File This Under "Biting The Hand That Feeds Me"

Hey, Substack; do ethics have to go out the window when profits are involved?

Research by the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a campaign group, showed that Mercola’s newsletters made a minimum of $1m a year from charging subscribers an annual fee of $50, with Berenson making at least $1.2m from charging people $60. Three other vaccine sceptic newsletters, from tech entrepreneur Steven Kirsch, virologist Robert Malone and anonymous writer Eugyppius, generate about $300,000 between them. [...]

Newsletters cited by CCDH research include: a piece authored by Mercola headlined “More Children Have Died From Covid Shot Than From Covid”; a Berenson substack questioning whether mRNA vaccines have contributed to, rather than stopped, the spread of Covid; a Kirsch newsletter stating that “vaccines kill more far more people than they might save from Covid”; a newsletter from Malone warning that mRNA vaccines could lead to permanent damage of children’s organs; and a Eugyppius Substack claiming that “vaccines don’t suppress case rates at all.”

A Substack spokesperson referred the Guardian to an essay published on Wednesday by the platform’s co-founders, Chris Best, Hamish McKenzie and Jairaj Sethi, in which they said silencing vaccine sceptics would not work. “As we face growing pressure to censor content published on Substack that to some seems dubious or objectionable, our answer remains the same: we make decisions based on principles not PR, we will defend free expression, and we will stick to our hands-off approach to content moderation,” they said.

You’ll no doubt notice that this piece is on Substack and that, yes, I’m about to take the company to task for some pretty questionable situational ethics. It would be one thing if Substack was erring on the side of profits and no one was getting hurt…but that’s not what’s happening here. Alex Berenson and Joseph Mercola, two of the most prominent anti-vaccine voices on the Internet, pull in close to $2.2 million a year off subscriptions on Substack. The company gets 10%, or roughly $220,000 a year, from Berenson and Mercola. That only accounts for two anti-vaccine voices on Substack; there are many others.

The problem is that Berenson and Mercola are pushing misinformation that, in some cases, may prove deadly. Yet Substack has publicly stated that their approach to content moderation is “hands-off.” Moreover, senior management undoubtedly is aware of the false narratives being pushed by Berenson and Mercola, among others- yet they claim they’re going to “defend free expression.”

nikki mccann ramírez @NikkiMcR

Alex Berenson tells Fox viewers: "The mRNA COVID vaccines need to be withdrawn from the market. No one should get them. No one should get boosted. No one should get double boosted. They are a dangerous and ineffective product at this point."

Does “free expression” encompass pushing medical misinformation that’s provably false in a deadly pandemic? Does it include making money off anti-vax propaganda that may well result in death among those who accept the misinformation at face value? Doesn’t Substack have a responsibility to ensure that no one is profiting from pushing medical misinformation that could result in death or disability?

Substack’s content guidelines state that “critique and discussion of controversial issues are part of robust discourse, so we work to find a reasonable balance between these two priorities”. The platform bars content that “promotes harmful or illegal activities” but also expects writers to moderate and manage their own communities.

“Robust discourse” is one thing, but providing a forum for those who knowingly publish medical misinformation during a global pandemic is nothing if not morally problematic. If people die because of information published on a platform you’ve created, don’t you think you bear some responsibility? Don’t you believe that at least some of the blood is on your hands?

You may not have composed and posted the piece containing the medical misinformation, but you knowingly provided a platform to someone who did. Making things worse is that you’re profiting off the audience that the author has garnered.

It’s bad enough that there are those out there willing to spread medical misinformation to make a few quick bucks. That Substack is willing to provide them with a platform and profit from that misinformation is unconscionable.

My experience working with Substack has been positive, and I don’t want that to change. Still, I’m deeply disappointed that the company has taken such a morally reprehensible stand in this matter. I firmly believe they have a responsibility to help prevent the spread of medical misinformation, particularly given that close to 900,000 Americans have died to date. Many of those deaths were preventable, but Substack would rather profit off medical misinformation than do what they can to protect vulnerable Americans.

Chris Best, Hamish McKenzie, and Jairaj Sethi should be ashamed. When presented with an opportunity to do the right thing and protect Americans from the scourge of medical misinformation, they’ve decided that Substack’s bottom line was more important.

I can’t say with any degree of certainty how many deaths in which Best, McKenzie, and Sethi are complicit. Still, they do bear responsibility for not de-platforming anti-vaccine voices…and the deaths resulting from that decision.

As a Substack writer, I should be able to expect better from this platform. Instead, I’m disappointed that the founders lack the moral backbone to do the right thing. That’s capitalism at its most pathetic.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. If you enjoyed it, I hope you’ll take a few seconds and join the party via a paid subscription. While you’re at it, why not forward this to a few like-minded friends who might also enjoy it!! You can also donate via Venmo (@Jack-Cluth).