<
https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/27/how-neutrality-and-free-speech-become-excuses-for-driving-out-the-people-you-claim-to-value/>
"Mike Brock’s piece on Sequoia Capital last week laid out a pretty damning case
study: a well-respected COO complains about a partner’s Islamophobic posts,
senior leadership invokes “institutional neutrality” and declines to act, she
resigns, he stays because he made them billions on SpaceX. Brock correctly
calls this out as
a choice, not neutrality—a calculation about whose value to
the firm matters more.
The thing that struck me about Brock’s piece is that it highlights how there’s
a broader pattern here: institutional cowardice from organizations that spout
high-minded ideals as a shield to explain their refusal to make a clear
decision, while ignoring that doing so is a very real choice with very real
consequences.
That’s worth highlighting, because we keep seeing it play out in nearly
identical ways. Whether it’s a venture capital firm or a social media platform,
the playbook is the same: invoke “neutrality” or “free speech” as a shield,
refuse to take a clear stance on bigoted behavior, and then act shocked when
the people being targeted decide they don’t want to stick around.
This is the Nazi bar problem, and it keeps happening because people in
positions of power either don’t understand it or don’t want to.
If you’re not familiar with the Nazi bar analogy, it comes from a story about a
bartender who learned the hard way that if you don’t kick out the first Nazi
who walks in, you end up running a Nazi bar. Not because you’re a Nazi
yourself, but because once word gets out that Nazis are welcome, they keep
coming back and bringing friends. And everyone else? They stop showing up.
Because who wants to drink at the Nazi bar?
The key insight—the one that keeps getting missed—is that claiming “neutrality”
in these situations isn’t actually neutral.
It’s a choice. You’re choosing to
prioritize the speech and presence of the people spewing bigotry over the
speech and presence of the people being targeted by it. And that second part is
what everyone claiming to be “neutral” conveniently ignores.
We saw this exact dynamic play out with Substack last year. CEO Chris Best went
on Nilay Patel’s podcast and repeatedly refused to answer straightforward
questions about whether Substack would host overtly racist content. Nilay asked
him point-blank: if someone says “we should not allow brown people in the
country,” is that allowed on Substack?
Best wouldn’t answer. He kept deflecting to vague principles about “freedom of
speech” and “freedom of the press” and how Substack wasn’t going to “engage in
content moderation gotchas.”
But here’s the thing: not answering
is an answer. When you refuse to say “no,
we won’t host that,” you’re saying “yes, we will.”
And everyone hears it.
Bigots hear it. The targets of bigots hear it. Everyone hears it. As much as
you pretend it’s “staying out of it,” it is the statement. The bigots hear it
as “you’re welcome here.” The people being targeted hear it as “your safety and
dignity matter less than our commitment to not making hard calls.”"
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
https://glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
https://sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
