Discussion about this post

User's avatar
LIVE WITHOUT LIMITS with Klaus's avatar

A very well-researched piece about the constant attack on the First amendment. Thank you for this.

@Hamish, @CB and @Patrickcollison are playing on the same team, the ole game good cop, bad cop. Substack is not the playing field for free speech, it has never been. The only advantage is, that you own your subscribers. Therefore, save them daily and save your content weekly. You never know ...

I have also informed Hamish McKenzie and Chris Best several times about this problem and have also suggested — even with my help — Substack to become his payment processor. There was never an answer. This is the answer to this question.

I have posted my note from yesterday which you linked above to mostly all content providers with over 1,000 paid subscriptions. ONE answer came in, defending the system from a nice MAGA guy. I have not expected more, but I did this to uncover that you must be compliant in this simulated free speech arena if you want you grow beyond 1,000 subs.

Robert Malone spent thousands of crowd funded $s on legal defense, that is not the average publisher here.

My yesterday note proves that all big paid accounts are corrupted by the system and play the game following the rules.

I am also fascinated that nearly nobody questions the Substack prices. If you have 10,000 subs at $80 yearly, you are paying 80,000$ (EIGHTYTHOUSAND!!!) for near to nothing. For much more, you pay on Mighty Networks 2,148 yearly. But wait, I forgot, these 10k guys get even paid by Substack to join and might not pay these ridiculous fees.

For avoiding misunderstandings — I'm not concerned about high fees when I get a super service. But that does not happen here.

One last point. Always consider that the starting point of Substack was the University of Waterloo. The same place where the privacy scam BlackBerry started. I was also not liked when I told Balsillie and Lazaridis in 2011 that their technology is spyware for 3-letter-agencies. But then Ed Snowden came ...

For now, I must assume that Substack is the next BlackBerry.

But I'm always open to be convinced about the opposite.

Expand full comment
Emma M.'s avatar

Great article, but I wouldn't expect change from Substack. To make a few points:

1. Asking a Canadian to provide additional information about themselves is particularly concerning since it is a country that persecutes dissidents and shuts down the bank accounts of protesters and political undesirables. That Stripe would do this and Substack is silent in the face of it means no one should trust either of them; should you be in actual danger for what you say, they will help the state catch you.

2. From what I recall, when Substack was pressured to censor "Nazis," it actually did end up caving and doing so banning a couple of obscure publications. However, this was hardly noticed at the time and barely anywhere reported on the fact that they did end up caving to censorship demands.

3. If Substack was serious about free speech, they would follow the lead of cypherpunks like Julian Assange, Satoshi Nakamoto, and Ross Ulbricht. Why does anyone need to provide personal identity to them in order to receive a payment at all? It shows the lack of integrity, skill, and trustworthiness of the Substack team.

Darknet markets and other services on TOR provide users ways to trade, buy, and sell all sorts of illegal goods without anyone ever having to reveal personal identity to the website itself. It is none of Substack's business who anyone is or what country they live in. So why do they make it their business?

There is no excuse for Substack not to allow payments via Bitcoin, and it should not be necessary to provide them with more info than a wallet address. Legal reasons are no excuse either: either they are not skilled actors capable of utilising the proper opsec and evading LEOs long term on the clearnet, despite there being private torrent trackers that have done so successfully for 10-20 years, or the safety of their users and their dedication to free speech are tertiary to their obedience to oppressive states that seek to prosecute people for what they do and say online.

4. For all the above reasons, Substack is not trustworthy and anyone in danger of censorship or persecution should operate using zero trust principles and without reliance on them as a payment processor in the first place, without ever using them as one or providing personal info.

In the future, it can be safely predicted they will follow the pattern of other websites and become less secure and more censorious; not otherwise, as they prioritise market and state concerns over user safety, privacy, and security, quite unlike any serious service such as DNMs, other Onion services, and torrent trackers. Whether or not it is their intent or just a lack of foresight, Substack is easy pickings for intelligent services to use to track down dissidents, and given how much data there is on all of us, this should be feared in the future as a likely course of action from our totalitarian states.

Expand full comment
28 more comments...

No posts