Below strain from critics who say Substack is benefiting from newsletters that promote hate speech and racism, the corporate’s founders stated Thursday that they’d not ban Nazi symbols and extremist rhetoric from the platform.

“I simply wish to make it clear that we don’t like Nazis both — we want nobody held these views,” Hamish McKenzie, a co-founder of Substack, said in a statement. “However some folks do maintain these and different excessive views. Provided that, we don’t suppose that censorship (together with by means of demonetizing publications) makes the issue go away — in actual fact, it makes it worse.”

The response got here weeks after The Atlantic discovered that a minimum of 16 Substack newsletters had “overt Nazi symbols” of their logos or graphics, and that white supremacists had been allowed to publish on, and revenue from, the platform. Tons of of e-newsletter writers signed a letter opposing Substack’s place and threatening to go away. About 100 others signed a letter supporting the corporate’s stance.

Within the assertion, Mr. McKenzie stated that he and the corporate’s different founders, Chris Finest and Jairaj Sethi, had arrived on the conclusion that censoring or demonetizing the publications wouldn’t make the issue of hateful rhetoric go away.

“We imagine that supporting particular person rights and civil liberties whereas subjecting concepts to open discourse is one of the simplest ways to strip dangerous concepts of their energy,” he stated.

That stance elicited waves of concern and criticism, together with from well-liked Substack writers who stated they didn’t really feel comfy working with a platform that enables hateful rhetoric to fester or flourish.

The controversy has renewed questions which have lengthy plagued expertise corporations and social media platforms about how content material must be moderated, if in any respect.

Substack, which takes a ten % reduce of income from writers who cost for e-newsletter subscriptions, has confronted comparable criticism previously, significantly after it allowed transphobic and anti-vaccine language from some writers.

Nikki Usher, a professor of communication on the College of San Diego, stated that many platforms are confronting what is named “the Nazi downside,” which stipulates that if an internet discussion board is offered for lengthy sufficient, there are going to be extremists there in some unspecified time in the future.

Substack is establishing itself as a impartial supplier of content material, Professor Usher stated, however that additionally sends a message: “We’re not going to attempt to police this downside as a result of it’s sophisticated, so it’s simpler to not take a place.”

Greater than 200 writers who publish newsletters on Substack have signed a letter opposing the corporate’s passive method.

“Why do you select to advertise and permit the monetization of web sites that site visitors in white nationalism?” the letter stated.

The writers additionally requested if a part of the corporate’s imaginative and prescient for achievement included giving hateful folks, comparable to Richard Spencer, a distinguished white nationalist, a platform.

“Tell us,” the letter stated. “From there we will every resolve if that is nonetheless the place we wish to be.”

Some well-liked writers on the platform have already promised to go away. Rudy Foster, who has greater than 40,000 subscribers, wrote on Dec. 14 that readers typically inform her they “can’t stand to pay Substack anymore,” and that she feels the identical.

“So right here’s to a 2024 the place none of us do this!” she wrote.

Different writers have defended the corporate. A letter signed by roughly 100 Substack writers says that it’s higher to let the writers and readers reasonable content material, not social media corporations.

Elle Griffin, who has greater than 13,000 subscribers on Substack, wrote within the letter that whereas “there may be a number of hateful content material on the web,” Substack has “provide you with the very best resolution but: Giving writers and readers the liberty of speech with out surfacing that speech to the plenty.”

She argued that subscribers obtain solely the newsletters they join, so it’s unlikely that they’ll obtain hateful content material except they comply with it. That’s not the case on X and Fb, Ms. Griffin stated.

She and the others who signed the letter supporting the corporate emphasised that Substack shouldn’t be actually one platform, however hundreds of individualized platforms with distinctive and curated cultures.

Alexander Hellene, who writes sci-fi and fantasy tales, signed Ms. Griffin’s letter. In a post on Substack, he stated that a greater method to content material moderation was “to take issues into your individual fingers.”

“Be an grownup,” he wrote. “Block folks.”

In his assertion, Mr. McKenzie, the Substack co-founder, additionally defended his determination to host Richard Hanania, the president of the Heart for the Research of Partisanship and Ideology, on the Substack podcast “The Energetic Voice.” The Atlantic reported that Mr. Hanania had beforehand described Black folks on social media as “animals” who must be topic to “extra policing, incarceration, and surveillance.”

“Hanania is an influential voice for some in U.S. politics,” Mr. McKenzie wrote, including that “there may be worth in understanding his arguments.” He stated he was not conscious of Mr. Hanania’s writings on the time.

Mr. McKenzie additionally argued in his assertion that censorship of concepts which can be thought-about to be hateful solely makes them unfold.

However research in recent years suggests the opposite is true.

“Deplatforming does appear to have a optimistic impact on diminishing the unfold of far-right propaganda and Nazi content material,” stated Kurt Braddock, a professor of communication at American College who has researched violent extremist teams.

When extremists are faraway from a platform, they typically go to a different platform, however a lot of their viewers doesn’t comply with them and their incomes are finally diminished, Professor Braddock stated.

“I can recognize any individual’s dedication to freedom of speech rights, however freedom of speech rights are dictated by the federal government,” he stated, noting that companies can select the kinds of content material they host or prohibit.

Whereas Substack says it doesn’t permit customers to name for violence, even that distinction will be murky, Professor Braddock stated, as a result of racists and extremists can stroll as much as the road with out overtly doing that. However their rhetoric can nonetheless encourage others to violence, he stated.

Permitting Nazi rhetoric on a platform additionally normalizes it, he stated.

“The extra they use the form of rhetoric that dehumanizes or demonizes a sure inhabitants,” Professor Braddock stated, “the extra it turns into OK for the overall inhabitants to comply with.”