Substack’s Heart of Darkness (Vol. 3)

On the evening of Tuesday, November 28, I had a previously scheduled video chat with my main man Michael Estrin.

We had an awesome two-hour discussion, but Michael conceded he’d been more down than usual owing to Substack’s horniness for platforming hate-mongers and monetizing hate speech. 

A prominent Substack writer named Emily Nunn had linked to Jonathan Katz’s recent article in The Atlantic titled, “Substack Has a Nazi Problem,” and rightfully asked if anyone on the platform’s shitty Twitter knockoff, Notes, was going to acknowledge the problem.

Jonathan, Michael, Alex Dobrenko, and other high-profile writers weighed in, calling attention to the issue and calling out Substack CEO Chris Best and COO Hamish McKenzie for not enforcing their own company’s Terms of Service.

During our chat I could sense Michael’s justifiable distress and told him I had his back, and that I’d make a scene on Notes the following morning.

And let me tell you, your boy can make a goddamned scene.

I lobbed a longwinded Note into the Substack ether, which I carefully and deliberately worded to suggest the issue at hand is not “free speech,” but rather a losing business strategy which poses a legitimate threat to Substack’s long-term viability.

Generally speaking, the majority of writers on the platform agreed and supported my position. As the Note picked up steam, however, the incels emerged from their masturbation caves and started a good ole fashioned pile on.

Over the past four days I’ve received dozens of deliciously deranged responses to my Note, which clearly indicate the ghouls reading it defaulted to their reactionary dipshit positions of “fuck you liberal pussy FREE SPEECH!”

And here’s the thing: I’ve read every response, because—contrary to popular opinion—I don’t know everything, I don’t have all the answers, and even though I hold strong positions on many issues, I’m willing to engage in good faith discourse on controversial or complicated topics if the counterarguments are cogently presented.

Alas, this ain’t that.

Behold Volume Three of Substack’s Heart of Darkness, which features my favorite responses from this pathetic crowd of critical thinkers.

This tough guy kicked things off with a bang.

This angry Incel accused me of thinking I’m smarter than I am, which is almost certainly true.

This critical thinker failed to recognize the dichotomy of endorsing hate speech and making love instead of war.

This hero of the revolution said I’m too afraid to compete in the arena of ideas, which isn’t true. I’m only afraid to compete in the arena of disproven ideas, like eugenics.

This contrarian thinker just went for it, which made me so, so happy.

This walking thesaurus really has an impressive grasp of the English language (not a great speller though).

This guy actually made a good point about censorship being a “slippery slope.” Problem is, I wasn’t advocating for censorship, and before I could respond to his comment he begged his surrogate daddy Matt Taibbi—scourge of the Deep State and noted sex creep—to go after me.

These dipshits suggested I was somehow not manly enough to have valuable opinions, which reveals the intrinsic misogyny of their sex-starved worldview. Women are smart too, Bro. Also, I have two demonic progeny which prove my loins are powerful. And my wife is hot AF.

This guy name-dropped his hero, Jon Rappoport, who’s apparently an Incel Warlord of some repute. The hilarity here is his boy Rappoport subscribes to my newsletter. [Update: He eventually bailed.]

Karl Hungus here somehow missed that his avatar and namesake are based off a character who was a nihilistic Nazi, who had his kidnapping plans foiled, his ear bitten off, and got the shit kicked out of him by real American Walter Sobchak.

This meanie said mean things about my writing, which hurt my delicate feelings. He also left this comment on my fantastic Thanksgiving post. I deleted it, but will be delighted to sign his copy of Leverage if and when it hits bookshelves.

This tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist got it half right.

This rough and tumble Texan tried to dunk on me like five times, only to fail to realize the irony of preemptively blocking me before I could respond.

This one speaks for itself.

And finally, this was the soundest argument presented.

Don’t Worry, These Men are Cowards

Despite the bile above, one guy named “Benny” chimed in with a critical, but reasonable, response.

Over two separate Notes he accused me of having no moral authority over what people should be allowed to read, pushed back on the risk of “censorship,” said liberal panic and pearl-clutching made it hard to take those on “the left” seriously, and challenged my assertion that hate speech was a dominant revenue driver for the platform.

I thought these were valid points, and since he didn’t lead with an ad hominem attack it seemed reasonable to respond to his critiques.

In my first reply I reminded him Substack is a private company with undisclosed financials, and said if he had access to the company’s revenue by newsletter segment he should share it with everyone.

In my second, I spent over twenty minutes thoughtfully crafting the reply below:

This is reasonable, and I agree that these terms are robbed of their meaning if they’re overused. I don’t know Katz personally.

In my original Note, and throughout my responses on the Thread, I tried to generalize to “hate speech,” which in many cases is subjective and mileage can vary. In my opinion, I have seen a lot of hate speech on the platform, but to your other point, it doesn’t appear to be the dominant category. Nonetheless, it is visible and prominent with minimal searching.

Also, at no point in my original Note, or in any of my responses, did I call for “censorship.” I’ve repeatedly made it clear throughout my responses that I’m 100% free speech. I haven’t blocked, reported, bullied, or tried to silence anyone. I haven’t advocated for curtailing anyone’s free expression. I can’t control what people think nor am I trying to. I am nobody’s moral authority but my own.

Nonetheless, people have come at me with ad hominem attacks, called me a Nazi, a book burner, and—my personal favorite—a “foreigner” despite being an American citizen. By the way, everyone is a “foreigner” depending on the perspective, and Substack is a global business.

These are not good faith arguments. In particular since Substack is a private business and has no obligation to entertain or host any user’s speech. I am a private user of this private platform. If Substack deleted my account right now I would have no legal recourse.

Moreover, the issue I and others are pointing out is that Substack—as a private business—is not even adhering to its own terms of service, which it established. I would like the company management to address that in some form or fashion, even if their response is, “Fuck you liberal cuck.”

My bigger point is, as I mentioned in the other Note, I believe amplifying or promoting that type of content is ultimately a losing business strategy. Even if it’s just the perception that management is doing it. And if the platform fails, then every user loses out.

Thank you for a measured response. You might still disagree with my perspective, and that’s fine.

I eagerly awaited Benny’s reply, hoping to engage in good faith discourse, and remained open-minded to modifying my perspective or learning something new.

A few hours later, after two users “liked” my comment, I went in search of his replies.

Benny had deleted them.

I guess he’s too afraid to compete in the arena of ideas.