Substack faces user revolt over anti-censorship stance on neo-Nazis

For those who support this, could you name another instance throughout history where people restricting speech of others ended up being "in the right", no matter the circumstance?

I mean, seems pretty simple to me. They have an anti-hate speech provision in their content guidelines. They have groups that very explicitly violate it (and not in the sense of people randomly accusing others of being nazis, but of upfront and prominent nazis that display swastikas and loudly advertise being nazis). They&#x27;re choosing not to enforce their own rules.<p>I would consider taking my audience elsewhere as well.

I&#x27;m of the mindset that it takes work to keep democracy, freedom and egalitarianism alive. You can&#x27;t just let anyone publish anything and think that it will all work out in the end.<p>It is tough because separating freedom of expression from hate speech is hard and prone to errors, but the alternate is to let Nazis and other hate groups to grow and strengthen. History has shown that when evil is given a platform, it grows instead of withering away in the light.

&gt; At least 16 of the newsletters that I reviewed have overt Nazi symbols, including the swastika and the sonnenrad, in their logos or in prominent graphics.<p>&gt; Andkon’s Reich Press, for example, calls itself “a National Socialist newsletter”; its logo shows Nazi banners on Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate, and one recent post features a racist caricature of a Chinese person. A Substack called White-Papers, bearing the tagline “Your pro-White policy destination,” is one of several that openly promote the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory that inspired deadly mass shootings at a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, synagogue; two Christchurch, New Zealand, mosques; an El Paso, Texas, Walmart; and a Buffalo, New York, supermarket.<p>&gt; Other newsletters make prominent references to the “Jewish Question.” Several are run by nationally prominent white nationalists; at least four are run by organizers of the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia—including the rally’s most notorious organizer, Richard Spencer.<p>&gt; Some Substack newsletters by Nazis and white nationalists have thousands or tens of thousands of subscribers, making the platform a new and valuable tool for creating mailing lists for the far right. And many accept paid subscriptions through Substack, seemingly flouting terms of service that ban attempts to “publish content or fund initiatives that incite violence based on protected classes.” Several, including Spencer’s, sport official Substack “bestseller” badges, indicating that they have at a minimum hundreds of paying subscribers. A subscription to the newsletter that Spencer edits and writes for costs $9 a month or $90 a year, which suggests that he and his co-writers are grossing at least $9,000 a year and potentially many times that. Substack, which takes a 10 percent cut of subscription revenue, makes money when readers pay for Nazi newsletters.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theatlantic.com&#x2F;ideas&#x2F;archive&#x2F;2023&#x2F;11&#x2F;substack-extremism-nazi-white-supremacy-newsletters&#x2F;676156&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theatlantic.com&#x2F;ideas&#x2F;archive&#x2F;2023&#x2F;11&#x2F;substack-e...</a>

This is a PR piece for Casey Newton‘s substack.

So .. is it 1 in 10 posts that are allegedly &quot;neo-Nazi&quot; content? 1 in 10,000? 1 in 10,000,000? What&#x27;s the threshold where if X% of posts on any given platform are alleged to be wrong people revolt and cancel that service? Is that threshold higher or lower than what a motivated group that wanted to destroy the service could produce?