Writing on Substack seemed like an ideal solution for someone, like me, who wants to write on the regular about various issues I care about or want to become better educated on.
As a bit of a technophobe (I have to be dragged kicking and screaming but once there I often love technology), I find the platform easy to navigate and a pleasure to be in although I by no means use all its features! So to read this post from a former colleague was really rage inducing.
Hate Stack
After formally launching their social-media-esque format, ‘Substack Notes’, the platform was deluged with trolling, bullying and hate speech towards those who experience isms, and Substack itself did very little to alleviate concerns about this being handled effectively. As Sharon Hurley Hall states:
“[A]n interview with [Substack] CEO Chris Best about whether the platform planned to control overt racism left the door wide open for [those] who want to spew hatred and bigotry everywhere. As this Gizmodo article said: Substack’s CEO Would Rather Not Think About the Racist Stuff. Okay?
Lucky him. Most people who look like me, and people who face isms don’t get to exist in blissful unawareness or close our eyes to what’s happening.”
Trump Stack
A fellow activism writer acted swiftly and decisively and put plans in place to leave Substack and set up her writing home elsewhere and I was impressed by both the speed and execution of her decision to stand up to the platform. Substack’s position is not just a really poor customer experience for both writers and readers on the platform, but a blatant disregard for anyone who faces discrimination. A green card to those who choose to bully, harass and intimidate other users.
As Sam W states in her article ‘The Paradox of Intolerance’:
“Somehow it has become a sign of virtue and bravery to stand up in front of the world and display your intolerance for the world to see. Somehow, that has become the kind of behavior [sic] that gets you elected to public office”.
In the interview, the Substack CEO cited a commonly used argument around the importance of freedom of speech as he fumbled to answer ‘no’ to the simple question ‘will Substack censor overt racism and hate speech’.
“He’s conflating hate speech with free speech. That is not the same thing… If you tolerate bigotry and hate speech, you signal to the targets of that vitriol that it isn’t a safe place for them. That the people who wish them harm can act with impunity. It leaves them unwilling to engage in your community”. (Sam W, 2023).
Continuing the free speech argument, Thomas Germain, (2023) clarified that social media platforms are governed by algorithms dictating the content we all see. Because of this there is a strong argument that social media companies should be proactive in setting limits around freedom of speech, especially when it strays into hate speech. and let’s make no mistake here, Substack Notes is a social media platform. Elon Musk considers it a threat to Twitter, afterall!
So for those of us still using Substack, what do we do?
Too Suss Stack?
Some are waiting it out whilst giving constructive and very direct feedback to the platform, hoping it will retract its weak position. After all, is there a perfect platform? Others feel the CEO’s position and that dreadful interview is a step too far on a platform that promised so much and have left.
One things is for sure, more white male CEOs are not what is needed to lead companies. Especially when they refuse to listen to those whose experiences their privilege ensures they don’t share.
Armchair Activism
Simple Activism
Watch the interview with Substack CEO Chris Best
Step It Up A Notch
Read Sharon Hurley Hall’s experience and sign up for her newsletter
Read Sam W’s take on matters and sign up for her newsletter
Serious Activism
Let Substack know you disagree with their position by reporting their CEO’s interview as a content violation! Here’s mine with THAT interview included as the post in question…
I am hopeful for a world that is "unsafe" for overt authoritarians like you. People all over the world from the founding fathers to Poland's Solidarity movement fought and died for the right of unrestricted political speech. It is too precious to be obviated by middle class hothouse flowers like you who have no coherent arguments, so therefore you want to eliminate people with other ideas ability to express their ideas. No deal!
"Freedom to live without abuse"??? Really? If encountering ideas online that you disagree with is your idea of suffering abuse, you have lived an incredibly sheltered life. I know cognitive dissonance is probably unpleasant for you when the contradictions inherent in your worldview are pointed out, but that's not abuse.