The Guardian investigation into Substack’s Nazi profits isn’t a surprise. It’s the inevitable result of a platform built on the "Smile Mask."
By Art of Faceless
In December, we wrote a field report from the "Substack Veranda." We documented how the platform’s "civilised public square" was actually a curated space where genteel cruelty toward the poor was normalised, amplified, and rewarded. We warned that when you build an architecture that mistakes politeness for morality, and algorithmically rewards the loudest voices, you create a permission structure for dehumanisation.
We argued that the "no algorithm" claim was a lie. We argued that the platform takes on the shape of the people it rewards.
It took less than two months for the receipt to arrive.
This weekend, a Guardian investigation revealed that Substack is not merely a passive host for "virulent Nazi ideology"—it is a business partner taking a 10% cut of the profits.
The Myth of the Passive Host
Substack’s leadership, including co-founder Hamish McKenzie, has long hidden behind the shield of "neutrality." Their argument is familiar: they are the town square, the telephone line, the neutral utility provider. They argue that censorship doesn't make bad ideas go away.
But the Guardian’s findings shatter the "town square" metaphor.
A town square does not charge an entrance fee and keep 10% of the gate. A telephone company does not take a cut of the wire fraud committed on its lines.
The investigation found newsletters like NatSocToday (National Socialist Today), which features a swastika profile picture and content describing Hitler as "one of the greatest men of all time." This newsletter charges $80 a year for a subscription. Another, run by a self-styled "NS activist," charges $150.
When a user pays that $80, Substack takes roughly $8.
If a newsletter has 2,800 subscribers—as NatSocToday does—that is a revenue stream of over $200,000. That means Substack is generating roughly $20,000 a year from a single publication dedicated to white supremacy.
This is not "hosting." This is a joint venture. When you take a percentage of the revenue, you are no longer a neutral platform; you are a beneficiary. You are keeping the lights on in the basement because the rent checks are clearing.
The Algorithm is the Editor
The most damning revelation in the Guardian piece, however, isn't about the money. It is about the mechanism.
For years, we have been told that Substack is the "anti-platform," a place free from the engagement-hacking algorithms of Twitter or Facebook. We were told it was a place of conscious choice.
Yet, the Guardian reported that within two hours of subscribing to a Nazi newsletter, the Substack algorithm—the one we are told doesn't exist—"directed the Guardian’s account to 21 other profiles featuring similar content."
Let us be clear about what this means.
If you walk into a physical bookstore and buy Mein Kampf, the clerk does not immediately sprint to the shelves to pile 21 other white supremacist pamphlets into your arms. That would be an active editorial choice.
Substack’s recommendation engine made that choice 21 times in 120 minutes.
This destroys the defense of "free speech neutrality." This is algorithmic amplification. The platform’s architecture is actively connecting isolated cells of extremism, helping them build a network, and streamlining the path for users to fall down the rabbit hole—all while taking a cut of every subscription along the way.
The Connection to "Genteel Cruelty"
Some might ask: what does this have to do with our previous report on homelessness and the "genteel cruelty" of the Notes feed?
Everything.
In December, we watched "orange-tick" writers and comfortable middle-class users reframe poverty as a character flaw. We saw the poor described as "disagreeable," "entitled," and "manipulative." We saw a platform culture that was comfortable with punching down, provided it was done with correct grammar and a polite tone.
We called it "neo-Victorian moralising." We now see that this was just the upper deck of the ship.
If a platform’s culture tolerates the dehumanisation of the poor in its "polite" spaces, it inevitably creates a safe harbour for the dehumanisation of racial minorities in its "private" spaces. The logic is the same: some humans are worth less than others. The only difference is the vocabulary.
The "Faceless" Distinction
Finally, we must address the irony of anonymity. The Guardian notes that many of these hate-mongers, like "Erika Drexler" and "Ava Wolfe," likely operate under pseudonyms.
As a project called Art of Faceless, we understand the power of anonymity. We use it to strip away ego, to speak "from below," and to force the focus onto the structural issues of class and precarity in Cardiff.
But there is a difference between the anonymity of the whistleblower and the anonymity of the executioner.
We are faceless to protect the vulnerable. They are faceless to protect themselves from accountability while they target the vulnerable. Substack’s "Smile Mask" protects the latter. It allows hate to monetise without consequence, shielding the authors while exposing the victims of their ideology to real-world violence.
The Verdict
Hamish McKenzie wrote in 2023, "We believe that supporting individual rights... is the best way to strip bad ideas of their power."
The data suggests the opposite. The "bad ideas" are not being stripped of power; they are being handed a megaphone and a payment processor.
The Substack "Veranda"—that curated space of writers talking about writing—is sitting on top of a very dark foundation. The "Smile Mask" has slipped, and we can finally see the face underneath. It isn't a neutral observer. It’s a silent partner, counting its 10% cut while the history of the 20th century is rewritten for profit.
We stepped off the platform in protest. Now, looking at the receipts, we know we made the right call.
