Substack Acquires Letter: A Boost for Uncensored Free Speech

Substack’s Acquisition of Letter: A Closer Look

Last week, Substack announced the acquisition of Letter, a platform designed to foster thoughtful written dialogue and debate. While the financial details of the transaction remain undisclosed, this move follows Substack’s recent successful $65 million funding round.

The Rise of Newsletters and Letter’s Unique Approach

The popularity of newsletters is rapidly increasing, as evidenced by Facebook’s launch of its exclusive Bulletin platform and Twitter’s earlier acquisition of Revue. However, Letter distinguishes itself from Substack by not focusing on traditional email newsletters.

Instead, Letter facilitates epistolary exchanges – written conversations – on complex and often contentious subjects, including Brexit, relationships, and the 2020 U.S. Presidential election. This approach is logical, as nuanced discussions often struggle to find a home on platforms like Twitter, where character limits can hinder detailed exploration of ideas.

Substack’s Stated Goals

“We recognized that Letter, much like Substack, actively opposes the advertising-driven attention economy, aiming to redefine the standards for online discourse,” Substack explained in its official announcement regarding the acquisition.

Concerns Arising from Past Controversies

However, this acquisition has sparked concern among those already critical of Substack’s past actions. Earlier this year, the platform faced scrutiny for offering some writers six-figure advances through its Substack Pro program.

The issue wasn’t the incentivization itself, but rather the selective nature of the program and the lack of transparency surrounding the chosen writers. Critics argued that Substack wasn’t clearly disclosing which writers were receiving these advances, creating an editorial opacity.

The Substack Pro Backlash

As Substack expanded, writers departed from established media outlets like BuzzFeed and the New York Times, attracted by increased compensation and a sense of optimism. But the Substack Pro program drew criticism for allegedly subsidizing anti-transgender rhetoric, as some participating writers used their newsletters to express such viewpoints.

Substack acknowledges it isn’t entirely neutral, but its decisions regarding writer subsidies and its reliance on minimal content moderation are inherently political choices, particularly in an era where online content significantly impacts global events. Consequently, some writers ultimately chose to leave the platform.

A Writer’s Perspective

Annalee Newitz, a nonbinary writer who subsequently left Substack, articulated the concern on the platform itself: “Their leadership is determining which writers and writing deserve financial support. [ … ] Substack is taking an editorial position, financially supporting writers who align with that position, and refusing to be transparent about those individuals.”

Examining Substack’s Rhetoric

When Substack characterized Letter as a platform promoting “arguing in good faith” rather than seeking “retweets,” it prompted a more thorough examination of the acquisition. While seemingly agreeable, such language often surfaces in arguments that portray social justice initiatives as threats to free speech.

It’s crucial to remember that free speech does not equate to endorsing hate speech.

Letter’s Content and the “Intellectual Dark Web”

Substack aims to establish itself as a neutral platform, offering a valuable income source for writers in a challenging journalism landscape. However, given existing skepticism about Substack’s financial incentives, the acquisition of Letter warrants scrutiny.

Letter features writers associated with the so-called “intellectual dark web,” and some have questioned the validity of transgender identities, dismissing the statement “trans women are women” as propaganda. This content is unlikely to mend trust with trans and gender-nonconforming writers who have already expressed concerns about Substack.

The “Cancel Culture” Debate

Letter co-founder Clyde Rathbone previously voiced support for a controversial letter published in Harper’s Magazine, which advocated for a “concerted repudiation of cancel culture.” Critics contend that free speech isn’t genuinely at risk in this context.

The open letter, signed by over 150 prominent figures – including Gloria Steinem and Noam Chomsky – argued for “preserving the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.” This echoed the situation faced by J.K. Rowling, whose reputation suffered after expressing views denying the validity of transgender women.

Some might label this “cancel culture,” while others view it as a refusal to provide a platform for harmful beliefs.

A Critical Perspective

Journalist Michael Hobbes argued, “The panic over ‘cancel culture’ is, fundamentally, a reactionary response. Conservative elites, feeling threatened by evolving social norms and a shifting generational landscape, are attempting to amplify their grievances into a national crisis.”

Substack’s Plans for Letter

Substack intends to leverage the acquisition of Letter to facilitate writer collaboration, but it doesn’t plan to integrate Letter directly into its existing platform. Instead, the Letter team will relocate to San Francisco to “contribute their expertise to building more infrastructure and support.”

TechCrunch inquired with Substack regarding concerns about the anti-trans content on Letter, given the recent backlash against the platform, but a response was not immediately available.