The coronavirus is a rapidly developing news story, so some of the content in this article might be out of date. Check out our most recent coverage of the coronavirus crisis, and subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

Tim and Kristy Turner believe they were called to spread the word of Jesus through apps. In 2005, the pair founded Subsplash, a technology company whose mission, as stated on its website, is ā€œto glorify God and proclaim Jesus is Lord by building a great company that drives for humility, innovation, and excellence to delight the millions of people on the Subsplash Platform.ā€ The Turners hoped their platforms would help church leaders build websites and apps that would allow them to spread the Good News to their congregation with the click of a few buttons.

Today, Subsplash has offices in three states and counts among its 14,000 clients the largest churches in the country, small congregations in rural communities, and even a few synagogues. The company has expanded its platform and added new features: Pastors can now use Subsplash to host podcasts, videos, and a tithing and charitable giving widget that allow users to easily donate to the church or other causes. Subsplash apps can send congregants push notifications with service times, daily Bible verses, or anything else their pastors deem worthy. The pandemic has accelerated Subsplashā€™s growth: In March 2020, the company acquired a live streaming service that allowed churches to broadcast services as lockdowns began.

Tim Turner, Subsplashā€™s fauxhawked forty-something founder whose video appearances combine evangelical earnestness with Silicon Valley idealism, likes to describe his company as a conduit for Godā€™s word. ā€œThe Lord is in control, and it can be especially fun if we can be submitted to that,ā€ Turner says in a video Subsplash produced in 2019 about the companyā€™s history. The companyā€™s name, he explains, reflects this ethos: ā€œSubā€ is short for ā€œsubmitting to God,ā€ and ā€œsplashā€ is a reference to innovation. (This site preceded the much more well known Substack platform.) The Subsplash website is full of rhapsodic testimonials from satisfied customers. ā€œWeā€™ve received rave reviews already about [the app] because it provides one more medium to extend our messages about the gospel out to the world,ā€ says one from the lead pastor at one megachurch in Texas. ā€œMay the gospel be shared over and over through the work you guys do and may our great Kingā€™s name be glorified.ā€

In its promotional materials, Subsplash promises to give individual churches full control over their content. Indeed, what is available on Subsplash-hosted platforms varies widely, as it reflects the diversity in spiritual and political beliefs of the vast array of congregations in the United States. ā€œWith no ads or censorship, auto-updated content, and a fully-customizable media player, keeping gospel-centered content in front of your community has never been easier,ā€ the company boasts.

But thereā€™s a dark side to the companyā€™s hands-off approach. Since the beginning of the pandemic, Subsplash has given voice to and amplified messages from many religiously affiliated anti-vaccine activists. On one Subsplash-hosted website called ā€œHis Glory Me,ā€ viewers can watch videos that urge them not to yield to pressure to get vaccinated against COVID-19. In a video from a few weeks ago, featured guest chiropractor Dr. Bryan Ardis insists, ā€œThe Delta variant is not dangerous.ā€ The Church of Glad Tidingsā€™ ā€œFree and Braveā€ video series hosted by Subsplash features noted anti-vaccine advocates, including Judy Mikovits, the personality behind the ā€œPlandemicā€ conspiracy theory video. A September 12 video from Subsplash-hosted site Good Life Broadcasting spins theories about ominous connections among vaccines, the government, Bill Gates, and the Chinese Communist Party. Through Subsplash, the American Pastors Network runs a podcast series called ā€œStand in the Gap,ā€ which rails against mandatory vaccines and questions the seriousness of COVID-19. A July episode featured noted purveyor of vaccine misinformation Dr. Robert Malone, who claimed that ā€œwe donā€™t have good informationā€ about the vaccinesā€™ risks, and that he was being censored in trying to warn people about the potential dangers. Some sites hosted by Subsplash also promote misinformation around the antiparasitic drug ivermectin, suggesting that it can prevent hospitalization. Other Subsplash sites host videos devoted to the QAnon conspiracy theory.

Subsplashā€™s hosting of anti-vaccine ideology isnā€™t limited to churches. In addition, the company also developed an app for Texans for Vaccine Choice, a powerful anti-vaccine PAC that has helped Republican state representatives who oppose vaccines to win elections. In a recent Facebook video, Texans for Vaccine Choice director Jackie Schlegel offered an impassioned endorsement. ā€œItā€™s not a fancy-schmancy app,ā€ says Schlegel. ā€œBut it took a lot of work to find a developer who didnā€™t want to censor us.ā€ Earlier in the video, Schlegel describes her own experience of leaving her church because its youth group leaders required kids to wear ā€œmasks outside in the summer heat, standing on socially distanced dots as if they were little socialist soldiers.ā€  

The extent to which Subsplash could be considered directly culpable in the promotion of COVID-19 misinformation is debatable: The company simply provides the platformā€”it doesnā€™t control what individual preachers say. (The company didn’t respond to questions sent by Mother Jones.) But from politics to medicine, the online spread of conspiracy theories has called into question the role of technology companies as gatekeepers. Facebook, for example, has been implicated in allowing conspiracy theories to flourish. Lawmakers have tried to call it to account with limited success.

Eric Goldman, a law professor who co-directs Santa Clara Universityā€™s High Tech Law Institute, argues that Subsplash canā€™t be held legally responsible for the content that individuals who use the platform put forth. He believes the ethics are different from those around Facebook, which employs vast teams of monitors who act as moderators for questionable posts, because Subsplash does not curate the content. ā€œI would like to think that Subsplash would recognize that it’s become a channel for the broadcasting of misinformation,ā€ he noted, ā€œand it might choose to intervene on that basis, but it has the legal discretion not to.ā€

Yet Kolina Koltai,  a University of Washington researcher who studies the anti-vaccine movementā€™s use of social networks, was more emphatic in her belief that Subsplash has a duty to weed misinformation out of its platforms. ā€œThese types of platforms, when they begin to be developed, should take into consideration: What are the ways that misinformation can be shared on this platform?ā€ she says. Koltai pointed to other examples of web hosting companies booting sites that they found ethically problematic. For example, earlier this month, the hosting company GoDaddy announced that it would stop hosting a Texas anti-abortion site set up to collect anonymous tips about healthcare workers who provide abortions in defiance of the stateā€™s new law. In 2019, another web company, Cloudflare, booted the extremist forum 8chan from its client roster, calling it a ā€œhate-filled community.ā€ Koltai, who also collaborates with the vaccine misinformation watchdog group the Virality Project, said that sheā€™s noticed an uptick in purveyors of disinformation deliberately exploiting web platforms that arenā€™t tightly controlled to spread their messages, especially as major players like Facebook and Twitter have ramped up their monitoring efforts.

One could even argue that given who its users are, Subsplash has a special responsibility. A misinformation ecosphere has blossomed within many Christian communities over the last 18 months with dire public health consequences. Evangelical Christians are among the groups most strongly opposed to the COVID-19 vaccines. According to an ongoing survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, nearly a quarter of white evangelical Christians said in July that they definitely did not plan to get vaccinated, compared to just 14 percent of the general population. So strong is the anti-vaccine sentiment among evangelicals that some church leaders have taken it upon themselves to  try and correct misinformation that circulates in church communities. When my colleague Andrea Guzman interviewed Curtis Chang about his Christians and the Vaccine project, Chang explained that he believes ant-vaccine misinformation flourishes among evangelicals because many Christians are taught to doubt, even fear secular institutions. ā€œQAnon, the anti-vaxxer movementā€”they have realized that evangelicals are fertile hunting grounds for their theories, because they are already primed to be distrustful of institutions, and so they can be easily kind of recruited into their deep conspiracies of distrust,ā€ he said.

Now, with cases from the Delta variant surging and the proliferation of federal and local COVID vaccine mandates, some public health experts are concerned that exemptions for ā€œreligious beliefsā€ could be exploited. Some workers who donā€™t want the shots ā€œare submitting letters from far-flung religious authorities who have advertised their willingness to help,ā€ the New York Times reported. Indeed, a recent episode of the American Pastors Networkā€™s Subsplash-hosted podcast ā€œStand in the Gapā€ contained instructions for how to ā€œprepare your religious exemption letterā€ for vaccine requirements.

Which gets at what ultimately irks both Goldman and Koltai: Itā€™s not the existence of platforms that host misinformation, but that there is a robust market for them, which allows them to thrive. ā€œIt’s troubling to see businesses that ultimately are profiting off of the dissemination of this information or harmful content,ā€ he says. Because of that financial incentive, adds Koltai, “There’s never enough pressure on these organizations.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate