I think a reason why the argumentation sounds disingenuous and repetitive is it's not always being made in good faith, because the actual goal is something different, and having a censorship infrastructure, which can be deployed for political ends, is the point.
(And also there's an aspect of applying the same hammer to every nail to write a story when you're under a deadline.)
It made me think of the gun control debate. It just goes round and round and everybody acts like there are no other options but do nothing or pass more laws.
It seems to me there is a problem being created where one never previously existed. Why should *anyone* or any group of people have the power to decide what does and doesn't belong on Substack? There is a TOS for a reason. You break it, then you're off the platform. Yes, Nazis are problematic. You know what is far more problematic? People who think they have the right or obligation to decide what I get to read.
Contrary to what this article posits, I am *extremely* concerned about deleting "Nazi-friendly" substacks. Why? Because someone needs to be the arbiter of what constitutes "Nazi-friendly", but much more importantly, people should have the freedom to post what they want on substack (unless they directly threaten a specific person with actual violence). This includes "Nazi-friendly" content. Its the price of free speech, and one we should all be willing to pay. That's the whole philosophy behind substack! You don't like the fact that Nazi friendly content is on substack? Then leave. No one is forcing you to stay. I am surprised that there has been such a kerfuffle over something so very simple, although I've noticed that it is the older generation that is so concerned about this empty threat of Nazis invading substack. Thankfully, the younger set realizes that a fight against some nebulous boogeyman is a waste of time and effort.
I think a reason why the argumentation sounds disingenuous and repetitive is it's not always being made in good faith, because the actual goal is something different, and having a censorship infrastructure, which can be deployed for political ends, is the point.
(And also there's an aspect of applying the same hammer to every nail to write a story when you're under a deadline.)
I loved this- thank you!
It made me think of the gun control debate. It just goes round and round and everybody acts like there are no other options but do nothing or pass more laws.
Well thought out and well articulated. Now I will have to keep going "Oh. Huh". See what you have done?! Many thanks.
I think you have ‘coined’ the latest disorder. I wonder when a pharmaceutical company will make a drug for it: ‘Attention Epilepsy.’
It seems to me there is a problem being created where one never previously existed. Why should *anyone* or any group of people have the power to decide what does and doesn't belong on Substack? There is a TOS for a reason. You break it, then you're off the platform. Yes, Nazis are problematic. You know what is far more problematic? People who think they have the right or obligation to decide what I get to read.
Contrary to what this article posits, I am *extremely* concerned about deleting "Nazi-friendly" substacks. Why? Because someone needs to be the arbiter of what constitutes "Nazi-friendly", but much more importantly, people should have the freedom to post what they want on substack (unless they directly threaten a specific person with actual violence). This includes "Nazi-friendly" content. Its the price of free speech, and one we should all be willing to pay. That's the whole philosophy behind substack! You don't like the fact that Nazi friendly content is on substack? Then leave. No one is forcing you to stay. I am surprised that there has been such a kerfuffle over something so very simple, although I've noticed that it is the older generation that is so concerned about this empty threat of Nazis invading substack. Thankfully, the younger set realizes that a fight against some nebulous boogeyman is a waste of time and effort.