I was hoping you'd have something to say about this, and I really enjoyed reading it.
I admit I kind of gasped when I read this line from Hamish: "We are committed to upholding and protecting freedom of expression, even when it hurts."
Because he didn't mean "even when it hurts ME." That's quite a thing to say to people who are definitely harmed by the perpetuation of Nazi propaganda. At least it's honest, I guess.
Dec 21, 2023·edited Dec 21, 2023Liked by Ken White
"I dislike McKenzie’s apologia for Substack’s policy and for Richard Hanania because it has a sort of detached, sociopathic philosophy popular with techbrahs that all differences of opinion are equal"
^^^^^!!!!!
Will follow you anywhere -- fan in WEST TEXAS (okay, and usually Austin :)
If the greatest annoyance of being a defender of free expression is spending a great deal of your time and effort defending scoundrels, then the second greatest annoyance is all the scoundrels spending a great deal of time and effort pretending that their self interest is really a grand defense of free expression.
Whether it's Elon Musk (a fierce advocate of free speech except when he censoring people he doesn't like), the university presidents (taking a break from their usual draconian "hostile environment" enforcement to become champions of free speech on this one issue), Donald Trump (Musk's position, just with a bigger stick), to Substack, there is an endless parade of wolves cloaking themselves in the guise of free speech.
I suppose we should take it as a compliment of sorts. When bad people are pretending to uphold your values, you know that you have traction with the public.
Great job, as always, of parsing a messy subject. I don't like Substack's decision, but as you rightly point out, it's extremely easy for readers to avoid undesirable content on this platform, unlike some others. I spend quite a bit of time on Substack and can honestly say I've never encountered any of the nazi crap. I can see why you might not want to help Substack make money now, and I understand why their justification is irksome, but unless and until there's a functionally better alternative — for you and your readers — I hope you'll stay.
There’s a writer’s pleasure in drafting a footnote calculated to vex Reply Guys and not only for it to work but the Reply Guys can’t resist outing themselves as Reply Guys by kvetching about it.
I appreciate the footnote, as I was legitimately confused that you were defining “Nazi” as “racist.”
I’m projecting here, but I wonder if pure annoyance is the reason Substack is making the choices it has. I wouldn’t look forward to fielding incessant complaints and never-ending arguments about who is, and who isn’t actually a “Nazi.” Especially if I’d built my platform in a way that one needs to seek out the offensive (or good) stuff.
Ultimately, I think the question becomes how much any of us needs the companies we do business with to share our values.
Dec 21, 2023·edited Dec 22, 2023Liked by Ken White
Thank you for this very helpful response. It helped me better understand and classify my concerns, and I just wanted to flag that I'd follow your writing to just about any new platform.
I don't understand your objection. Yes, it's true that they remove certain speech but why is that an issue?
It's certainly possible to believe, indeed I actually do believe, that in general trying to deplatform Nazis from substack or other bad ideas isn't particularly effective and has more harms than benefits. Indeed, I think that not doing so does create valuable social benefits (less people can scream their ideas are being oppressed which makes those ideas less sexy).
I also believe that other forms of speech such as imminent calls for violence or doxxing present different costs/benefits and there the costs exceed the benefits. Indeed, that's made more plausible by the fact that it roughly tracks the kind of situations (tho not the specific tests) where we don't extend 1st amendment protections (invasion of privacy torts, harassment and imminent calls to violence).
Maybe you don't agree with that judgement but it's a perfectly reasonable one that the people in charge of substack probably genuinely believe so what's the problem? Sure they have an incentive to believe it but that's the nature of for profit buisness.
This is a great, balanced article on the issue. I get annoyed at people constantly conflating deplatforming with *amplification*. As you regularly point out, the First Amendment means the government can't throw you in jail because it doesn't like your speech, it very much does NOT mean that every whacko out there is entitled to go viral on a private platform. I am glad you don't routinely encounter objectionable content on here. However, in my experience, I am repeatedly suggested so-called "Science" and "Health" content filled with insane, dangerous anti-vaccine and anti-LGBT nonsense filled with ignorant mistakes at best and egregious lies at worst. I'm not suggesting anybody be kicked off for their crazy views. I *am* suggesting that is a straw man argument and a false choice that rejects any basic guardrails against toxic garbage proliferating into our view.
I was hoping you'd have something to say about this, and I really enjoyed reading it.
I admit I kind of gasped when I read this line from Hamish: "We are committed to upholding and protecting freedom of expression, even when it hurts."
Because he didn't mean "even when it hurts ME." That's quite a thing to say to people who are definitely harmed by the perpetuation of Nazi propaganda. At least it's honest, I guess.
Kudos for correctly using the phrase "begging the question".
Substack Commenters: You just call everyone Nazis, there aren’t real Nazis
Substack: https://substack.com/@popehat/note/c-45876447?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=8qq7y
So happy substack removes porn, because I was really concerned about porn stars trying to start race wars. Oh, wait....
I left Twitter because of the crap there. I can leave substack just as easily. And if they don't ban Nazis soon, I will.
💯 “McKenzie’s apologia deeply annoys me because it treats me like I’m a moron.” Exactly my reaction.
"I dislike McKenzie’s apologia for Substack’s policy and for Richard Hanania because it has a sort of detached, sociopathic philosophy popular with techbrahs that all differences of opinion are equal"
^^^^^!!!!!
Will follow you anywhere -- fan in WEST TEXAS (okay, and usually Austin :)
If the greatest annoyance of being a defender of free expression is spending a great deal of your time and effort defending scoundrels, then the second greatest annoyance is all the scoundrels spending a great deal of time and effort pretending that their self interest is really a grand defense of free expression.
Whether it's Elon Musk (a fierce advocate of free speech except when he censoring people he doesn't like), the university presidents (taking a break from their usual draconian "hostile environment" enforcement to become champions of free speech on this one issue), Donald Trump (Musk's position, just with a bigger stick), to Substack, there is an endless parade of wolves cloaking themselves in the guise of free speech.
I suppose we should take it as a compliment of sorts. When bad people are pretending to uphold your values, you know that you have traction with the public.
It really is annoying, though.
Great job, as always, of parsing a messy subject. I don't like Substack's decision, but as you rightly point out, it's extremely easy for readers to avoid undesirable content on this platform, unlike some others. I spend quite a bit of time on Substack and can honestly say I've never encountered any of the nazi crap. I can see why you might not want to help Substack make money now, and I understand why their justification is irksome, but unless and until there's a functionally better alternative — for you and your readers — I hope you'll stay.
There’s a writer’s pleasure in drafting a footnote calculated to vex Reply Guys and not only for it to work but the Reply Guys can’t resist outing themselves as Reply Guys by kvetching about it.
The smartest commentary I've seen on this affair.
I appreciate the footnote, as I was legitimately confused that you were defining “Nazi” as “racist.”
I’m projecting here, but I wonder if pure annoyance is the reason Substack is making the choices it has. I wouldn’t look forward to fielding incessant complaints and never-ending arguments about who is, and who isn’t actually a “Nazi.” Especially if I’d built my platform in a way that one needs to seek out the offensive (or good) stuff.
Ultimately, I think the question becomes how much any of us needs the companies we do business with to share our values.
Thank you for this very helpful response. It helped me better understand and classify my concerns, and I just wanted to flag that I'd follow your writing to just about any new platform.
I don't understand your objection. Yes, it's true that they remove certain speech but why is that an issue?
It's certainly possible to believe, indeed I actually do believe, that in general trying to deplatform Nazis from substack or other bad ideas isn't particularly effective and has more harms than benefits. Indeed, I think that not doing so does create valuable social benefits (less people can scream their ideas are being oppressed which makes those ideas less sexy).
I also believe that other forms of speech such as imminent calls for violence or doxxing present different costs/benefits and there the costs exceed the benefits. Indeed, that's made more plausible by the fact that it roughly tracks the kind of situations (tho not the specific tests) where we don't extend 1st amendment protections (invasion of privacy torts, harassment and imminent calls to violence).
Maybe you don't agree with that judgement but it's a perfectly reasonable one that the people in charge of substack probably genuinely believe so what's the problem? Sure they have an incentive to believe it but that's the nature of for profit buisness.
This is a great, balanced article on the issue. I get annoyed at people constantly conflating deplatforming with *amplification*. As you regularly point out, the First Amendment means the government can't throw you in jail because it doesn't like your speech, it very much does NOT mean that every whacko out there is entitled to go viral on a private platform. I am glad you don't routinely encounter objectionable content on here. However, in my experience, I am repeatedly suggested so-called "Science" and "Health" content filled with insane, dangerous anti-vaccine and anti-LGBT nonsense filled with ignorant mistakes at best and egregious lies at worst. I'm not suggesting anybody be kicked off for their crazy views. I *am* suggesting that is a straw man argument and a false choice that rejects any basic guardrails against toxic garbage proliferating into our view.
Ken, your voice is a very deeply needed one, and I hope this post moves the needle a little!
I’d like to see you (and in particular Serious Trouble, which I pay for) move to ghost or another platform.