Well, Substack is not advocating for “unlimited free speech”. In their guidelines they do have restrictions. They may not be strict enough, and they will need to revise them as time goes on.
Something that does make me nervous, though - I am starting to see the signs of the far right’s presence. They were quite visible in yesterday‘s office hours. They didn’t step over the line in terms of what they said, but they did manage to boost a completely paranoid post to the top of the thread And if you doubt me, look at what some of their Substacks are about). In time, they may dominate the conversations. And that worries me. I worry that their presence will be so numerous that those comment threads, and the programs like Substack Go, and then even our own Substacks may fall victim to their presence.
If they think that this is “their” platform and that there are no limits or boundaries, they may try to control the discourse. So that’s something that we need to be on guard against, and make sure that we continue to write our own content and encourage others that don’t share those beliefs to join the platform snd be visible in public conversations.
but I don’t blame Substack for this. I blame the media as a whole, and a culture that has allowed them to thrive and has honestly paid way too much attention to them. The whole trucker convoy is a great example. That got so much media, and has emboldened so many people because they were allowed to continue for three weeks. I guarantee you if a bunch of BLM protesters shut down a city or international bridges, it wouldn’t have lasted three weeks.
The trick really is that ordinary people who oppose this behavior, whether it’s in public or on a platform like Substack, make sure to speak up and show that intolerant and disrespectful behavior is not welcome.
Your example of the exchange between Trudeau and Candice Bergen is faulty. Trudeau has specifically said that the country he admires most is China because he thinks their authoritarianism is allowing them to do things better than democratic countries. This is a factual statement by Bergen. Whereas there's only been one example of a swastika at the Freedom Convoy and despite them being there for 3 weeks, not a single new one has been seen. Including the other protests in the country.
As to your argument that misinformation or morally problematic things would thrive whereas good speech and other things would be drowned out is only a short term view. People can't go long term with insanity and misinformation. They have to eventually get the right type of information which may not be from the government or public health officials or anyone else. It's like physical violence. Eventually it kills you or you have to stop harming other people and talk. There's no other way to go about it.
This is why the idea of the answer to bad speech is more speech actually works.
The problem with the 'free speech' argument is just that: It's an argument. It will always be so, since there can be no solid definition of free speech as noted in the constitution. If I say I'm for free speech, there will always be caveats, spelled out only when I see them.
If I say I believe in censorship, again--caveats. Who decides what should be censored? Book banning is censorship, and I'm totally against it. Right Wing hate mills should be censored, and I'm all for it. But I don't get to decide.
I agree with Popper's analysis about tolerance/intolerance and think it makes infinite sense. We simply can't allow intolerance to thrive. I wish we could find simple black and white solutions. It seems easy on paper, but real life says something different.
I think that's the dilemma Substack faces. They don't want to be free speech arbiters. They could spend all of their time defending their positions, so the tempting 'out' is just to say 'anything goes'. Except it can't. It's not reasonable to provide a forum without guidelines, and since this is a writer's platform, free speech is right up front, a HUGE part of anything happening at Substack.
I don't know the solution, either, but it's helpful to talk about it. I appreciate your efforts here, and I'm always interested in reading what you and others have to say.
Intolerant, but free, speech has another side benefit. Look at the insurrection crowd, proudly live streaming their "freedom" and posting it all over the internet. Without their comfort in their ability to hate freely it would be a lot harder to identify and track them down for prosecution.
Your argument suggests that it is Substack's role be this arbiter of tolerant information. We ask people in a free speech society to censor themselves. When that doesn't meet our expectations we go after their financial supporters (ads, sponsors, etc.). When that fails we expect that private industry (online platforms) will step in where govt can't to limit their speech. When intolerance moves to it's own platforms we expect the big tech companies to shut down their servers and databases. You can keep taking this scenario as far as you want - all the way to books & libraries as we see the fascists in Texas doing now - but in the end it doesn't result in tolerant information being disseminated, only in passing the buck to yet another censorship authority who is stuck with the same quagmire. Don't get me wrong, I hate Nazis. But that is because of the Nazi bookstore that was just down the street from my house growing up and their own speech - not because some city counsellor made a political platform out of shutting down their right to hate.
Our ability to find positive outcomes and alternatives us directly related to our exposure to the negatives of the world. Putting a convenient cover over other people's intolerance only makes us unaware if it's presence - which in my book is far more dangerous. Better to know the enemy and keep him where you can see him, than send him into shadow where we forget he still lurks...
I'm not advocating for Substack to be the arbiter. I think it would be difficult for Substack to arbitrate at scale. Like Popper, I generally think that more free speech is preferable to repression. But I am advocating for Substack and the community to do something other than or beyond trumpet free speech. I've suggested ways forward in previous posts. But I don't pretend to have the solution to the paradoxes. I mainly want to get the conversation going.
Well, Substack is not advocating for “unlimited free speech”. In their guidelines they do have restrictions. They may not be strict enough, and they will need to revise them as time goes on.
Something that does make me nervous, though - I am starting to see the signs of the far right’s presence. They were quite visible in yesterday‘s office hours. They didn’t step over the line in terms of what they said, but they did manage to boost a completely paranoid post to the top of the thread And if you doubt me, look at what some of their Substacks are about). In time, they may dominate the conversations. And that worries me. I worry that their presence will be so numerous that those comment threads, and the programs like Substack Go, and then even our own Substacks may fall victim to their presence.
If they think that this is “their” platform and that there are no limits or boundaries, they may try to control the discourse. So that’s something that we need to be on guard against, and make sure that we continue to write our own content and encourage others that don’t share those beliefs to join the platform snd be visible in public conversations.
but I don’t blame Substack for this. I blame the media as a whole, and a culture that has allowed them to thrive and has honestly paid way too much attention to them. The whole trucker convoy is a great example. That got so much media, and has emboldened so many people because they were allowed to continue for three weeks. I guarantee you if a bunch of BLM protesters shut down a city or international bridges, it wouldn’t have lasted three weeks.
The trick really is that ordinary people who oppose this behavior, whether it’s in public or on a platform like Substack, make sure to speak up and show that intolerant and disrespectful behavior is not welcome.
Your example of the exchange between Trudeau and Candice Bergen is faulty. Trudeau has specifically said that the country he admires most is China because he thinks their authoritarianism is allowing them to do things better than democratic countries. This is a factual statement by Bergen. Whereas there's only been one example of a swastika at the Freedom Convoy and despite them being there for 3 weeks, not a single new one has been seen. Including the other protests in the country.
As to your argument that misinformation or morally problematic things would thrive whereas good speech and other things would be drowned out is only a short term view. People can't go long term with insanity and misinformation. They have to eventually get the right type of information which may not be from the government or public health officials or anyone else. It's like physical violence. Eventually it kills you or you have to stop harming other people and talk. There's no other way to go about it.
This is why the idea of the answer to bad speech is more speech actually works.
The problem with the 'free speech' argument is just that: It's an argument. It will always be so, since there can be no solid definition of free speech as noted in the constitution. If I say I'm for free speech, there will always be caveats, spelled out only when I see them.
If I say I believe in censorship, again--caveats. Who decides what should be censored? Book banning is censorship, and I'm totally against it. Right Wing hate mills should be censored, and I'm all for it. But I don't get to decide.
I agree with Popper's analysis about tolerance/intolerance and think it makes infinite sense. We simply can't allow intolerance to thrive. I wish we could find simple black and white solutions. It seems easy on paper, but real life says something different.
I think that's the dilemma Substack faces. They don't want to be free speech arbiters. They could spend all of their time defending their positions, so the tempting 'out' is just to say 'anything goes'. Except it can't. It's not reasonable to provide a forum without guidelines, and since this is a writer's platform, free speech is right up front, a HUGE part of anything happening at Substack.
I don't know the solution, either, but it's helpful to talk about it. I appreciate your efforts here, and I'm always interested in reading what you and others have to say.
Intolerant, but free, speech has another side benefit. Look at the insurrection crowd, proudly live streaming their "freedom" and posting it all over the internet. Without their comfort in their ability to hate freely it would be a lot harder to identify and track them down for prosecution.
Your argument suggests that it is Substack's role be this arbiter of tolerant information. We ask people in a free speech society to censor themselves. When that doesn't meet our expectations we go after their financial supporters (ads, sponsors, etc.). When that fails we expect that private industry (online platforms) will step in where govt can't to limit their speech. When intolerance moves to it's own platforms we expect the big tech companies to shut down their servers and databases. You can keep taking this scenario as far as you want - all the way to books & libraries as we see the fascists in Texas doing now - but in the end it doesn't result in tolerant information being disseminated, only in passing the buck to yet another censorship authority who is stuck with the same quagmire. Don't get me wrong, I hate Nazis. But that is because of the Nazi bookstore that was just down the street from my house growing up and their own speech - not because some city counsellor made a political platform out of shutting down their right to hate.
Our ability to find positive outcomes and alternatives us directly related to our exposure to the negatives of the world. Putting a convenient cover over other people's intolerance only makes us unaware if it's presence - which in my book is far more dangerous. Better to know the enemy and keep him where you can see him, than send him into shadow where we forget he still lurks...
I'm not advocating for Substack to be the arbiter. I think it would be difficult for Substack to arbitrate at scale. Like Popper, I generally think that more free speech is preferable to repression. But I am advocating for Substack and the community to do something other than or beyond trumpet free speech. I've suggested ways forward in previous posts. But I don't pretend to have the solution to the paradoxes. I mainly want to get the conversation going.