"I propose a “meta-Substack”: a place to discuss posts from any Substack newsletter" - this is kind of the Substack Writers Unite discord already. I mean, we don't specifically challenge each other to discuss and debate random Substacks (thought that might be cool) but we did just have a conversation about the Substack post that prompted yours.
I think if a discord or other site existed just to debate content on Substack, though, it would get heated and ugly within about 2 hours. I mean, a 20 second peek at the comments on the Substack leaders' post made my skin crawl and I had to walk away. I can just imagine what would happen if you turned all those people loose on a Discord together. I know I wouldn't stick around.
This is one reason my proposal is very tentative. All I feel for sure is that something must be done. This is Substack's fourth attempt to explain its content moderation policy in a little over a year. The problems of a hands-off policy aren't going away. Likewise the problems of censorship. Maybe there's a third way.
I just hope this latest attempt to explain things isn’t actually a back door to pandering to the far right. Because if that’s the case, i will be very sad.
I'm put in mind of Michael Jordan's statement, "Republicans buy sneakers too." One can say, "The far right writes/reads newsletters too." Substack's view seems to be that controversial newsletters will be published somewhere, and that they'll only be more extreme if Substack censors them. Maybe that's a reasonable and even a noble view. But it's hard to ignore that Substack is making money in the process. (My post imagines a Nazi newsletter on Substack. Now consider if Substack were making $100,000 from a Nazi newsletter! 😨)
Yeah it's a tough one. But part of me says, so what if they're making money. I mean, I don't like it but it's how the world works. I don't really agree with the politics or the ethics of most rich people anyway and a lot of them have done or condoned horrific things in the pursuit of wealth (e.g Bezos creating such horrible conditions for his warehouse workers, diamond mining (really all mining), electronics manufacturing, etc. Is all of that any better than an Alex Jones making a buck? I don't know, these are difficult questions and sometimes I just have to bury my head for a while because otherwise I'd lose my mind utterly. I don't think the answer is to censor others, at any rate (even though they would, and probably will, censor me). It's just not how I choose to solve problems. But again, it's such a difficult question and there is no easy answer to it, and we're all struggling to figure it out. Personally, though, I think I am happier on a platform that says "we're not going to censor anyone for their beliefs" rather than "we won't allow ,ill in the blank> voices on our platform." Because honestly, when censorship occurs, it's usually POC, LGBTQ+ or radical left voices that are silenced.
Anyway, I think what she said in reference to people banning books etc. also holds true in this instance. I hate the rhetoric coming out of many people these days but is banning it, burying it, hiding it from the light of day, where it will only fester, the right idea? It doesn't seem to be working at any rate.
I can envision a counter-argument that censorship (i.e. removal from Substack) should be the exception, but not ruled out for cases where the content is likely to cause (perhaps physical not emotional?) harm.
But I feel my main goal is to help in getting both sides of the debate (if there are just two sides) to find a way past the debate. Putting down, shutting out, or taking aback at the other side all seems to make the situation worse.
Another point that’s come up and discussion is that content (blogging/website) platforms are different from social media. I know WordPress.com has been anti-censorship since the beginning, and I suspect Blogger, Wix, Squarespace, etc. have similar anti-censorship TOSes (though I can’t say for sure because I haven’t looked). There would be some cause for removal if the content was illegal, pornographic, or similar, but otherwise there wouldn’t be much censorship. And this makes sense from a content platform perspective. So I don’t think that what Substack is doing is all that different, it’s just getting a lot of attention right now.
It seems that Twitter (and to a lesser extent Facebook) has been the focus of the online freedom of speech debate, at least in the US. Now maybe the focus is moving to Substack. I suppose WordPress, Blogger, etc are missing aspects of a platform that Twitter and Substack have.
Was there a specific incident that led to them releasing this? This seems like such an unneeded self own if it isn’t reactionary.
I'm guessing it was the Mashable article: https://mashable.com/article/substack-covid-misinformation
"I propose a “meta-Substack”: a place to discuss posts from any Substack newsletter" - this is kind of the Substack Writers Unite discord already. I mean, we don't specifically challenge each other to discuss and debate random Substacks (thought that might be cool) but we did just have a conversation about the Substack post that prompted yours.
I think if a discord or other site existed just to debate content on Substack, though, it would get heated and ugly within about 2 hours. I mean, a 20 second peek at the comments on the Substack leaders' post made my skin crawl and I had to walk away. I can just imagine what would happen if you turned all those people loose on a Discord together. I know I wouldn't stick around.
This is one reason my proposal is very tentative. All I feel for sure is that something must be done. This is Substack's fourth attempt to explain its content moderation policy in a little over a year. The problems of a hands-off policy aren't going away. Likewise the problems of censorship. Maybe there's a third way.
I just hope this latest attempt to explain things isn’t actually a back door to pandering to the far right. Because if that’s the case, i will be very sad.
I'm put in mind of Michael Jordan's statement, "Republicans buy sneakers too." One can say, "The far right writes/reads newsletters too." Substack's view seems to be that controversial newsletters will be published somewhere, and that they'll only be more extreme if Substack censors them. Maybe that's a reasonable and even a noble view. But it's hard to ignore that Substack is making money in the process. (My post imagines a Nazi newsletter on Substack. Now consider if Substack were making $100,000 from a Nazi newsletter! 😨)
Yeah it's a tough one. But part of me says, so what if they're making money. I mean, I don't like it but it's how the world works. I don't really agree with the politics or the ethics of most rich people anyway and a lot of them have done or condoned horrific things in the pursuit of wealth (e.g Bezos creating such horrible conditions for his warehouse workers, diamond mining (really all mining), electronics manufacturing, etc. Is all of that any better than an Alex Jones making a buck? I don't know, these are difficult questions and sometimes I just have to bury my head for a while because otherwise I'd lose my mind utterly. I don't think the answer is to censor others, at any rate (even though they would, and probably will, censor me). It's just not how I choose to solve problems. But again, it's such a difficult question and there is no easy answer to it, and we're all struggling to figure it out. Personally, though, I think I am happier on a platform that says "we're not going to censor anyone for their beliefs" rather than "we won't allow ,ill in the blank> voices on our platform." Because honestly, when censorship occurs, it's usually POC, LGBTQ+ or radical left voices that are silenced.
Lyz in Men Yell at Me shared some interesting points relevant to this conversation here: https://lyz.substack.com/p/dingus-of-the-week-everyone-banning
In particular, she wrote:
In an interview on CNN, Nikole Hannah-Jones said, “A healthy society does not ban ideas, and it does not ban books.”
If your worldview is so fragile that it crumbles because someone talks about slavery and the reality of history? Your worldview is bad.
Anyway, I think what she said in reference to people banning books etc. also holds true in this instance. I hate the rhetoric coming out of many people these days but is banning it, burying it, hiding it from the light of day, where it will only fester, the right idea? It doesn't seem to be working at any rate.
I can envision a counter-argument that censorship (i.e. removal from Substack) should be the exception, but not ruled out for cases where the content is likely to cause (perhaps physical not emotional?) harm.
But I feel my main goal is to help in getting both sides of the debate (if there are just two sides) to find a way past the debate. Putting down, shutting out, or taking aback at the other side all seems to make the situation worse.
Another point that’s come up and discussion is that content (blogging/website) platforms are different from social media. I know WordPress.com has been anti-censorship since the beginning, and I suspect Blogger, Wix, Squarespace, etc. have similar anti-censorship TOSes (though I can’t say for sure because I haven’t looked). There would be some cause for removal if the content was illegal, pornographic, or similar, but otherwise there wouldn’t be much censorship. And this makes sense from a content platform perspective. So I don’t think that what Substack is doing is all that different, it’s just getting a lot of attention right now.
It seems that Twitter (and to a lesser extent Facebook) has been the focus of the online freedom of speech debate, at least in the US. Now maybe the focus is moving to Substack. I suppose WordPress, Blogger, etc are missing aspects of a platform that Twitter and Substack have.