Just go, and maybe in the future, stop trying to force people to do your bidding. LOL: "I'll stick around here for another week in hopes you move your list" - good grief, power trip much?
It should be said that this thread is the first time in over two years on this site that we’ve had this kind of conflict in our comments. I hate it a lot.
This is a very difficult spot for us. There is no scenario in which we don’t lose subscribers, all over something that has fuck-all to do with The Reveal. We have decisions to make, but they can’t be made quickly. What we have built here is precious to us and any move we make (or don’t make) will be done very carefully. I get Puffer’s POV for sure, but patience would be appreciated for sure.
My sincere hope is that you don't cave to a pressure that is basically self-induced. I'm aware of no campaign for a max exodus by either writers or subscribers that is genuinely gathering steam. The virtue-signaling nonsense that you and many other well-intentioned people posted in reaction to a hysterical Atlantic article was understandable, relatable even... but unnecessary. Please keep in mind a few things: mainstream media has always been critical & disdainful (& perhaps fearful) of Substack; moderation of individual substacks remains where it belongs - in the hands of its creators/writers; and - as the Atlantic article itself says - the authors in question are a "tiny fraction," and are in their own awful way a price paid for free, open speech on this platform.
It should go without saying that I wish the white supremacists weren't here; but it does need to be said that, in this day & age, free speech must be defended. I entirely appreciate the way that Substack has defended it, in their creator/writer-driven model and in their response to the Atlantic article. Because this is a creator- and email-driven platform, many of us have been wide users of Substack for many years without even realizing that Nazis were also here. Because, unlike ridiculous Twitter, the platform does not centralize their voices; I am able to curate my own experience. I think both free speech and the freedom to curate our own experiences are things that writers on film would actually want to defend. Consider all the films that various censorious groups & individuals have wanted to ban! Don't be on the side of those seeking bans.
My paid subscription and I will sigh deeply but will still follow you both if you choose to go; I'm an old-timer from AV Club who is devoted to your writing and the conversations/reviews/comments are important to me. They bring happiness to my life and they open my mind to new things. No need for me to change that, even if there is a platform change. But that said, it would be very frustrating to see you both cave! Substack is known for being a host to well-respected and widely-liked folks, not Nazis. Folks like Heather Cox Richardson, Richard Dawkins, Kareem Abdul-Jabar, George Saunders, Scott Alexander, Yolanda Edwards, Nick Offerman, Drew McWeeny, Brian Klaas, Damon Linker, Ethan Strauss, Margaret Atwood, Justin Smith-Ruiu, Joyce Carol Oates, Matthew Yglesias, etc. And of course Substack is also known for hosting controversial writers like Taibbi, de Boer, Greenwald, Michael Shermer, Alison Roman, Lee Fang, Andrew Sullivan, the folks at The Free Press, etc. - none of whom are known for being Nazi supporters either. Seeing who your peers are on this platform should also lead to the understanding that your reputation and your ability to garner subscribers will not be damaged if you remain. You are in good company here! Stand up for a free speech platform and stay.
We’re aware of this concern and I know at least one subscriber has left because of this issue. (Which makes me wonder how many have never subscribed because of Substack.) It has been a good platform to us, as we started out, and for us, as we’ve kept going. I’d like us to stay here for these reasons but I think we need to see some action on this issue.
Nah, just leave. It’s incredible that you don’t see it, but just within the few hours this dumb post has been up you’ve already devolved from rejecting Nazis to entertaining an idiot who thinks Substack should kick off Greenwald and Taibbi. This comment section is a perfect argument for the necessity of robust free speech norms and a clear example of why we don’t need a hall monitor and certainly wouldn’t want you to fill the spot if we did.
It’s a shame, I’ve been reading you since the AV Club days and love your stuff. But we don’t need you to monitor other Substacks for wrongthink or protect us from them. We dont need another cop.
I can't speak for Keith, but I've been on the internet since 1995, spent oceans of time in the wilds of Usenet, and, of course, participated in and moderated The A.V. Club comment boards. I'm a believer in an extremely broad latitude for speech and would never call for people like Tiabbi and Greenwald to be jettisoned. But is it really so unreasonable to not want to share a publishing platform with Nazis?
When my co-editor and I started our own publication last year, we had similar concerns by seeing the likes of some folks simply being promoted in Substack's weekly compendia. We left Substack for other reasons, but I'm really happy to know The Reveal and other publications are aligning against this. Thank you.
This is all such an unnecessary annoyance. I think Substack is a good platform and we're really focused on doing the best work we can do and building out our little community here. Tiabbi can do whatever it is he does now. I just want our readers (and potential readers) and other publishers (and potential publishers) feeling like there are barriers to their participation on here.
I expect to get unexpected insights from you all, into movies I might never have known about, or ones I might not even see - but experience real pleasure and even joy from the experience. I've read you since the AVClub days, and tracked you down here because I missed feeling like a dorky Undergrad who gets to hang out in the University pub with the cool Grad students discussing existentialism.
What I absolutely do not need, is to be lectured by yet another bunch of finger-wagging little old ladies looking for dirty books in the library.
I like the Internet as organised anarchy where I can read whatever the hell I want, or just don't, because I'm a damn adult. It's not for you or anyone else to police opinions. Just don't read the assholes you don't want to read.
Ehh, this is never a final choice. This happens, then there's a movement to deplatform Steve Sailer and Richard Hanania because they're racist, various 'gender-critical' writers because allowing them into the space makes it trans-exclusionary, leftists like deBoer because their support of Palestine makes them genocide apologists, pro-Trump writers because they're undermining democracy, writers like Scott Alexander because they don't deplatform commenters or ideas, and so on and so on. Those arguments are immeasurably strengthened by the knowledge that the line exists and can be moved by concerted pressure, which turns the whole thing into a game to force mods to act against one's opponents. I don't hugely mind site owners deciding who they want of their own free will, but I can't overstate my objection to them falling to a campaign like this.
This is very well said. Moderation decisions are difficult to make, and there's something uniquely sticky about Substack, which imagines itself as a network/community like a social media site would, rather than merely a publisher of independent, disconnected newsletters. I can understand your concern-- and the concerns of others on here-- about the problem with "working the refs." All I can say is that Substack's reputation can put us in a very uncomfortable spot when it comes to attracting and sustaining our readership. If it's understood as an organ for extremism, then that's the sort of moderation decision that can severely limit the growth of a humble little movie newsletter like ours. That was in our minds when we made moderation decisions at The A.V. Club and The Dissolve-- we offered broad latitude for speech, but if it was unlimited, we were lose participants and readers much as, say, Twitter/X has.
I wonder how many of these “Substackers Against Nazis” are also standing with Ukraine. There can be no debate regarding the impact that Nazism has had on that country’s government and military since the 2014 Maidan Coup, which was initiated by the U.S. government. Victoria Nuland (who just might be the most dangerous person in the world) and others enabled the likes of Svoboda, The Right Sector, C14, and the Azov Battalion after Yanukovych was run out of office and replaced by the virulently anti-Russian Yatsenyuk. Nuland pushed for NATO expansion and aggression against Russia when there was no need for it. If you have a revulsion for Putin and Russia in general, chances are it’s because of Nuland and other neocons who wanted the current war in Ukraine more than Putin did. Did you know that the Ukrainian government celebrated notorious Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera’s birthday this past year? Did you know that they have statues erected in Bandera’s honor? Yes, a man who was responsible for killing thousands of Jews and Poles is a Ukrainian hero. Current-day Banderites had persecuted the people of Donbass for eight years before Russia finally intervened. The Azovs had killed 14,000 people there and were ramping up the violence before Putin made that decision to both protect ethnic Russians in the east AND keep fucking Nazis from sharing their border. For years, only two countries consistently voted against a UN resolution to condemn the glorification of Nazism: Ukraine and the United States. It’s obvious why Ukraine has done so. The U.S. claimed that it would violate the First Amendment of their Constitution. That’s actually not a bad reason since ALL voices should be protected regardless of how vile their rhetoric is. (Of course, direct threats of violence are an understandable violation of the First Amendment.) But considering that the U.S. government has recently passed a resolution claiming that anti-Zionism is the same as antisemitism in order to condemn those who are protesting against the Israeli government’s genocidal agenda, I don’t think free speech is a priority for those who feel threatened by it. I am opposed to Israeli Zionism just as I’m opposed to Ukrainian Nazism. Both are explicitly in favor of using genocide and ethnic cleansing in order to reach their goals. The U.S. government supports both in order to enrich themselves and establish dominance in their respective regions. Oh, and did you realize that we likely wouldn’t know what a Nazi is had American capitalists not elevated the German Nazi Party and helped build their war machine? Henry Ford supplied them with tanks. Harriman Brothers built the railroad tracks that led up to Auschwitz. Standard Oil supplied the Zyklon-B that was used to gas Jews to death. The Nazi concentration camps provided the slave labor that helped keep production costs down. American banker Prescott Bush helped fund the Nazi war machine. He was able to take that investment and begin a political dynasty that led to two U.S. presidents. Our government knew this was happening, but no one was tried for treason. WE are the Nazis, motherfuckers!
Just go, and maybe in the future, stop trying to force people to do your bidding. LOL: "I'll stick around here for another week in hopes you move your list" - good grief, power trip much?
It should be said that this thread is the first time in over two years on this site that we’ve had this kind of conflict in our comments. I hate it a lot.
This is a very difficult spot for us. There is no scenario in which we don’t lose subscribers, all over something that has fuck-all to do with The Reveal. We have decisions to make, but they can’t be made quickly. What we have built here is precious to us and any move we make (or don’t make) will be done very carefully. I get Puffer’s POV for sure, but patience would be appreciated for sure.
My sincere hope is that you don't cave to a pressure that is basically self-induced. I'm aware of no campaign for a max exodus by either writers or subscribers that is genuinely gathering steam. The virtue-signaling nonsense that you and many other well-intentioned people posted in reaction to a hysterical Atlantic article was understandable, relatable even... but unnecessary. Please keep in mind a few things: mainstream media has always been critical & disdainful (& perhaps fearful) of Substack; moderation of individual substacks remains where it belongs - in the hands of its creators/writers; and - as the Atlantic article itself says - the authors in question are a "tiny fraction," and are in their own awful way a price paid for free, open speech on this platform.
It should go without saying that I wish the white supremacists weren't here; but it does need to be said that, in this day & age, free speech must be defended. I entirely appreciate the way that Substack has defended it, in their creator/writer-driven model and in their response to the Atlantic article. Because this is a creator- and email-driven platform, many of us have been wide users of Substack for many years without even realizing that Nazis were also here. Because, unlike ridiculous Twitter, the platform does not centralize their voices; I am able to curate my own experience. I think both free speech and the freedom to curate our own experiences are things that writers on film would actually want to defend. Consider all the films that various censorious groups & individuals have wanted to ban! Don't be on the side of those seeking bans.
My paid subscription and I will sigh deeply but will still follow you both if you choose to go; I'm an old-timer from AV Club who is devoted to your writing and the conversations/reviews/comments are important to me. They bring happiness to my life and they open my mind to new things. No need for me to change that, even if there is a platform change. But that said, it would be very frustrating to see you both cave! Substack is known for being a host to well-respected and widely-liked folks, not Nazis. Folks like Heather Cox Richardson, Richard Dawkins, Kareem Abdul-Jabar, George Saunders, Scott Alexander, Yolanda Edwards, Nick Offerman, Drew McWeeny, Brian Klaas, Damon Linker, Ethan Strauss, Margaret Atwood, Justin Smith-Ruiu, Joyce Carol Oates, Matthew Yglesias, etc. And of course Substack is also known for hosting controversial writers like Taibbi, de Boer, Greenwald, Michael Shermer, Alison Roman, Lee Fang, Andrew Sullivan, the folks at The Free Press, etc. - none of whom are known for being Nazi supporters either. Seeing who your peers are on this platform should also lead to the understanding that your reputation and your ability to garner subscribers will not be damaged if you remain. You are in good company here! Stand up for a free speech platform and stay.
I appreciate this response. We haven't made any decisions yet, but it's helpful to get a full range of perspectives on this.
We’re aware of this concern and I know at least one subscriber has left because of this issue. (Which makes me wonder how many have never subscribed because of Substack.) It has been a good platform to us, as we started out, and for us, as we’ve kept going. I’d like us to stay here for these reasons but I think we need to see some action on this issue.
Nah, just leave. It’s incredible that you don’t see it, but just within the few hours this dumb post has been up you’ve already devolved from rejecting Nazis to entertaining an idiot who thinks Substack should kick off Greenwald and Taibbi. This comment section is a perfect argument for the necessity of robust free speech norms and a clear example of why we don’t need a hall monitor and certainly wouldn’t want you to fill the spot if we did.
It’s a shame, I’ve been reading you since the AV Club days and love your stuff. But we don’t need you to monitor other Substacks for wrongthink or protect us from them. We dont need another cop.
I can't speak for Keith, but I've been on the internet since 1995, spent oceans of time in the wilds of Usenet, and, of course, participated in and moderated The A.V. Club comment boards. I'm a believer in an extremely broad latitude for speech and would never call for people like Tiabbi and Greenwald to be jettisoned. But is it really so unreasonable to not want to share a publishing platform with Nazis?
Anyway, we're already moving on here.
When my co-editor and I started our own publication last year, we had similar concerns by seeing the likes of some folks simply being promoted in Substack's weekly compendia. We left Substack for other reasons, but I'm really happy to know The Reveal and other publications are aligning against this. Thank you.
If you guys decide to move elsewhere, rest assured I'll be following you.
Ditto
I’d follow you guys to hell. I already thought I was following you to MattTaibbi.com fer chrissakes.
(Bob Odenkirk voice) God dammit!
https://www.racket.news?utm_source=navbar&utm_medium=web
Caring about that dude's opinion in 2023 is ... a choice one could make.
Indeed.
This is all such an unnecessary annoyance. I think Substack is a good platform and we're really focused on doing the best work we can do and building out our little community here. Tiabbi can do whatever it is he does now. I just want our readers (and potential readers) and other publishers (and potential publishers) feeling like there are barriers to their participation on here.
Oh man, bummer. It's been a real pleasure, gents. Good luck and Godspeed!
I expect to get unexpected insights from you all, into movies I might never have known about, or ones I might not even see - but experience real pleasure and even joy from the experience. I've read you since the AVClub days, and tracked you down here because I missed feeling like a dorky Undergrad who gets to hang out in the University pub with the cool Grad students discussing existentialism.
What I absolutely do not need, is to be lectured by yet another bunch of finger-wagging little old ladies looking for dirty books in the library.
I like the Internet as organised anarchy where I can read whatever the hell I want, or just don't, because I'm a damn adult. It's not for you or anyone else to police opinions. Just don't read the assholes you don't want to read.
Ehh, this is never a final choice. This happens, then there's a movement to deplatform Steve Sailer and Richard Hanania because they're racist, various 'gender-critical' writers because allowing them into the space makes it trans-exclusionary, leftists like deBoer because their support of Palestine makes them genocide apologists, pro-Trump writers because they're undermining democracy, writers like Scott Alexander because they don't deplatform commenters or ideas, and so on and so on. Those arguments are immeasurably strengthened by the knowledge that the line exists and can be moved by concerted pressure, which turns the whole thing into a game to force mods to act against one's opponents. I don't hugely mind site owners deciding who they want of their own free will, but I can't overstate my objection to them falling to a campaign like this.
This is very well said. Moderation decisions are difficult to make, and there's something uniquely sticky about Substack, which imagines itself as a network/community like a social media site would, rather than merely a publisher of independent, disconnected newsletters. I can understand your concern-- and the concerns of others on here-- about the problem with "working the refs." All I can say is that Substack's reputation can put us in a very uncomfortable spot when it comes to attracting and sustaining our readership. If it's understood as an organ for extremism, then that's the sort of moderation decision that can severely limit the growth of a humble little movie newsletter like ours. That was in our minds when we made moderation decisions at The A.V. Club and The Dissolve-- we offered broad latitude for speech, but if it was unlimited, we were lose participants and readers much as, say, Twitter/X has.
I wonder how many of these “Substackers Against Nazis” are also standing with Ukraine. There can be no debate regarding the impact that Nazism has had on that country’s government and military since the 2014 Maidan Coup, which was initiated by the U.S. government. Victoria Nuland (who just might be the most dangerous person in the world) and others enabled the likes of Svoboda, The Right Sector, C14, and the Azov Battalion after Yanukovych was run out of office and replaced by the virulently anti-Russian Yatsenyuk. Nuland pushed for NATO expansion and aggression against Russia when there was no need for it. If you have a revulsion for Putin and Russia in general, chances are it’s because of Nuland and other neocons who wanted the current war in Ukraine more than Putin did. Did you know that the Ukrainian government celebrated notorious Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera’s birthday this past year? Did you know that they have statues erected in Bandera’s honor? Yes, a man who was responsible for killing thousands of Jews and Poles is a Ukrainian hero. Current-day Banderites had persecuted the people of Donbass for eight years before Russia finally intervened. The Azovs had killed 14,000 people there and were ramping up the violence before Putin made that decision to both protect ethnic Russians in the east AND keep fucking Nazis from sharing their border. For years, only two countries consistently voted against a UN resolution to condemn the glorification of Nazism: Ukraine and the United States. It’s obvious why Ukraine has done so. The U.S. claimed that it would violate the First Amendment of their Constitution. That’s actually not a bad reason since ALL voices should be protected regardless of how vile their rhetoric is. (Of course, direct threats of violence are an understandable violation of the First Amendment.) But considering that the U.S. government has recently passed a resolution claiming that anti-Zionism is the same as antisemitism in order to condemn those who are protesting against the Israeli government’s genocidal agenda, I don’t think free speech is a priority for those who feel threatened by it. I am opposed to Israeli Zionism just as I’m opposed to Ukrainian Nazism. Both are explicitly in favor of using genocide and ethnic cleansing in order to reach their goals. The U.S. government supports both in order to enrich themselves and establish dominance in their respective regions. Oh, and did you realize that we likely wouldn’t know what a Nazi is had American capitalists not elevated the German Nazi Party and helped build their war machine? Henry Ford supplied them with tanks. Harriman Brothers built the railroad tracks that led up to Auschwitz. Standard Oil supplied the Zyklon-B that was used to gas Jews to death. The Nazi concentration camps provided the slave labor that helped keep production costs down. American banker Prescott Bush helped fund the Nazi war machine. He was able to take that investment and begin a political dynasty that led to two U.S. presidents. Our government knew this was happening, but no one was tried for treason. WE are the Nazis, motherfuckers!