Casey’s Case
I listened to a few opinions on the saga of why Platformer, Casey Newton’s tech newsletter business, is leaving the Substack platform, including the discussion on the Hard Fork podcast.
It is all too easy to make the jump to cancel culture, (big) tech censorship, liberal tech elites, or how to define alt-right, nazi, antifa, etc.
Om Malik reminded us that these platforms have investors and they want to see a growing business. The same is true for the content creators. They want to get more readers and subscribers.
all media — Old, New, Nouveau! Podcasts, Newsletters, and Streaming need growth. Organic growth is slow and measured. In our hair-trigger attention world, that is not an option. The platforms provide them an opportunity to grow fast.
Can a platform serve both masters? Perhaps. I realize that this is complicated and requires nuanced policies. I would start with the following elements:
- Welcome all opinions - Everybody is welcome to publish their opinion. I like to read different sides of a topic. Let’s allow information that covers the spectrum: both pro and contra vaccines, pro-Israel and pro-Palestine, climate-alarmists, climate-deniers and all those in between. This gets platforms out of the direct censorship debate. So, yes, climate-change deniers can share their opinion on the platform.
- Free speech does have limits - There are limits to the content that can be published on the platform. These limitations are clearly published when you join the platform, including the process to report violations. The list of limitations is not absolute. Some will need to be reviewed and discussed when they happen. Some obvious limitations include incitement to violence including sharing information with the doxxing intent, violations to intellectual property law, etc.
- Promotion and amplification is about values - It is up to the platform to decide what they value. The Fox News platform and MSNBC have clearly different values. Make the values clear. “We don’t promote Nazi propaganda.” “We encourage a debate on climate change.” The implication here is that amplification algorithms are not fair and have rules defined by the owners of the platform. Also, it means that the platform may take down duplicate or similar posts.
- Provide cross polination controls - For the content that is promoted and amplified, provide controls to the user and publisher. “I am a gear head and I don’t want to read about electric vehicles” or “Don’t promote my opinion to the Elon-fan club. I can miss the online harassment that naturally ensues at the inkling of any criticism of their leader.”
So what would change in the Platformer-Substack debate?
- Substack doesn’t have to take down some of the controversial newsletters. If there isn’t any obvious free speech reason to not allow the content, keep it. And yes, Substack would still make money from those newsletters, although limited as it doesn’t amplify them.
- Substack clarifies their promotion and amplification approach. It would be clear that Nazi content would stay in a corner. Casey can then decide where he stands on them. Given what I read, he would likely move his business elsewhere anyway.
- Platformer doesn’t have to be middle person and convey the reader’s sentiments (“I hate it that I see articles about Elon next to Platformer”). The reader has some control.
I realize this write up makes it all too simple. The many folks at YouTube, Facebook, pre-X Twitter who worked on content moderation can surely chime in with the next level of nuance or complexity that comes with the field. For now, I would be happy to understand clearly the four points above from all platforms.