How Nazi newsletters plunged Substack into a free speech row
James Warrington
6 min read
censored screen
When Bari Weiss launched a Substack profile following her acrimonious departure from The New York Times, she hailed the new venture as the “newspaper for the 21st century”.
Weiss, who had become embroiled in a free speech row with the left-leaning publication, joined a wave of high-profile journalists and writers signing up to the newsletter service, which offers users a platform to publish their own work.
Since its inception in 2017, the San Francisco-based company has caught the “new media” wave and cemented its place in the cultural and political conscience. Now, though, it is facing perhaps the greatest crisis in its short history.
Substack this week removed several pro-Nazi newsletters from its site following a backlash from writers, marking a climbdown in an escalating row over censorship.
The move has proved divisive. Some viewed the dalliance with Nazi content as a final straw, and have defected to rivals. Others complained that bosses have reneged on their promises to provide a truly free speech outlet.
Fundamentally, though, the row has revealed the flaws in Substack’s explicitly light-touch editorial approach. So now, as it faces down a possible exodus, the company must face up to fundamental questions about its role in the modern media landscape.
Bari Weiss launched a Substack subscription after resigning from the New York Times - Dan Callister
“I think there is an issue here of where Substack wants to be,” says media analyst Ian Whittaker. “It produces some great content but, like with all platforms, it needs credibility to attract writers and get people to pay.”
For writers, the appeal of Substack is clear. As social media allowed high-profile journalists and commentators to develop a personal brand, the newsletter service in turn enabled them to cash in.
Authors can charge a subscription fee of at least $5 (£3.93) a month, meaning the most popular newsletters can earn millions of dollars per year. Substack typically takes a 10pc commission on subscription fees.
The platform also gives writers an easy way to reach their readers directly. Telegraph columnist and former Guardian journalist Suzanne Moore, who has more than 17,000 subscribers on Substack, says it is “very freeing for some writers because most of us are so useless at tech and business”.
For many, though, one of the major attractions is the freedom offered by Substack’s lax editorial stance.
While the website bans content that incites violence, or is harmful or illegal, it largely takes a hands-off approach, boasting it “hosts and celebrates a diverse range of thought and discussion”.
However, this freewheeling policy has come under scrutiny in recent months after it emerged far-Right authors had been posting overtly Nazi ideology and symbols on the site.
Initially, Substack resisted pressure to remove the offending newsletters, insisting it would not engage in censorship. More than a hundred writers, including Weiss and Richard Dawkins, sided with the company’s refusal to abandon its free speech policy.
But in the face of a mounting revolt from a larger group of writers, which included the author Margaret Atwood, Substack this week agreed to remove five pro-Nazi newsletters, admitting that they did in fact violate its guidelines.
In a statement, the company said: “We are actively working on more reporting tools that can be used to flag content that potentially violates our guidelines, and we will continue working on tools for user moderation so Substack users can set and refine the terms of their own experience on the platform.”
Free speech activist Richard Dawkins is one of a number of writers who came out in support of Substack maintaining its original stance - John Lawrence
Yet the row is far from over. Some high-profile writers have already defected to rivals such as Buttondown. Platformer, an influential tech newsletter that led the campaign against Nazi content, has said it is continuing to consider its position.
For Substack, the threat of a writers’ exodus will be concerning. The company is opaque about its finances, but there have been glimpses of its high rate of cash burn.
Substack, which is backed by major Silicon Valley investors including Andreessen Horowitz, spent $25m in just 12 months in 2021 and has reportedly struggled to fundraise amid a wider tech downturn. Last year it attempted to raise $5m directly from its writers.
While tech firms are accustomed to burning through cash as they build their user base, a major defection of writers could undermine the newsletter service’s growth story and damage hopes of future investment.
More fundamentally, though, the saga has exposed the dilemma facing Substack about what role it plays in the publishing world.
Ideally, the company wants to be merely a tech provider for independent publishers, engaging only in moderation that is required by law. This enables maximum business with minimal liability.
“Compared to social media or a TV channel the harms of allowing extremist content are lower for Substack, because people don’t find newsletters on Substack,” says Joe Teasdale at Enders Analysis. “It basically just provides publishing, communication and payments services.”
The reverse side of the coin, however, is that this light-touch approach makes it easier for users to defect. Substack’s offering is not unique, and so provides little incentive for disenchanted writers to stay put.
“It’s the other side of ‘with great power comes great responsibility’,” adds Teasdale. “Substack isn’t responsible for its content, but as such it doesn’t have the power to resist a boycott.”
As a result, Substack may need to become more like a social media site, enabling readers and writers to discover each other and thus encouraging users to stay on the platform.
There are signs the company is already moving in this direction. Last year it launched Notes, a social media-esque text feed that closely resembles Twitter.
Yet by recommending content to users, Substack risks drifting into publisher territory, leaving it responsible for the content it hosts.
So now, as writers row over moderation, Substack must decide which path to take. Will it hold onto its model as a free speech platform, similar to Elon Musk’s troubled X, or will it ditch these ideals and carve out a new position in the social media landscape?
Whittaker, the media analyst, argues that the company should focus on gaining credibility and leave the “anything goes” policy to Musk.
Moore agrees. “It’s a utopian idea that everything remains free and uncontaminated by some of the extreme politics that surrounds us – it can’t,” she says. “[Substack] has to be the anti-Twitter.”
