Monthly Archives: March 2022

Growing up in Denmark, Jacob Mchangama says he took free speech for granted. So he embarked on a journey through history to discover what free speech really means, not as an empty, abstract principle, but as a practice that matters more than we may understand.

His book, Free Speech: A History From Socrates to Social Media, is a call to protect that ideal ata time when free expression seems to be under scrutiny from all sides. I think we have to look back at what went before, and how hard it was for free speech to become a fundamental value, he says.

Free speech can be messy even harmful at times. For author Jacob Mchangama, the ideals long and robust history proves its worth fighting for.

For Mr. Mchangama, what is needed now is a culture of free speech, which means being tolerant even when its uncomfortable.

Not that we should enforce tolerance by limiting speech, but we have to accept that in diverse societies, people are going to have diverse opinions and thats not necessarily a threat. In many ways, its a bonus. But sometimes people will have diverse opinions that you really, really disagree with. Thats a cost of living in a free and equal society, and its a cost that is worth bearing.

From efforts to ban books to demands for increased monitoring of social media platforms, free speech is under scrutiny. Instead of joining the calls to limit speech, Jacob Mchangama, a lawyer and the executive director of the Danish think tank Justitia, takes the opposite approach. In his book Free Speech: A History From Socrates to Social Media, he calls on historys greatest philosophers and activists from John Stuart Mill to Ida B. Wells to Mahatma Gandhi to serve as chief witnesses in his defense of free speech today. He recently spoke with the Monitor.

What first ignited your passion for free speech?

I was born in secular, liberal Denmark where ... I took free speech for granted. It was like breathing air. Then the cartoon affair when a Danish newspaper published cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad made Denmark the epicenter of a global battle of values over the relationship between free speech and religion, and also forced a lot of people in Denmark to rethink, what does free speech mean? Is it just an empty, abstract principle that we can use in a tribalist manner? Or, does it really matter? And thats why I wanted to look at contemporary-era [free speech] issues through the prism of history because that allows you to get a more detached view of current affairs than if you are caught in the Twitter narrative.

Free speech can be messy even harmful at times. For author Jacob Mchangama, the ideals long and robust history proves its worth fighting for.

What new challenges has social media presented?

Were in a process of migrating from the analog city to the digital city. That means the institutions we built, which sustained us for a long time, are not necessarily as relevant and legitimate in our minds as they used to be. Weve seen a plummeting of trust in traditional media, institutions, and politicians. And I think social media has contributed to that. But I think it would be dangerously misguided to say we need to then abolish or roll back free speech.

What lessons can we take from history on how, and how not, to counteract disinformation and hate speech?

First of all, we have to be aware that what counts as disinformation, hate speech, or other types of harmful speech is likely to change. If you were living in the 17th century, you would look upon deists or atheists as [advocating] the worst kind of disinformation. Many people would think that it was perfectly legitimate to persecute such ideas because no society could stand that allowed such attacks on its foundation. Today, we look at such ideas as pretty uncontroversial. Open democracies have to be very, very careful about limiting free speech. [It can be] intuitively attractive to want to limit free speech because you say, Well, if free speech facilitates concrete harms against our democracies, against minorities, against our institutions, against truth itself, we should limit it. But [even though] free speech may sometimes facilitate harms, [it] does not necessarily follow that restrictions on free speech are an efficient method of countering [them] or that the benefits of limiting certain kinds of speech will outweigh the harms.

Get stories that empower and uplift daily.

What values help a society to prioritize a free speech culture?

I think we have to look back at what went before, and how hard it was for free speech to become a fundamental value. We need a culture of free speech, which ultimately means that we have to be tolerant as human beings. Not that we should enforce tolerance by limiting speech, but we have to accept that in diverse societies, people are going to have diverse opinions and thats not necessarily a threat. In many ways, its a bonus. But sometimes people will have diverse opinions that you really, really disagree with. Thats a cost of living in a free and equal society, and its a cost that is worth bearing.

Read the original post:
Why this author says free speech is needed now more than ever - The Christian Science Monitor

(The Center Square) Legislation that would allow public sector workers to speak against policy proposals in public hearings passed both chambers of the Virginia General Assembly and will be sent to Gov. Glenn Youngkins desk.

House Bill 384, sponsored by Del. Glenn Davis, R-Virginia Beach, passed with bipartisan support: 72-27 in the House and 26-14 in the Senate. The governor is expected to sign the legislation.

The bill would ensure that public sector workers do not lose their right to free speech when commenting on current or proposed policies by public institutions during a public hearing. This would apply even if they are speaking against a policy proposal in their workplace. The law is meant to protect the workers freedoms of conscience and expression.

If Youngkin signs the legislation, employers would not be allowed to fire or penalize workers who criticize policies in such hearings. According to the bill, these hearings provide time for public comment, at which point the employee is speaking on his own behalf as a member of the public.

Questions surrounding the constitutionality of punishing a public worker for speaking against proposed policies during a public hearing erupted last year when a Loudoun County gym teacher was suspended from his job after he criticized a proposed transgender policy that was ultimately adopted.

While speaking during the public comment period of a school board meeting, the teacher, Tanner Cross, said he would refuse to call students by their preferred gender pronouns if the pronoun did not match the biological sex of the student. He said he would refuse to affirm that a biological boy could be a girl or that a biological girl could be a boy.

Cross sued the school, arguing the school violated his constitutional right to free speech. Cross and the school reached a settlement, which allowed him to keep his job and prevented the school from retaliating against him for expressing his views about the policy.

The law would not apply to speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment, such as anything that incites violence, is obscene, defamatory or fraudulent or discloses privileged and confidential information.

Read this article:
Virginia bill to protect public workers' free speech heads to governor - KPVI News 6

To those who think political commentator Bill Maher has somehow drifted from his traditionally liberal beliefs, the comedian says it's actually those on the left who have become too extreme in theirs.

That was one of the sentiments made by the talk show host of Real Time with Bill Maher to conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro on a coming episode of Shapiro's The Ben Shapiro Show: Sunday Special.

"Look I haven't changed ... at all. My politics haven't changed. They've changed," said Maher, referring to those on the left of the political aisle.

Newsweek got an exclusive first look at portions of the show featuring the pair in a sit-down hourlong interview discussing topics from Russia's war on Ukraine and how woke politics are alienating Hispanic voters to the coronavirus pandemic, free speech, climate change and the potential plans of former President Donald Trump in 2024.

"... Five years ago, no one was talking about defunding the police. I never heard that phrase five years ago. That's not me changing, that's things changing. I'm reacting to it as I've always been," Maher told Shapiro. "... Letting 3-year-olds decide what gender they are. This wasn't something five years ago. Free speech, you know, used to be a left-wing thing that we were proud of and owned and now that seems to be under attack, so again, I think I've stayed the same."

In recent months, Maher has spoken out more and been critical of progressive policies, which have left some asking whether he has altered his political views.

"... Maher is not the jester speaking truth to power. He is a hypocrite pushing misinformation. If he wants Democrats to win as badly as he claims, he should either get his facts straight or cancel himself," wrote Bill Scher, writer and co-host of the online show The DMZ in a January article of Washington Monthly.

Less recently, some have criticized Maher's comments about learning to live with the COVID-19 pandemic. Also, in 2019, liberal comedian Trae Crowder blamed Maher for pushing the narrative that the more-liberal elites look down on those in rural red states.

In Shapiro's coming episode, a larger discussion between the two focused on identity politics. Shapiro queried Maher about whether Democrats are so tied into a mindset where everybody is described based on their race (as opposed to being part of a broad platform to which anybody can ascribe) that it's skewing their vision and ultimately hurting the party.

"Biden was supposed to be a moderate above all that and he really hasn't governed that way," Shapiro said.

The two also bantered about misconceptions around Hispanic voters.

"Immigration is an issue where the Democrats are really not getting itI mean they're losing the Hispanic vote," said Maher. "... Their conception I thinkand it's wrongis that every Latino in America is thinking, 'Boy, more immigrationthat would be the best thing' and a lot of them are thinking, 'No, I'm here and the last thing I want is someone else coming over whose going to do my job for a little less money.'"

"I wonder when this is going to sink into the Democratic Party leadership," he added.

Maher is also getting into the world of podcasting. On Wednesday, it was reported by Deadline that he would be hosting an hourlong weekly show featuring a range of guests talking about anything, except politics.

For his part, Shapiro said he's appreciative of Maher's political voice.

"Bill Maher is one of the most important voices on mainstream television right now because he's perhaps the only liberal commentator who is willing to stand up to the cultural extremism of the left," Shapiro told Newsweek. "It was a pleasure having him on the Sunday Special. Our conversation is going to surprise a lot of people."

The Ben Shapiro Show: Sunday Special will debut March 12 on The Daily Wire news website for its members. The episode will be available on YouTube or wherever podcasts are available afterward.

See the original post here:
Bill Maher Says Liberals Have Changed, Rips Left on Free Speech and More - Newsweek

How has the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in favor of Citizens United changed the political fundraising landscape and impacted elections?

That will be the subject of the next Free Speech Caf, sponsored by Western Michigan University's We Talk Tuesday March 15th at 11am. Public Media Network will stream the discussion. A recording will be available later for viewing and listening.

WMUK Content Director Gordon Evans will moderate the conversation with Rodericka Applewhaite, senior communications advisor for the Michigan Democratic Party, and Republican political strategist Jason Cabel Roe.

Find more details about the event on Tuesday March 15th.

A campus viewing party is planned for 11 a.m. in Room 1024 of the Lee Honors College. Seating is limited and registration is required.

WMU We Talk/Courtesy photo

/

Rodericka Applewhaite

Rodericka Applewhaite grew up in Georgia and is a political research and communications professional who has worked on several federal and statewide Democratic campaigns.

Jason Cabel Roe

WMU We Talk/courtesy photo

/

For nearly 30 years, Western Michigan University graduate Jason Roe has worked as a political and communications strategist. Hes nationally recognized for his work in campaigns and government advising candidates for President, Congress, Governor, and state and local office, as well as free market interests and political parties.

Western Michigan University We Talk

The purpose of We Talk is to foster a campus culture of responsible and respectful civic, social, political and policy engagement.We seek to raise awareness about free speech protections and promote the value of respecting viewpoint diversity as part of the academic setting and learning environment.

We Talk '22 is designed to build upon We Talk programming held in 2021 and will focus on building our skill sets and providing academic tools for having difficult conversations.

We Talk program development is guided by the principles and practices of the Heterodox Academy, which is focused on improving the quality of research and education in universities by increasing open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement. Your donation can help provide vital support to this initiative.

Read the rest here:
Money's impact on elections and free speech - WMUK

Breadcrumb Trail Links

'Contrary to what you believe about democratic governments spying on its citizens, they are.'

Author of the article:

Big Brother is actually watching you and your every move.

In other words, your privacy rights are being trampled on and they are being violated by governments and big tech companies. Both are egregious abuses of power.

You may shrug it off and say to yourself: I have nothing to worry about, I live a clean life.

Then one day, says William Binney, a veteran of the U.S. National Security Agency, you become irritated by an act of overreach by your government. So you decide to exercise your right to freedom of speech and thought and your right to peacefully protest. And you stand in front of City Hall and call out what you believe to be an injustice.

When you do that, you will be put on a watchlist. They will find you and quickly. Thats because you and your data left electronic fingerprints everywhere. And contrary to what you believe about democratic governments spying on its citizens, they are.

They will use the information they gathered about you, against you.

Binney, a 36-year veteran of the NSA, says what the government is doing is unconstitutional.

Binney was granted special recognition by the Allard Prize for International Integrity for blowing the whistle on the NSA for using a program he developed called ThinThread to spy on Americans.

Stuart McNish invited William Binney to join him for a Conversation that Matters about your loss of privacy, both in Canada and the United States.

Please become a Patreon subscriber and support the production of this program, with a $1 pledge here.

View post:
Conversations That Matter: Have we lost our right to free speech? - Vancouver Sun

We recently discussed controversies involving Russian artists and athletes being told that they will be cancelled or blacklisted if they do not expressly denounce the Russian invasion of Ukraine and President Vladimir Putin. Now that assault on free speech has reached the highest levels of ballet after Tugan Sokhiev, the chief conductor at Bolshoi Theatre and the Orchestre National du Capitole de Toulouse, resigned rather than be coerced into such public statements. The Munich Philharmonic also dismissed chief conductor Valery Gergiev after he failed to condemn the invasion.

Sokhiev is one of the most celebrated and respected conductors in the world. He also happens to be Russian. For many, his musical contributions became secondary when he failed to publicly condemn Putin. They demanded that he speak or resign. He resigned.

Sokhievwrote on Facebook during last few days I witnessed something I thought I would never see in my life. In Europe, today I am forced to make a choice and choose one of my musical family over the other.

As we previously discussed, it is during wartime and periods of social discord that the greatest abuses can occur for those with dissenting or unpopular views. Despite mystrong support for Ukraine and condemnation of Putin, it is important for advocates of civil liberties and free speech to stand against such blacklisting and compelled speech.

For many, this is hardly a new movement. For years, powerfulpoliticians,academics, and even some in themedia have demanded more censorship. This move against Russian performers and athletes may draw the unwitting into this anti-free speech movement. The response to those of us who are raising concerns is the same and predictable. You are called an apologist for Putin or a traitor to the cause. It is an effort to create a glacial chilling effect on dissenting voices.

Once again, it is important to addressthe rationalization on the leftfor attacks on free speech in recent years: the First Amendment only protects speech from government crackdowns. The First Amendment is not the full or exclusive embodiment of free speech. It addresses just one of the dangers to free speech posed by government regulation. Many of us view free speech as a human right. Corporate censorship of social media clearly impacts free speech, and replacing Big Brother with a cadre of Little Brothers actually allows for far greater control of free expression. As I have noted earlier, while liberal writers and artists were blacklisted and investigated in the 1950s, liberal activists have succeeded in censoring opposing views to an unprecedented degree in recent years. Rather than burn books, they havesimply gotten stores to ban them or blacklist the authors, athletes, and artists.

Figures like the great singer Paul Robeson (right) found themselves barred from performances due to their refusal to condemn others or Russia.

Some, however, are not intimidated but rather incensed by the attack on free speech. In the meantime, at least one opera lover is boycotting the Met after it cancelled another great Russian artist for not publicly reciting the official line against Putin. I recently received the attached letter from a donor at the Met who stated that he was changing his will over the controversy involving soprano Anna Netrebko. He would no longer leave his estate to the Met and pledged to stop his regular contributions to the institution.

As for Sokhiev, he noted that in both cities he regularly invited Ukrainian singers and conductors because we never even thought about our nationalities. We were enjoying making music together.

The response from the mayor of Toulouse, Jean-Luc Moudenc, was particularly telling. While denying that they demanded that Sokhiev make a choice between his native country and his beloved city of Toulouse, the mayor added: However, it was unthinkable to imagine that he would remain silent in the face of the war situation, both vis--vis the musicians and the public and the community.

It is not unthinkable. He may support the invasion or fear for himself or his family in opposing this tyrant. It does not matter his reasons. He should have a right to hold opposing views or to remain silent. What is unthinkable is that artists are being blacklisted for refusing to recite political statements like some reeducation camp in the Cultural Revolution. It is a curious way to fight tyranny by denying free speech.

The Met donor allowed me to post the following version of his letter:

Peter Gelb letter_1

Read more:
Bolshoi Conductor Resigns Over Free Speech Controversy as the Crackdown Continues for Artists and Athletes - Jonathan Turley

The Supreme Court is hearing a case about a federal program that never took place, the Clean Power Plan. Clean Power Plan has never been implemented, so why is SCOTUS hearing a case and why is this important?

The Thom Hartmann Program covers diverse topics including immigration reform, government intrusion, privacy, foreign policy, and domestic issues. More people listen to or watch the TH program than any other progressive talk show in the world! Join them. #MorefromThom

The Thom Hartmann Program is on Free Speech TV every weekday from 12-3 pm EST.

Missed an episode? Check out Thom Hartmann Playlist on our Youtube channel or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling, and online at freespeech.org

@Thom_Hartmann Clean Power Plan SCOTUS The Supreme Court The Thom Hartmann Program

More:
Can The Supreme Court End The EPA? (w/ Amy Westervelt) - Free Speech TV

As Fox News mounts its defense in the Dominion case and in a lawsuit by another voting systems company, Smartmatic, the networks lawyers have argued that core to the First Amendment is the ability to report on all newsworthy statements even false ones without having to assume responsibility for them.

The public had a right to know, and Fox had a right to cover, its lawyers wrote. As for inviting guests who made fallacious claims and spun wild stories, the network quoting the Sullivan decision argued that giving them a forum to make even groundless claims is part and parcel of the uninhibited, robust and wide-open debate on matters of public concern.

Last week, a federal judge ruled that the Smartmatic case against Fox could go forward, writing that at this point, plaintiffs have pleaded facts sufficient to allow a jury to infer that Fox News acted with actual malice.

The broadness of the First Amendment has produced strange bedfellows in free speech cases. Typically, across the political spectrum there is a recognition that the cost of allowing unrestrained discourse in a free society includes getting things wrong sometimes. When a public interest group in Washington State sued Fox in 2020, alleging it willfully and maliciously engaged in a campaign of deception and omission about the coronavirus, many First Amendment scholars were critical on the grounds that being irresponsible is not the same as acting with actual malice. That lawsuit was dismissed.

But many arent on Foxs side this time. If the network prevails, some said, the argument that the actual malice standard is too onerous and needs to be reconsidered could be bolstered.

If Fox wins on these grounds, then really they will have moved the needle too far, said George Freeman, executive director of the Media Law Resource Center and a former lawyer for The New York Times. News organizations, he added, have a responsibility when they publish something that they suspect could be false to do so neutrally and not appear to be endorsing it.

Fox is arguing that its anchors did query and rebut the most outrageous allegations.

Paul Clement, a lawyer defending Fox in the Smartmatic case, said one of the issues was whether requiring news outlets to treat their subjects in a skeptical way, even if their journalists doubt that someone is being truthful, was consistent with the First Amendment.

Follow this link:
First Amendment Scholars Want to See the Media Lose These Cases - The New York Times

About a year ago, writer and University of Berkeley professor Grace Lavery accepted a six-figure deal from Substack, under the newsletter platform's Pro scheme. At the end of January this year, Lavery decided to leave the platform, "belatedly," severing contractual ties and closing her account.

"Ive never been under any illusions about why a literary scholar specializing in Victorian literature and psychoanalysis was offered a lot of money by a tech startup," she wrote in a post on her blog. "It's because Im a trans woman, and about a year ago, Substack was facing public criticism for its publication of a number of authors critical of the movement for trans civil rights."

Lavery acknowledged that Substack's publisher agreement insists users must not use the platform "in a manner that is fraudulent, deceptive, threatening, abusive, harassing," but wrote, "I no longer have any faith that the executive team at Substack will enforce these Terms of Use, or the Content Guidelines. Because I do not trust that the platform will enforce its own rules, Im leaving."

Her move comes after a long trail of transphobic incidents on Substack. Lavery is now a part of an exodus of Substack writers, overwhelmingly considering it a home for users expressing transphobic comments and making money for such views (notably, Lavery herself was suspended off Twitter last month, for saying she hoped the Queen would die when diagnosed with Covid-19).

Such a collective reaction to Substack's refusal to tackle misinformation and hate speech is still happening. Writers are publicly speaking out about leaving Substack or calling out the company's policies when it comes to free speech, content moderation, and censorship.

It happened first in 2021, when trans writers including Jude Ellison Sady Doyle, Nathan Tankus, and Yanyi called out Substack in the wake of the platform's refusal to remove harmful content. In a final post on Substack before departing for nonprofit publishing platform Ghost, Doyle wrote that Substack has chosen to "platform hate groups." Meanwhile, Yanyi wrote, "I have no faith that Substack will protect me or other trans people from harassment or abuse."

This type of hateful content has been produced by people like British writer Graham Linehan, who posted libellous harassment, transphobic remarks, and hate speech towards Lavery and others through his Substack newsletter. Linehan was permanently kicked off Twitter in 2020 for "repeated violations of our rules against hateful conduct and platform manipulation." He remains on Substack, however, with thousands of paid subscribers.

Substack itself published a post around this time, doubling-down on their "hands-off philosophy" on content moderation, saying that writers and readers on Substack are "in charge" of what they say and who they subscribe to. "Writers own their content and their mailing lists and have full editorial control on Substack. Readers choose for themselves which writers to invite into their inboxes and their minds," the post read. It underscored the ideas in Substack's content moderation guidelines: that the platform is "different from social media platforms," writers are paid by the readers, who, in turn, "are in full control of what they see."

In January 2022, Mashable reported on Substack newsletters that promote anti-vaccine sentiments and COVID-19 misinformation, with writers like Dr. Joseph Mercola, Steve Kirsch, and Alex Berenson, each known for publishing a slew of misinformation surrounding the pandemic, finding a home on Substack after being deplatformed elsewhere. "The reason I chose a paid membership platform on Substack is because it will protect all of my content from censorship," Mercola wrote of launching his newsletter on the platform.

Following this report, Substack subsequently published a post through its company newsletter, written by CEO Chris Best and co-founders Jairaj Sethi and Hamish McKenzie. They described the "growing pressure" they face to censor content that "to some seems dubious or objectionable."

"We believe that when you use censorship to silence certain voices or push them to another place, you don't make the misinformation problem disappear but you do make the mistrust problem worse," they wrote.

The founders added that they will continue to give power to both readers and writers, and will "take a strong stance in defense of free speech."

This post, for Lavery, was a tipping point and the motivation behind her final decision to leave Substack.

She tells Mashable that her complaints about Linehan were "being taken seriously" by Substack's content moderation team via email, but they insisted "his conduct passed Terms of Use." Lavery also cited the distinction between free speech and harassment, saying, "It seems really weird that [Substack] is unwilling to make that distinction."

K. Tempest Bradford, a writer and teacher, also left Substack this year, in a similar protest.

"By not moderating, Substack isn't creating more trust, they're fostering an environment that's unsafe for marginalized, vulnerable people," she tells Mashable. Bradford says Substack's statement in January wasn't the catalyst for her decision, but it "certainly solidified" that she had made the right one for herself.

"It's irresponsible, especially at this stage of the internet," she says.

Similarly, Kirsten Han, a journalist and activist based in Singapore, was amongst the writers who left the platform. Han wrote a newsletter on Substack about politics, civil society, and social justice in Singapore; she was also the recipient of a grant from the company in April 2020. But she left Substack last year (moving to Ghost, too), citing transphobia on Substack and even raising direct concerns with the company about Linehan's content. This past year, she has also used Twitter to call out COVID misinformation on Substack and the company's hands-off approach to content moderation.

"Substack and tech companies should be working to be transparent, thoughtful, to work with civil society on their responsibilities," she says.

Like Bradford, Han tells Mashable that Substack has a responsibility "to moderate more," especially because some of the newsletters spreading hate speech "are getting a wide reach" and being monetized.

Many of the newsletter writers passing along misinformation and reiterating transphobic views are amongst Substack's paid users. Writers who use a subscription model include Linehan, Mercola, Berenson, and Kirsch. Paid creators keep 90 percent of the revenue, while Substack keeps ten. It's an appealing offer: the platform offered is sleek, efficient, and potentially financially rewarding.

According to the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), Substack has accumulated at least $2.5 million in revenue due to anti-vaccine newsletters, per year. The non-profit NGO said that Mercola and Berenson are the main contributors to this revenue, making "a combined $183,000 a month."

And, despite backlash from a band of writers and users, Substack has raked in the numbers overall: the company garnered over 35 million views in January 2022 alone, according to SimilarWeb. There are over 1 million paid subscriptions to publications on Substack, according to the company, and the top 10 paid publications on the platform "bring in more than $20 million a year."

Lavery, Han, and Bradford all seem to agree that the financial gains writers those who spread harm and hate are deriving from Substack furthered their dissatisfaction with the company. Such numbers fed into Bradford's withstanding argument for leaving, she says: "The revelation that the company paid certain writers what amounted to a salary in order to get them to publish their newsletters via Substack."

Han appreciates the argument Substack's leaders are grappling with.

"I get that its a complicated issue. I get the desire to protect and defend free speech and be a platform for free speech. Its an issue I work on a lot in Singapore. I just felt like [Substack] wasnt making sufficient distinctions and being upfront with themselves about their responsibilities. If whats being spread is false, thats not free speech. I dont feel comfortable with that false equivalency being set up," Han says.

Lavery also expresses "some sort of sympathy" with Substack.

"If they were found to have editorial control over any part of their platform, they would lose their business degree it would fall to the floor," she says. "The moment they do that, they stop being a publisher, and they start being a publication."

When approached for comment, a Substack representative told Mashable that they "respect writers' decision about where they want to publish their work," which is why they "make it easy" to pack up a Substack newsletter and neatly transition to other platforms.

"While it sucks whenever writers leave the platform, we continue to believe in freedom of the press and freedom of expression, and we will continue our hands-off approach to content moderation," they said.

Notably, there are those who are critical of Substack but continue to use the platform. Kent Anderson, a former publisher at Science from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and publishing director of the New England Journal of Medicine, has been a Substack user since 2018, via his newsletter The Geyser. He has been outspoken about the presence of misinformation on the platform.

"I got to know the founders [of Substack], and interviewed them for The Geyser, where they touted Substack as an alternative to misinformation platforms and one devoted to the truth," Anderson says. He believes they have since "abandoned" their stance.

"When you enter the information space, you have a duty to care aboutwhether the information you're putting out is accurate, about whatreaders might think or believe based on what you tell them, aboutyourreputation within society, and about integrity and compassion," Anderson says. "This goes for anyone involved, including platform providers." He adds Substack is feeding into "a vicious cycle" of misinformation and distrust.

Anderson has not yet left Substack, but tells Mashable that he is "considering options and alternatives," continuing to remain on the platform for the moment.

For many, the attractiveness Substack can offer has just not been enough to mitigate certain decisions. Han tells Mashable, "In a way, [leaving] worked out. Before all of this, though, I was happy at Substack."

Related Video: How to recognize and avoid fake news

Visit link:
Substack creators are leaving the platform over misinformation and hate speech - Mashable