whatever irrelevant blogging site that hired you, if you dont like the fact people can critisize things here that dont fall to your ridiculous line of political correctness.
Thanks for permission, but as long as I'm on Substack and the company gets a cut of my newsletter's subscription money, I'll offer my criticism however I feel like offering it: which is in civil tone. If differing opinions bother you, consider departing the comment section.
"If differing opinions bother you", says the person angry at his host site that they dont censor his fellow colleagues to his liking.
I don't know where from my two sentences you got that from, but I guess that's the point of anonymous comments like yours.
"a narrowing that retroactively excuses bad behavior" sounds like someone didn't get censored that you want to be censored. Is that a misinterpretation on my part, kind sir?
Yes, and an intentional misinterpretation at that.
Is mind-reading a large part of your newsletter? You are not very good at that.
No, but even without looking at all the other comments you've been trolling under here, I'm pretty good at identifying a question from someone acting in bad faith. But please, go ahead and get your final half-zinger in to prove me right.
So, you do have a mind-reading blog after all!
If you're so much smarter and better than the rest of us, come out of hiding and stand behind what you say. You wouldn't dare.
"leaves room for organized harassment that launch or thrive in this platform". Straight out from the mouth of a generic Twitter "journalist", they all repeat this false rhetoric, you included.
And the thing is, these rules dont leave room for harassment. Incitement for violence and doxxing are already forbidden as they should, since especially the former one is also illegal by law. Feel free to provide examples of actual harassment that fall into those two categories on this site. Criticism is not harassment.
I would, and others have, but you're not worth any more of my time.
Another common Twitter response. You havent, and neither have any others shown any proof.
You're acting like a jerk in this and other threads. And while you may have every right to do so, the rest of us have the right to call you out.
Be better, maybe?
I'm not here to be nice. I'm here to point out the hypocrisy of this "blogger". Lying is not nice and this particular blogger is 100% definitely lying and being dishonest about Substack.
meman is fine. You are the one insulting people and hypocritically asking them to "Be better".
> "You're free to go back to Twitter or whatever irrelevant blogging site that hired you"
> "your nose is so deep in his buttocks"
As I said, acting like a jerk.
Is there a company that does a better job than substack in your opinion?
I am looking at competing products at the moment but I haven't made any decisions. I've been writing for this platform for 15 months and have built a modest following here, so if I did leave it would require considering a number of factors, logistical and otherwise.
ghost has been great about supporting my migration.
Thanks for that testimonial! I've been reviewing Ghost's migration FAQ this afternoon, a bit more closely after the above post from Substack.
lol you know critiquing isn't censorship, right? it's respect.
"Irrelevant blogging site"? Lol. Very cool and useful term that isn't in any way completely meaningless. Also, Gary is a respected writer and you're an anonymous coward in the comment section so have fun with that.
And your nose is so deep in his buttocks that I'm amazed you managed to breathe this tripe here to begin with.
Very cool thing for a gigantic coward to say and very predictable. Have fun with your irrelevant blogging site criticisms, very thought-provoking stuff.
Enjoy the blog of a nobody, assuming you're not just another bot account.
No, he is part of the Nobody Support Group at Substack.
Thanks for putting yourselves out there. I hope you stick to your guns.
no one is telling you to censor or get rid of harmful people, we're pissed you paid them hundreds of thousands of dollars. this is a strawman.
> no one is telling you to censor or get rid of harmful people
Oh that's not true! Loads of wokies would really really like to for Substack to censor any content they regard as heresy. Of course they don't call it heresy, they call it "harmful" or something like that.
I just started my substack. I write about Transgressive art and underground culture. I write as I speak: in the rough and often vulgar language of the no bullshit, american working class. I've been wondering whether or not the substack staff are heavy or light handed censors. If American culture and free speech are to survive, an artist must be free to create unfettered by these 21st century,Torquemada leftists that are doing their level best to dismantle the treasures of western civilization.
"They made me afraid of my fears" is a good one.
Why are you pissed?
Substack notices person A has a large audience. Substack wants to bring that large audience to their platform, so they offer Person A an advance, which the person ultimately has to pay back in the form of subscription revenue.
This is, like, business incentives 101. It's not even a particularly great incentive, it's a loan.
Why would that make you or anyone "pissed."
Stop using logic, Kevin.
or, stop thinking "good business" is good for most people and not just the owners of the company. good business is what got us here as a society.
What good business exactly? Mainstream media is bleeding money right now. Substack has found its own niche in the market while providing more lucrative opportunities for journalists and writers, instead of being paid one Snickers bar a month to make 60 articles a day about "10 reasons why the latest tv show is racist" or similar kind of garbage nobody reads.
Or, maybe stop throwing your kitchen sink’s worth of issues with society on what is basically a really simple and straightforward issue.
because revenue is less important to me than the lives and well being of women and trans folks. hence, the move to ghost.
No post or writers on substack are negatively affected women or trans folks.
I understand you have an opinion to the contrary, but that is just an opinion. You are not the arbiter of what is harmful, and asking substack to run their business in accordance with your subjective opinion is unreasonable
I disagree with what you wrote.
But I just want to thank you for writely very kindly. I could indeed probably do a better job of that, especially when disagreeing
Why the focus on one platform over another. Use them all. It's pretty trivial to post on medium, substack, ghost, and your own site. You should always publish verbatim on your own property.
Maybe this is why you do not run a business that helps others that may or may not agree with your opinion.
There are just as many women who believe no harm is being done, or that the harm is occurring due to censorship of any woman who refuses to believe what a small number of extremists believe.
Because people consider factors other than business, like if Person A is doxxing people and directing their audience to harass them.
That article isn't doxxing
Substack Pro I believe. You can always apply, and these "hundreds of thousands of dollars" come at the price of a 90% commission during the one-year duration of the contract. You can find the details I just gave you on the article I'm sure they mailed you as well.
Guidelines are nice and all, but how are you actually moderating content? What is the process of enforcement? Are you relying on newsletter subscribers to report the people that they pay to read? How are reports received? What do you do when content IS reported? Who ultimately decides when something violates your guidelines? Are writers able to respond, or do you just take down posts and offer no recourse?
If you're not answering these questions, you don't actually have an approach to content moderation, and you definitely don't have a commitment to transparency.
Transparency does not entitle you to the minutiae of their operations.
Twitter/facebook/Google and many other companies don't inform their users about most of any of those details. Why should we hold this fledgling startup to higher standards than multi-million dollar companies.
they do, actually? Twitter, google, and facebook all have extensive terms of service agreements that include info on when, how, and what to report, and what happens if you violate their terms.
All three, and especially twitter, are veritable black boxes in terms of deciphering how their ToS is interpreted and enforced, particularly with the question "who ultimately decides when something violates your guidelines."
You appear to be for and against these black boxes ....
Thread creator came up with an arbitrary set of standards substack needed to meet in order to be transparent, I'm merely pointing out that industry standards are far below those standards.
Excessive and one sided demands are not quite a fallacy, but close. And if the existing standards are too low, we shouldn't single out substack
The thread creator(s) - are the owners/founders of Substack. I don't think their standards are any more arbitrary than any others.
Furthermore, there are no such "industry standards" to base a comparison to. That is why the discussions are taking place in these comment sections.
I think substacks policy is pretty straight forward and more free than most. The weakest link is money of course, and doubly so for Stripe which I think can and will override any substack policy when it involves monetized writers.
Following the money is always the wisest course. Stripe's new partner, Ternary, explains it best -"Monetize it."
Because they/I/we want this multi-multi-million dollar company to better than those multi billion dollar companies. It is pretty easy to understand.
So your a benefactor? You're just trying to help substack, eh?
Sure thing. Better than being a malefactor. Opaqueness is not transparency. I'm hoping Substack does away with all censorship. That would be easy to explain and to understand. Hiding behind easily misused phrases is not transparent at all.
Content moderation is one thing—but within the confines of Substack Pro, you are actively choosing writers and thus acting as a publisher. Publishers have editorial standards: they choose the writers and topics and ideas they want to represent the brand, they edit for strength of arguments, they fact-check. Beyond the content moderation guidelines, are there editorial standards you are applying specifically to the writers published under Substack Pro?
Bit of a leap, Substack does not provide any actual news, but endless opinion pieces and "columns" instead. And those have far more lax editorial standards than actual news pieces which are supposed to offer an objective depiction of what happened. The big "this is my opinion"-label can excuse any kind of written insane stupidity in traditional news and it can do the same here.
Saying that a basic incentive program like substack pro makes substack a publisher with a publishers obligations is quite a leap.
exactly this.
These are exactly my questions. It seems like if authors are specifically chosen and paid then at least the guidelines behind those choices should be clarified. Or at least, there’s no reason *not* to clarify.
🤔 ... it'll be interesting to see how successful you are at policing these rules.
(⌐⊙_⊙)
It's inevitable, people are going to put on their hall monitor sash and say that Substack is failing in this or that respect.
Some people will have legitimate gripes but they will hard to separate from the flood of sjws grinding for woke bucks.
those people never got the memo anyways.
Lot of great comments in here!!!!
How about you use the well known words "censor" or "censorship" instead of the bunk phrase "content moderation"?
And no porn? Who do you think you are fooling?
From your email: "This does include serious attacks on people based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, or medical condition..." and on and on. Central to the progressive project are attacks on "whites," and their age-old guilt. I doubt you will ban this.
The policies seem great.
I will say that I'm surprised that there is not yet a reporting option so that members who see problematic posts (either because they negatively affect the community or because they violate Substack's guidelines) have some way to bring them to the attention of either the writer behind that Substack or Substack itself. Assume that is something you're working on.
I should add that I meant reporting options for comments in the community forums, although I guess the same point holds true for posts by Substack authors themselves.
If you stay neutral politically, you will become a multi billion dollar platform.
Thank you for elaborating on your content guidelines. I will adhere to them.
"What we've got here is failure to communicate. "
–– Captain from Cool Hand Luke (1967)
It is only after people feel understood that they can become receptive to “honest and unmerciful” constructive feedback, and self reflection. When people don’t feel heard it results in oversensitivity to criticism and intolerance to opposing ideas, which is not a virtue, and it limits free expression.
https://moviewise.substack.com/p/communication-insights-from-movies
Thanks for the clear communication.
Interesting ... more silence regarding the status of LaTeX.
Great to know, Substack. You got my back, I got your's. I won't promise to succeed but I will try to behave myself to the best of my subjective ability in that arena. Now back to scraping the smut off my keypad and rolling around in the toxic filth of my very male mind.
Amen.
I think your guidelines are not very clear. For example, allowing "erotica" but banning "porn"??? That's one of those irregular verbs, it goes like this: I like erotica, you like porn, he is a pervert.
Having said that, I like Substack in general and think it has potential to be a force for good. I hope you succeed. In that spirit, I've written a critique of your content policy and other aspects of your website/service, with suggested improvements: https://pontifex.substack.com/p/making-substack-better
The suggestion to replace the Hate blurb with a sentence that uses the word "violence" is, unfortunately, even more vague since that word, like "trauma", has been co-opted to mean hurt feelings or frightful opinions.
Then add a footnote explaining what is meant.
Your points on content moderation are excellent - especially when it comes to protected classes. One other issue, perhaps less of an issue due to no algorithms but misleading information perhaps a Covid 19 Blog that doesn't accept the standard rules or an anti lock down blogger etc.
We can't all have our minds twisted up in post modern relativism 24/7. Sometimes you have to choose a word or words that are going to have a well known connotation to the wider public.
You people are asking for a sysiphean level of precision of expression.
There's a creator on substack that continually, harrasses, stalks, berates, and does youtubers she doesn't like. Including their family, facebook followers, commenter, etc. I Have reported it..and it's getting worse. Why is this allowed?
I agree with those rules.
I would add: no blasphemies and no crudities. However, creative invectives should be welcomed!
I've seen a Sub author wishing death - she was NOT joking - on someone for pushing her buttons wrongly too often.
"We will always err on the side of respecting writers’ right to express themselves and readers’ right to decide for themselves what to read. That is what it takes to make Substack the best place for independent writing."
I endorse this!
(Make sure Sub does not employ twitter employee-refugees! It takes only lib one coder or admin to eventually spoil it for Sub and us.)
I'm sorry, but I'm being incessantly harassed by e.pierce on Matt Tiabbi's Substack because I'm not a Right Winger and (clear subtext) I'm a woman, and I see no way to STFU him.
If your "free speech" emboldens misogyny, then why am I paying for this? I can get verbally abused by Right Wing men at home, thank you!
.
Hate/fear are in a relation. One fears what one hates. Think of a big spider suddenly appearing in your clothes. You try to bash it if you can out of fear. Then of course there is terror and violence when it escalates
I love your take. But PLEASE allow us to embed videos from sources that also do not censor.
"We do not allow hate, defined as publishing content or funding initiatives that call for violence, exclusion, or segregation based on protected classes."
And with that language, the slippery slope to Substack becoming just another arm of MiniTru is greased.
I'm deeply disappointed. I was thinking of moving my blog here.
This is a well written description of rules. Time will only tell how much substack will follow their words though. Dorsey is supposed to be pro-free speech, but look at the Twitter blocks. Although, since everything is public on that platform, it may have different challenges to deal with. Anyways, really hope all of the commitments made here are true!
Greenwald has written interesting stuff on the issue of free speech. The fact is there will always be someone who we'll disagree with. Its a question of where you draw the line between free speech and 'verbal violence'. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-start-demanding-substack
I have no problem with the Pro model, just the lack of transparency.
This comment by Mark Skousen on cancel culture is worth repeating (via his email so no link)
Red Badge of Courage: Being Airbrushed Out of History!
The current “cancel” culture -- eliminating the statues and names of founding fathers and famous people in history -- reminds me of the Communist era where Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union, and Mao Zedong in China, airbrushed important people out of photos, often those who opposed the tyranny of the all-powerful State.
There is a famous photograph of Stalin with three comrades taken in the 1930s.During the Great Purge a few years later, one by one these comrades became enemies of the State and were executed by firing squad. Then, Stalin had their images removed from the original photograph, disappearing from the official record and into the black hole of history.
I am reading a fascinating biography of Lin Yutang, my favorite Chinese philosopher from the 20th century. He lived a remarkable life and was the most traveled Chinese man in world history. During his 80 years, he lived in both the East and the West.
He compared the two civilizations in a most entertaining way in his classic book, “The Importance of Living,” which was the #1 bestselling non-fiction book of 1938. It’s the most irreverent book I’ve ever read on Chinese philosophy in life. (link to review below)
Lin was also a life-long defender of individuality and human rights and was an ardent opponent of Mao and the Chinese Communist Party. As a result, his books were censored in China and he was forbidden to visit China in his later years.
Ironically, he died in 1976, the same year Mao died, and was buried in Taiwan (I visited the Lin Yutang House in Taipei in 2014 -- highly recommended).
His biographer, Qian (“Jay”) Suoqiao, shows two photographs of Lin being airbrushed out of official photographs. The Communists really feared him. When “Lin Yutang and China’s Search for Modern Rebirth” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017) was translated into Chinese, the censors removed all references to Mao and the Communist Chinese Party. But, in some ways, the censorship backfired. When Jay took a book tour in China, he was constantly asked what was left out of the Chinese translation.
The “cancel” culture is alive and well in China -- and tragically spreading to the United States and the West.
Fortunately, Lin Yutang’s reputation is growing in China, and many cities are naming streets and parks after him. He deserves more recognition here and abroad as "the" libertarian Chinese philosopher.
http://mskousen.com/2007/03/the-art-of-letting-go-2/
I'm curious what your policy is on copyright. I don't plan on posting anything that's copyrighted but I have for instance written fanfiction in the past. I don't plan on posting any of it but I might write some explanations of the moral philosophy behind my writing, including my fanfic. Would that be a problem?
Inciting violence is already illegal in both the US and most of Europe. You don't need extra censorship on top of the limits to freedom of speech that we already have. And more often than not "your side" is advocating for more censorship than what a civilized western society needs.
"Have you heard of the case of Schenck v. United States (1919)?"
Have you? It's a case where people were put in jail because they were against violence and tried to persuade other people not to participate in violence, by distributing literature that said not to participate in violence.
The speech wasn't harmful to anyone. The government was, and the government was unhappy that some people might be persuaded not to participate in its harmful activities.