What has Substack’s role been in publishing unverified political or criminal allegations historically?

1. The platform’s architecture and moderation philosophy create permissive publishing conditions

Substack’s core selling point is that writers “own their content” and keep editorial control, a model the company has publicly defended as a decentralized approach to moderation, which critics call “lightweight” and insufficient for policing misinformation or coordinated abuse ^{[1] [2]}. Its Content Guidelines place responsibility on authors and allow certain journalistic uses of publicly available private information, signaling that the company prioritizes publisher freedom over aggressive pre-publication controls ^[5].

2. A refuge for deplatformed figures accused of spreading unverified claims

When mainstream platforms and publishers cut ties with high-profile misinformation spreaders during the pandemic, several migrated to Substack, where they continued to publish disputed medical and political claims; Mashable identified named figures who found a home there after being deplatformed elsewhere ^[2]. That migration illustrates how Substack’s minimal interference can amplify the reach of creators producing unverified or contested allegations, because the platform’s model reduces editorial gatekeeping ^{[2] [1]}.

3. Investigations documenting extremist and fringe content raised alarms — and disputes about scale

Major investigations and watchdog reporting have flagged “scores” of white-supremacist, neo-Confederate, and Nazi-adjacent newsletters on Substack, prompting public backlash and open letters from users; those findings fueled wider criticism that Substack monetizes and tolerates extremist spaces ^{[4] [7]}. At the same time, media criticism has emerged pushing back on some of those exposés’ methods and counts, arguing particular investigations were sloppy or unverified in their tallying, which complicates the narrative about how pervasive the problem truly is ^[8].

4. Enforcement is uneven; company tools and promises complicate accountability

Substack’s rules prohibit harassment, threats, and calls for violence but reserve moderation decisions to founders and rely on community reporting, a structure that has resulted in perceived inconsistency when bans or takedowns occur, and occasional user reports of sudden suppression in features like Notes ^{[1] [9]}. To counter criticism, Substack has also developed legal and defensive products — Substack Defender and public commitments to assist writers facing government pressure — which can be read as both protecting journalists and shielding controversial creators from accountability ^{[1] [6]}.

5. The platform also hosts legitimate investigative work and traditional reporting, muddying the picture

Not all activity on Substack is fringe amplification; investigative outlets and journalists have used the platform to publish original reporting, leaks, and beat coverage that media aggregators and libraries have sometimes struggled to index, highlighting Substack’s value as an alternative distribution channel for serious work ^{[3] [10]}. That duality — serious reporting alongside unverified allegations — is central to understanding Substack’s role: it is simultaneously a useful editorial tool and a distribution pipeline that can spread claims before they are vetted ^{[3] [1]}.

6. Conclusion — a platform shaped by design choices and contested oversight

Historically, Substack’s role in publishing unverified political or criminal allegations stems less from active promotion than from strategic abstention: its creator-first model and lightweight moderation lower barriers for voices expelled from other platforms, enabling the spread of contested claims while also enabling independent journalism; the result is a battleground over definitions of harm, accountability, and free expression, with investigations, critics, and defenders all pointing to different failures or virtues in Substack’s approach ^{[2] [4] [8] [3]}.