Issues very often come down to the perception of there being “two sides” to a topic. But these are not esoteric debates about how wide a sidewalk should be, there are material effects on people’s lives. Just because someone has not been devastated by this, doesn’t mean there aren’t others who stand to lose through no fault or their own.
Like Ramona said, Substack will have to take a side. They will have to make an exception to the hands-off rule. I don’t think they can rile up a huge groundswell of people under a free speech banner and still talk about journalism because there are ethics and a responsibility to the truth.
Science is not infallible. Work is peer-reviewed and we may find people we’re wrong. That’s part of the process. I would be intrigued to see who would represent the opposition to an MPH. Someone of comparable educational pedigree? I’ll pop the popcorn and we’ll wait and see.
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.
Exactly. They get a small slice off every subscription and if a conservative big name we’re on here, people would throw their money at the person and Substack would be all too happy to roll out the red carpet.
Issues very often come down to the perception of there being “two sides” to a topic. But these are not esoteric debates about how wide a sidewalk should be, there are material effects on people’s lives. Just because someone has not been devastated by this, doesn’t mean there aren’t others who stand to lose through no fault or their own.
Like Ramona said, Substack will have to take a side. They will have to make an exception to the hands-off rule. I don’t think they can rile up a huge groundswell of people under a free speech banner and still talk about journalism because there are ethics and a responsibility to the truth.
Science is not infallible. Work is peer-reviewed and we may find people we’re wrong. That’s part of the process. I would be intrigued to see who would represent the opposition to an MPH. Someone of comparable educational pedigree? I’ll pop the popcorn and we’ll wait and see.
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.
Exactly. They get a small slice off every subscription and if a conservative big name we’re on here, people would throw their money at the person and Substack would be all too happy to roll out the red carpet.