[ad_1]
For years, the dominant platforms of the internet have treated content moderation as both shield and scalpel — eulogized as “trust and safety,” enforced by a mix of algorithmic blunt force and human discretion, and backed by sprawling bureaucracies tasked with adjudicating whether a buttock or a stray word crosses the invisible line.
Substack, the subscription publishing platform, is taking a different tack.
Rather than tinkering with the machinery of enforcement, it’s betting that the real problem lies not in the rules, but in the incentives — that a system built around advertising and virality will inevitably reward outrage, and that no amount of moderation will fix that. Its solution? Change the business model, and let trust between writers and readers do the work that moderation never could.
Substack’s been nudging in this direction all along. It’s always handed moderation tools to writers rather than imposing its own rules. But only recently, after its trust and safety lead moved on amicably, did leadership take the opportunity to reframe the gig entirely, relabelling it “head of standards and enforcement”.
“The exact name of the role matters less to us than establishing a framework for platform management that embodies a different way of thinking to what is seen in traditional social media platforms,” Substack’s co-founder and chief writing officer Hamish McKenzie told Digiday. “Rather than being a change in direction, the change in title to ‘Standards and Enforcement’ better reflects Substack’s long-standing philosophy on how to create a system that produces better discourse.”
When the role is filled, the new head of standards and enforcement will be supported by a team that thoroughly evaluates reports of violations to the platform’s content guidelines. Those prevent incitements to violence, spamming and doxxing as well as protect freedom of the press and uphold the right to freedom of expression. So far, one individual, Brendon MacKeen, has been hired as a standards and enforcement specialist for the team, according to Substack’s LinkedIn page. Though specifics around other team members, and how big the team is / will be, are still unclear.
But as Jamie MacEwan, senior research analyst at Enders Analysis pointed out, Substack only makes money by taking a 10% cut of its writers’ subscriptions, so it has no financial stake in a free newsletter whose sole purpose is to reach as wide an audience as possible.
“That eliminates some risk, but it’s no cast-iron guarantee – anyone could start a far-right newsletter, for example, and then it’s up to Substack to determine if it should be taken down,” MacEwan said. “Last year it faced a user backlash for refusing to demonetize newsletters that were publishing extreme right-wing views. These questions aren’t just going to go away, especially if Substack rolls out new personalization or discoverability features.”
Still, approaching trust and safety in this non-traditional manner enables the platform from having to change tactics, from tailoring workflows to more or less content moderation for example, when new presidential administrations come into power and follow their own stances on free speech and guidelines.
“The entire platform is based on a system that gives more power to creators and consumers while rewarding the cultivation of trust,” McKenzie added. “The online speech issues that have dogged society over the last decade were never going to be solved by the platforms whose business models created those issues in the first place. They can only be solved at the root, by changing the types of behaviors that media systems reward and encourage.”
[ad_2]
Source link
