Techdirt's think tank, the Copia Institute, is working with the Trust & Safety Professional Association and its sister organization, the Trust & Safety Foundation, to produce an ongoing series of case studies about content moderation decisions. These case studies are presented in a neutral fashion, not aiming to criticize or applaud any particular decision, but to highlight the many different challenges that content moderators face and the tradeoffs they result in. Find more case studies here on Techdirt and on the TSF website.

Content Moderation Case Study: Newsletter Platform Substack Lets Users Make Most Of The Moderation Calls (2020)

from the newsletter-moderation dept

Summary: Substack launched in 2018, offering writers a place to engage in independent journalism and commentary. Looking to fill a perceived void in newsletter services, Substack gave writers an easy-to-use platform they could monetize through subscriptions and pageviews.

As Substack began to attract popular writers, concerns over published content began to increase. The perception was that Substack attracted an inordinate number of creators who had either been de-platformed elsewhere or embraced views not welcome on other platforms. High-profile writers who found themselves jobless after crafting controversial content appeared to gravitate to Substack (including big names like Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept and The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan), giving the platform the appearance of embracing views by providing a home for writers unwelcome pretty much everywhere else.

A few months before the current controversy over Substack's content reached critical mass, the platform attempted to address questions about content moderation with a blog post that said most content decisions could be made by readers, rather than Substack itself. Its blog post made it clear users were in charge at all times: readers had no obligation to subscribe to content they didn't like and writers were free to leave at any time if they disagreed with Substack's decisions.

But even then, the platform's moderation policies weren't completely hands off. As its post pointed out, the platform would take its own steps to remove spam, porn, doxxing, and harassment. Of course, the counterargument raised was that Substack's embrace of controversial contributors provided a home for people who'd engaged in harassment on other platforms (and who were often no longer welcome there).

Decisions to be made by Substack:

  • Does offloading moderation to users increase the amount of potentially-objectionable content hosted by Substack?
  • Does this form of moderation give Substack the appearance it approves of controversial content contributed by others?
  • Is the company prepared to take a more hands-on approach if the amount of objectionable content hosted by Substack increases? 
Questions and policy implications to consider:
  • Does a policy that relies heavily on users and writers to enforce allow users and contributors to shape Substack's "identity?"
  • Does limiting moderation by Substack attract the sort of contributors Substack desires to host and/or believes will make it more profitable?
  • Does the sharing of content off-platform undermine Substack's belief that others have complete control over the kind of content they're seeing?
Resolution: The controversy surrounding Substack's roster of writers continued to increase, along with calls for the platform to do more to moderate hosted content. Subtack's response was to retirate its embrace of "free press and free expression," but also offered a few additional moderation tweaks not present in its policies when it first received increased attention late last year.

Most significantly, it announced it would not allow "hate speech" on its platform, although its definition was more expansive than policies on other social media services. Attacks on people based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, etc. would not be permitted. However, Substack would continue to host attacks on "ideas, ideologies, organizations, or individuals for other reasons, even if those attacks are cruel and unfair."

Originally posted to the Trust & Safety Foundation website.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: content moderation, controversy, email, newsletters
Companies: substack


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    bobob, 19 May 2021 @ 8:20pm

    Perhaps when something doesn't scale well, the solution is to not expect to do it at scale. Instead of having facebook or twitter which attempts to cater to everyone for everything, rather than argue over whether or how to moderate it, smaller platforms that cater to specific interests would be a better solution. It's easier for the people running the platforms to not lose control of their platforms or try do it with buggy algorithms and/or burned out contractors.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  2. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2021 @ 1:51am

    We know what kind of boner Techdirt has for smearing Glenn Greenwald, so it’s not shocking to see dreck like this appear on this (digital) rag.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2021 @ 9:14am

    Substack is just a haven for far-right assholes that complain about “cancel culture”.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  4. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 20 May 2021 @ 11:30am

    Re:

    [Projects facts not in evidence]

    link to this | view in thread ]

  5. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2021 @ 9:16pm

    Re:

    Funny how you guys weren't singing the praises of Greenwald during the Snowden incident, John Smith.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  6. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 21 May 2021 @ 12:46am

    Re: Re:

    Jhon*

    link to this | view in thread ]

  7. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2021 @ 12:51am

    If you don't like some creator's content, you don't have to subscribe to it? Can't imagine that bit of common sense going over too well with the cancel culture people.

    I love it.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  8. icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 21 May 2021 @ 11:33am

    Can't imagine that bit of common sense going over too well with the cancel culture people.

    Because right-wingers don't believe others have the right to determine for themselves what they say or see.

    link to this | view in thread ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.