Substack: The Problem of Openness and a Potential Remedy

I don’t fully agree with

Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse.

much as I didn’t fully agree with

The internet needs better rules, not stricter referees

In general, I agree with more openness and less censorship. In other words, I believe that, in general, people should be free to publish what they want on Substack.

However, I disagree that openness is necessarily better in cases of hate and misinformation.

In the post from a few months ago, two of Substack’s founders wrote:

People will hate-read and doom-scroll, but they won’t hate-pay or doom-subscribe. While people pay attention to content that makes them agitated, they’ll only pay money for content they trust and value.

What? Of course people will hate-pay or doom-subscribe! When readers concur with hate or doom, do they think “I’ll read it – but I won't pay for it”?

Do I really need to cite examples of profit from hate or doom? People do pay for content they trust and value – including hate or doom.

In their current post, the Substack founders say:

“We don’t have a misinformation problem … We have a trust problem.”

Actually, we have both. They sort-of admit this later, asserting that by using censorship, “you don’t make the misinformation problem disappear but you do make the mistrust problem worse.”

While censorship doesn’t make misinformation or hate disappear, it can take away a platform. By contrast, Substack can do the opposite of making misinformation or hate disappear; it can facilitate and amplify it.

Censorship will drive some people to bad ideas and away from good ideas. But so will openness. Again, I agree that openness is better in general. But there are downsides to Substack’s openness.

Misinformation and hate aren’t abstract problems. They can cause damage, even death, to people and institutions. For instance, misinformation can lead people to tragic errors regarding their health. Hate can motivate people to violence. If misinformation is undermining public health and hate is undermining society or democracy, Substack’s open marketplace of ideas could be harmful.

To take a hypothetical but plausible example, would you feel comfortable about a 21st century equivalent of the Nazi party publishing a popular Substack? Maybe you’d say, “No – but I still wouldn’t censor them.” That might be a reasonable view. But other views about a Nazi newsletter might also be reasonable and arguably preferable.

Twitter or Facebook would probably remove a Nazi publication. Substack would apparently allow it (unless perhaps if the publication promoted violence or other criminality). Neither is necessarily right or wrong. And something less extreme than a Nazi publication might be a close call. But my point is that Substack shouldn’t be so convinced that openness is better.

---

I don’t want to win a dispute with the Substack founders. I mainly want to show a need for something other than openness to deal with problems of misinformation and hate.

---

In both posts, the Substack founders use the word “discourse” to signal openness. But how much discourse is there, really, between newsletters with opposing views and “facts,” or between their audiences? I’m not certain. But I suspect that on Substack, as elsewhere, conservatives interact mainly with conservatives, and liberals with liberals.

I feel we’d benefit from open, respectful, and substantive discourse. Widespread engagement with more opinions and evidence could promote and generate good ideas.

Maybe it’s mostly a dream. But I feel it’s better than the current situation.

---

I doubt we’ll get much open discourse on Substack as it is.

I propose a “meta-Substack”: a place to discuss posts from any Substack newsletter. The posts and discussions about them could be on any topic, from least to most controversial.

I’m not suggesting this idea with confidence that it will become real, but in the hope that something like it will happen.

For a meta-Substack to work, discussion must be polite – perhaps passionate, but not hostile. I presume various forums have facilitated constructive discussions, and could serve as examples for how to do that.

I’m not sure what form a meta-Substack would take. I envision a discussion board, like Reddit or Discord. Or maybe it would look like some other social network.

I’m not sure whether Substack would feel comfortable with or want to devote the resources necessary for a meta-Substack forum. Could it be organized and moderated by volunteers in a foundation like Wikipedia? Could it be run by a DAO?

Would Substack publishers and readers participate in sufficient numbers? I feel it’s possible. For publishers, the risk of criticism could be outweighed by the reward of reaching a larger audience. Readers could discover newsletters and posts they would have missed otherwise. A meta-Substack could be at least as much about promoting good work as coping with controversy.

Would a meta-Substack make dangerous publications less dangerous or readers less likely to act on dangers? Possibly; possibly not. Some publishers and readers might modify their views in light of criticisms. Others might ignore criticisms or even double-down in spite or them. I’d like to think that exposure to various perspectives would typically be a good thing.

Again, maybe I’m just dreaming. But I’d rather propose this idea than be resigned to Substack’s downsides.

---

What do you think about openness, censorship, and their upsides or downsides on Substack? Do you think a “meta-Substack” could encourage the good things and lessen the bad? Do you have other ideas on these issues?

I hope you’ll share this post. The ideas would benefit from more perspectives. My contributions may be a starting point, but far from any last word.

Thanks.