What do you do when Substack gives you what you've asked for, plus thoughts on 2023
Some frank observations about this year in this newsletter
Today’s post is in two parts: the first is a reflection of the recent controversies about free speech, decentralized moderation and concern about Nazis on Substack. The second part is my personal reflection about 2023.
The Substack founders have spoken: the question is what now.
I’ll start with an admission: when I signed up to republish the Substackers Against Nazis open letter a couple of weeks ago, I did not rigorously read and fact check the
article in The Atlantic about the presence of monetized Nazi/neo-Nazi/white nationalist/white supremacist newsletters on Substack nor did I until after I published my copy of the open letter. However, I’ve read it several times and did my own research about some of the publications that he cited in the article and if not exactly to the nth detail, I definitely believe that Katz’s article is essentially accurate.I’ll admit that when I first heard about Katz’s article I mentally shrugged and carried on with my day. When I saw people whose work I regularly read make remarks about the article and then saw that someone was organizing an open letter to ask Substack’s founders to comment on the article’s allegations, I paid more attention. An accusation of Substack being inconsistent in enforcing their own policies seemed to be worth investigating. In the end I figured it was hard to go wrong with opposing Nazis, right?
Well… I guess it depends on how you define the term “go wrong”, as it does how you define the term “Nazi”. Here are some of the main points:
One day before the Substackers Against Nazis letter was published,
published an essay titled Substack shouldn’t decide what we read that was co-signed by dozens of Substack publishers, some of whom have significant paid and free subscriber numbers. The timing seemed to be planned so that Elle’s essay would appear before the SAN open letter and thus place a point of view (i.e. control the narrative) in readers’ minds before the SAN open letter could.A lot of comments, accusations and defenses were made on the topics of free speech, civility and, well, Nazis - it got ugly at times.
Much to my surprise, a few days ago
replied on behalf of Substack’s founders using a Substack Note post, fulfilling the main request behind the SAN open letter. And piggybacked on Hamish’s reply to reinforce the message. I wasn’t expecting them to reply but they did and so thanks for that.I’m less enthusiastic over the contents of their replies. Essentially, Hamish said that Substack does not intend to increase centralized moderation and leaves it to Substack’s writers and readers to manage their own experience - they are staying the course. He also left the strong impression that if Nazis, white supremacists, white nationalists, neo-Nazis, etc. want to use Substack and monetize their writing, they will be able to do so.
of wrote what I believe to be the best summary of and commentary on the whole situation:
Ken’s analysis is better than anything I could write on this topic and I don’t disagree with any points that he made.
Like I wrote earlier in this post, while I was surprised that the Substack founders actually did take the time to reply, there were no real surprises in what they said. The actions of some of the co-signers of Elle Griffin’s letter and the Substack founders have basically been a combination of brand defense, brand building, defense of an income stream and, for at least one of the co-signers -
- defense of an investment which I assume was a monetary investment in Substack. Despite any defense of freedom of speech, decentralized moderation and creatingI found Hamish’s virtual shrug of the shoulders about monetizing Nazis and his attempt to justify Substack’s promotion of R. Hanania to be unconvincing at best and actually disturbing.
As far as next steps for Substackers Against Nazis, I think I’m done working with the group as I don’t intend to do any further protesting on this specific topic.
and team deserve credit for organizing this protest. More power to the SAN group if they choose to do additional actions.For those writers who have chosen to leave Substack (or plan to) as a result of this whole situation, I completely understand and wish you well. For those who are planning to stay, that’s your call and I don’t want to second guess anyone’s reasons any more than I already have.
We’re at the end 2023 and I did want to share some thoughts on the year, particularly through the lens of my own newsletter.
I feel reasonably good about the work I did here in the first half 2023. I’m not going to call out any particular newsletter, essay or interview that I published between Jan. 1 and June 30, I just felt like the average quality was pretty decent and there were no real clunkers.
The second half of the year, especially the period between August to December, has not been great. I published my essay in support of public libraries in July and that may have been the best thing that I wrote this year. But between being sick in August and September, plus trying to keep up with my day job for the rest of the calendar year, I haven’t been doing a lot of great work here in the back half of 2023 other than to maintain my weekly Wednesday post. Although my health is back to normal, my day job will continue to require a lot of time and energy in 2024 and I feel I need to be realistic about what I can reasonably commit to as a newsletter writer at this time.
Which brings me to another topic: is this the right platform for me to continue using in the long term? This time last year I would have said yes without hesitation. This year I’m less certain and I’m considering the alternatives. I think to be as successful on Substack as I originally wanted to be I would have to quintuple down (at a bare minimum) on the things that I’ve done to date to achieve the readership that I have gained to date and achieve similar growth, plus do more networking and other promotion. This isn’t the right time to multiply my efforts and I’m not 100% comfortable remaining on this platform at the moment. I feel like I need to focus on writing more than anything else, even if I publish less.
Last week I paused paid subscriptions to
. I’m keeping them paused for the foreseeable future as I still have mixed feelings about this platform. For those of you who are reading this newsletter, whether it’s for the first time, the 19th month and any duration in between: thank you. I appreciate that you’ve taken the time out of your life to read what I have to say. Best wishes to all of us in 2024!
I'm at a similar crossroads. Part of the question is whether writing weekly posts here helps with marketing my fiction. Another is if I should try to publish fiction here. I don't think this platform is well-suited for publishing stories.
But for me, the big one is the freeze peach issue. I published the SAN letter after reading Katz's post and researching what he wrote. Hamish and Best's responses were more than what I expected (I thought they would continue to evade the issue) but exactly what I expected them to say if they suddenly developed the wherewithal to speak.
But the vehemence with which so many people on this platform defended the "right" of Nazis to hang out here shocked me. There's a difference between believing the gov't shouldn't decide what people can say and attacking citizens for highlighting objectionable speech. There are a lot of Substackers that take delight in waging war on fellow writers on behalf of Nazis.
So, I'm considering looking for a better home. Maybe I can at least find one with people that are willing to admit that calling oneself a National Socialist means that you are, in fact, a Nazi.
Mark, as you know, I have been reading your newsletter for sometime. We share enthusiam for libraries and we disagree on free speech issues. I like the way that you try to consider the other fellow's viewpoints and your general thoughtfulness. Here's too a Happy New Year!