A recent investigation by The Guardian has drawn renewed attention to how newsletter platform Substack generates revenue — including from paid publications that promote extremist and Nazi ideology.
The report, published February 7, 2026, details how several openly white supremacist and neo-Nazi newsletters operate on Substack’s platform and charge subscription fees, from which Substack takes a percentage. The findings have intensified debate around content moderation, platform responsibility, and the economics of independent publishing.
How Substack’s Business Model Works
Substack is a publishing platform that enables writers to distribute free and paid email newsletters directly to subscribers. The company typically takes a 10 percent commission on paid subscriptions, in addition to payment processing fees, according to its public documentation.
This revenue-sharing structure means that when a paid newsletter generates income, Substack receives a portion of that revenue. The Guardian’s investigation reports that several extremist newsletters — including those that express praise for Adolf Hitler, promote antisemitic conspiracy theories, or deny the Holocaust — are currently monetized on the platform.
One example cited in the report includes a newsletter with thousands of paying subscribers at approximately $80 per year. Based on Substack’s standard commission structure, the company would receive a share of those subscription payments. The full investigation outlines multiple similar cases and describes how some of these newsletters are interconnected through platform recommendations.
Content Moderation and Platform Policy
Substack has previously stated that it supports freedom of expression and does not broadly ban content based solely on viewpoint. Company founders have argued in past public communications that open discourse is preferable to widespread deplatforming.
However, critics argue that allowing extremist content to operate as paid publications creates financial incentives for harmful ideologies and raises ethical concerns about platform accountability. The Guardian reports that some users who subscribed to extremist newsletters for research purposes were subsequently shown algorithmic recommendations for similar publications.
The presence of recommendation systems, combined with a revenue-sharing model, has prompted some observers to question whether platforms should distinguish between hosting content and financially benefiting from it.
Substack did not immediately provide detailed comment in The Guardian’s reporting regarding the specific newsletters highlighted in the investigation.
Implications for the Newsletter Industry
The controversy comes at a time when newsletter platforms are increasingly seen as essential tools for independent media, podcast creators, and niche publishers. Platforms like Substack, Ghost, and Beehiiv have lowered barriers to entry for creators seeking direct audience relationships and subscription-based revenue.
For many creators, this model represents an alternative to ad-driven publishing. However, as the Guardian’s report illustrates, open publishing systems also face challenges around governance, moderation, and reputational risk.
For podcast networks and media brands that rely on newsletters for audience growth and distribution, the issue underscores the importance of understanding platform policies and brand alignment. Newsletter publishing is often integrated into broader content ecosystems that include podcasts, YouTube channels, and social media distribution.
As discussed in our previous coverage of podcast publishing workflows, distribution tools can significantly influence audience perception and brand trust. Platform choice is not just a technical decision but also a strategic and reputational one.
The Broader Platform Responsibility Debate
The findings contribute to a wider debate affecting digital platforms across media formats — including podcast hosting companies, video platforms, and social networks. Questions often center on where to draw the line between protecting free expression and limiting harmful or extremist content.
Similar debates have emerged around social media moderation policies and algorithmic amplification, particularly when monetization is involved. Regulators in various countries have increasingly scrutinized how platforms manage extremist content, though policies vary significantly by jurisdiction.
For the newsletter sector, the Guardian’s investigation may lead to renewed discussion about whether revenue-sharing platforms should adopt stricter monetization guidelines, especially when content crosses into hate speech or extremist advocacy.
What This Means for Creators and Businesses
For independent publishers, podcasters, and small media organizations, the situation highlights the importance of due diligence when selecting distribution platforms. While open publishing systems provide autonomy and direct monetization opportunities, they also operate within broader ecosystems that may affect public perception.
At a time when trust and transparency are critical for audience growth, platform governance has become part of the business conversation — not just a technical consideration.
The Guardian’s reporting does not suggest that extremist content represents the majority of Substack’s ecosystem. The platform hosts thousands of writers covering topics from politics and culture to technology and business. However, the investigation brings attention to how revenue structures intersect with moderation policies in an era of decentralized publishing.
As newsletter platforms continue to evolve, the balance between openness, monetization, and accountability remains a central issue for the future of independent media.
