Free speech cannot be hold up for people who are against free speech. You can't be tolerant to intolerant people. That is the hard lesson from German history in the 1920s and 30s. Germany at that time was a very tolerant democracy. They allowed free speech for everyone, democrats, monarchists, nazis, communists... . The result was a power grab of the most violent and intolerant party (this was legal, because you know: free speech!) resulting in the total destruction of German society within 12 years.
Censoring intolerant people is just letting them taste their own medicine.
It is disappointing to see, that Twitter/X and Musk haven't grokked that, Substack hasn't grokked that, Noam Chomsky hasn't grokked that and the American society as a whole hasn't grokked that.
>> "we don't think that censorship (including through demonetizing publications) makes the problem go away"
If only anyone had ever studied the problem so he could base his decision in reality rather than supposin'. Sunlight is not, in fact, the best disinfectant. And given how his cofounder dropped the softball Nilay Patel threw him, I think he knows and doesn't care. It's all about that drive to IPO to pay off investors and cash out.
Reading the responses here, so far everyone has taken the currently dominant majority viewpoint strongly against any platforming of unpopular, offensive free speech. Since my position on this is so clearly in the minority, I kind of feel obligated to post here just to share that philosophically I agree with what's stated in the OP. To be clear, I don't know about any other positions which may be held by the author or the organization so I hold no view on those - but as far as what the OP itself actually says, I think it's basically 'right.' Even if only in the awkward sense that it's the 'least wrong' answer to a thorny question which has no good answers.
Of course, that doesn't mean I agree with any of the, likely, reprehensible things the stated policy will allow to be published. I acknowledge my viewpoint on free speech is wildly unpopular these days and, frankly, I'm both conflicted and deeply uncomfortable holding it. But I've held this general view on free speech for a very long time and nothing that's happened in recent decades has caused me to abandon the fundamental principles in which it is grounded. Others have defended these principles far more persuasively and eloquently than I can (going back to the founding of the ACLU) and I doubt I can do any better.
I concede that these lofty free speech principles can result in perverse outcomes I hate but I've long understood that "free speech" is not free. In fact, the costs can be very high and all too real. Allowing the most vile and disgusting ideas to be openly shared is the high price I reluctantly, regretfully still believe is worth paying.
Believing this requires a lot of trust. I have to trust most people are able to eventually recognize wrong, bad or evil ideas when they hear them. I have to trust that most people are fundamentally pretty reasonable, fairly bright - and most importantly - basically defaulted to strive toward good vs evil. Certainly not everyone and not all the time, but most of us, most of the time. Finally, holding my viewpoint requires trusting that many people like me will exercise their own free speech to counter wrong, bad or evil free speech. That others, whether they agree with me on free speech or not, will still join me in not just condemning but also marching against evil when necessary.
I would argue this has nothing to do with free speech. Substack is a media company. They are not a utility where cutting a person off would take away any governmental rights to speech. They don't allow sexual content so they are not proponents of free speech at all costs.
They've chosen to allow alternative (racist) views, which cause quite a lot of harm, over female nipples, which causes very little harm. It's a very weak argument on their side.
Just be little Rupert Murdochs and say you want a private jet and you don't care how you get it.
I was at a shitty crustpunk bar once getting an after-work beer. One of those shitholes where the bartenders clearly hate you. So the bartender and I were ignoring one another when someone sits next to me and he immediately says, "no. get out."
And the dude next to me says, "hey i'm not doing anything, i'm a paying customer." and the bartender reaches under the counter for a bat or something and says, "out. now." and the dude leaves, kind of yelling. And he was dressed in a punk uniform, I noticed
Anyway, I asked what that was about and the bartender was like, "you didn't see his vest but it was all nazi shit. Iron crosses and stuff. You get to recognize them."
And i was like, ohok and he continues.
"you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it's always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don't want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too.
And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it's too late because they're entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down.
And i was like, 'oh damn.' and he said "yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people."
And then he went back to ignoring me. But I haven't forgotten that at all.
It's a real thing. The minute you throw the door open to extreme views, they start pushing every other view out. Soon all the people capable of civil discussion have moved on, and the bartender is witnessing a tiny beer hall putsch.
First he says he doesn't want to be a censor. Then he says he wants to promote fringe and disagreeable views for wider consideration.