Your Local Epidemiologist and Substack's Freedom Problem
Is freedom under threat truly free? Does more freedom result in more misinformation? Is there a way out of these dilemmas?
Katelyn Jetelina is Your Local Epidemiologist.1
According to Dr. Jetelina,
Antivaxx groups organized attack campaigns in an attempt to stop some of us from supporting vaccines.
To Dr. Jetelina, who is already facing the pandemic as a parent of young children, the attacks she has faced are worse:
Taken together, the death threats are more serious. The microaggression is deeper. And the punches are coming from every angle.
And I’m tired.
So, I’m taking a break for a week or two.
Dr. Jetelina also notes the
moral debate about dissemination of health disinformation across various platforms, including Substack.
The article she has cited on the debate is available via the Internet Archive. In the article, Dr. Jetelina said:
she has mixed feelings about how Substack should respond [to medical disinformation].
"Proactive solutions" are needed to mend the rifts in society, and Substack's strategy may provide a solution, she said. "I'm willing to give Substack the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not excited or happy about it."
While she said she doesn't want to complain without offering an alternative solution, she did note that she feels the company's solution "is risky and I hope there's recognition in that. Not only risky for the health of our population but risky for the personal safety of me and fellow scientists fighting disinformation every day."
"My life and the lives of my family have been directly threatened throughout this pandemic from followers of this disinformation," Jetelina told MedPage Today. "And we've had to take certain steps to ensure the security of my family. The threat is real and it is scary. It is also incredibly exhausting and I'm tired."
"I do hope," she added, "that it starts a constructive and meaningful conversation around what is the smart way forward and what are effective solutions to some of our societal downfalls."
In September 2021, Substack hosted a panel that included Dr. Jetelina, answering questions using the latest data on kids and covid. Substack described Dr. Jetelina as a health expert “sharing valuable, data-driven information” with readers.
Who wants to bet whether Substack would host a panel with any of the anti-vaccination newsletter writers mentioned in MedPage Today?
Who thinks that Substack would describe these writers as it described Dr. Jetelina?
I’m not saying that Substack shouldn’t ever host such a panel or say such nice things about these writers. I’m just saying: will Substack do that? Like or it not, Substack chooses a side.
Substack’s blog posts about content moderation suggest an ideal world where writers reach audiences and profit through reasoned discourse, rather than misinformation or hate. Dr. Jetelina is an example of the ideal Substack believes in.
And yet, Dr. Jetelina has fear for her life and the lives of her family. Meanwhile, misinformation endangers health and lives.
Substack’s self-congratulation about defending freedom of speech will not make threats of violence go away or misinformation less dangerous. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean so much if others feel free to threaten you about it, or if you're not healthy enough (or alive) to benefit from it.
Are vaccine-skeptical writers on Substack responsible for these threats? I don’t know. I’m not sure that Dr. Jetelina would say that. But she is certainly suggesting the possibility of followers who go too far. This is far from Substack’s ideal world of ideas.
Are certain writers recklessly or intentionally spreading misinformation?2 Again, I don't know for sure. But I am sure that misinformation on a significant subject such as health is dangerous. And maybe we need to figure out as a society how better to distinguish information from misinformation.
Principles and beliefs may be pure. But reality is messy, even harmful or deadly. (I'm sure Substack knows this. I just feel they’ve expressed more realistic views about problems elsewhere than on Substack.)
As noted above, Dr. Jetelina hopes for “a constructive and meaningful conversation” around the smart way forward. She indicates that the goal is “proactive solutions.” I’ve said similar things in a couple of recent posts.
Will Substack seek a constructive and meaningful conversation and proactive solutions regarding free expression and danger? How should we as Substack creators and audiences participate – or lead – in conversations and solutions?
I suppose we might start with this question: What is your opinion about Substack and free speech, misinformation, and threats?
Dr. Jetelina has a Masters in Public Health and PhD in Epidemiology and Biostatistics. Her newsletter has tens of thousands of paid subscribers and is translated into Spanish as Su Epidemiólogo Local.
I'm using the word “misinformation.” In my view, “disinformation” is reckless or intentional misinformation. But others may have a different definition. My main concern is that incorrect or incomplete information warps people's decision-making and may lead to choices they wouldn't make otherwise.
I suspect Substack's ideas on free speech will be put to the test at some point. Taking no position on something as volatile and open to definition as 'freedom of speech' IS a position. But from what I've seen (somewhere in my readings about this) their position isn't as black and white as it would seem.
They have already made some exceptions to their hands-off declarations--threats of violence was one, as I recall. You probably know more about the nuance of their argument than anyone outside of Substack, but I take that short list of exceptions as a sign that nothing they've said is set in stone. They're seeing which way the wind blows every time they put out a new statement, and they've put out many, which tells me they're still trying to work it out.
It's commendable to offer to give everyone a voice but lies, shaming, doxxing, etc., can be more than just painful, they can be harmful, and in the end they're providing the forum. They can't deny responsibility if something terrible happens on their watch, no matter how much they claim to have warned everyone. It's such a slippery slope and it's obvious Substack is still not entirely sure they're doing the right thing.
Thank you for bringing this issue up and keeping it front and center. The pollution of "free speech" with cynical profit-driven lies and savage personal threats makes a mockery of civil liberty. These are not "opinions" but propaganda. And Substack profits off these lies along with the liars. That's the problem. This is a private company that can set and enforce its own policies. These policies need to protect truth, justice, and the personal safety of honest users.