Technology

Yeah, I try to be patient with people. Sometimes they're trolls, but sometimes they're just people. And sometimes even when they are trolls, being patient gets better results, anyway. Thanks for you reply. It's rare for someone on the internet to admit the other person's argument had any traction at all. Good on you.

We probably agree on things more than our initial interaction would make it look. I'm also not a fan of government mandated "enter your ID to see porn online" rules. There are many reasons that's a bad idea that we don't need to go into right now. But I think a key difference between that topic and the substack-with-nazis thing we started on is the involvement of government. The porn-id thing is the government forcing an action. The substack thing is all private people.

If the government, backed with all the power that comes from the state, was going to enforce what you can and cannot write on your website I would be extremely skeptical of that policy. I'd consider it for hate-speech or literal nazism, but even then the devils are surely in the details.

The topic here though is a private organization. Substack, as a private organization, is choosing to allow nazis hang out on their platform. They could choose otherwise. They are not legally bound one way or the other, but people are 100% entitled to call them a bunch of assholes for letting the nazis in. People can cut business ties with substack, tell people who are using it that they're not going to engage with them, either, until the situation changes, and so on. All of that is firmly in the free speech and free association camp.

The question isn't really "Is substack breaking the law?" so much as "Is substack doing a good thing?" Moderation and choosing who can use your platform is a kind of speech. It's not enforced by an inscrutable god-machine or malicious genie, either. Substack would choose to just not let nazis use their platform. But maybe we already agree on this point.

The nazis could go set up their own website with their own blog. They have that freedom (in most places - Germany might be an exception). But we're not obligated to make it easy for them.

One of my best lessons in high school 25yrs ago was an English class where we read various newspaper articles and broke down the biases and language used. Another is my A-level politics class where we spent many lessons dissecting the history and realities of political ideologies.

Those sound like good classes. I mentioned somewhere else (possibly in this thread) about a class I took in college for journalism 101. We were assigned several websites to review, and had to determine which ones were legitimate and which ones weren't. That kind of skill is probably something that should be taught more widely.

I feel those lessons inoculated me to a great degree from the effects of bullshit throughout life.

I'm glad you remember the lessons. Just don't fall prey to hubris. My mother always was pretty reasonable, but in her old age she's been slipping into some bad politics. She thinks she's too smart to be fooled like those other idiots.

I think we’re both right. I see your point that if we normalise these dangerous ideologies we risk acting on them. But at the same time I feel complete prohibition results in making it worse.

I think we're converging on agreement. I would be hesitant to back complete prohibition at the government level, but I will object if I see someone supporting nazis. Substack doesn't have to host them. They can buy their own server.

The corporation already makes choices about your viewing. Unless it's a completely unmoderated wiki, they make choices about what is allowed. There are presumably lines that substack (or anyone) are unwilling to cross. We can probably assume that they would not be okay with "livestream of grinding up babies and puppies and snorting them".

If such a line exists, then I am saying nazi shit should be on the far side of the line.

If such a line does NOT exist, then I guess we'd have to have that discussion about why some things are unacceptable.

If the line is "only what is literally illegal" then that just punts editorial responsibility into a slower, less responsive system. It's a cowardly shirking of responsibility.

As to how it relates:

I don’t need protecting from speech/information. I’m perfectly capable and confident in my own views to deal with bullshit of all types.

That's false. That's not how you or anyone works. You are just as vulnerable to advertising as anyone else. And even if you were the platonic ideal of Strong Rational Man, many other people aren't.

If we were talking about government censorship, which we were not, then that's a slightly different conversation. The government has more power and is fundamentally different than a private blog platform or whatever.

Censorship isn't the right word here, I would say. Censorship would make sense if this were a government that was being spoken about but it's not.

I'll take it from the perspective of myself, I run a Lemmy instance that is open for people to register for (after a brief application question and confirming your email address). If someone registered, and wanted to post Nazi-adjacent content I would remove it and ban them right away.

I would not be "censoring" your ability to see it. I would be saying "I do not want to host this content on the hardware that I am paying for and maintain". Sure, you could argue that the side effect is that you're not able to see it, but my intent isn't "censorship". If you want to see red and pink diamonds (just a completely abstract example), but I did not want to host it, then as the person who's paying for the hardware then my want will always come first. That isn't to say that others aren't free (including yourself) to host said red and pink diamonds.

Censorship as a term makes sense for the government, because they have the power to enforce that everyone under their ruling must not host red and pink diamonds. I alone do not. Now, maybe almost every single Lemmy instance also doesn't want to host red and pink diamonds - that would still not be censorship, that would just be most instance admins happen to align the same and are executing the same rules for their own sites.

Of course, replace myself with a private business owner, and Lemmy instances with something like a News subscription website, the meaning should still be the same. Hopefully my stance makes sense, I'm not writing this with the intent of "You're wrong and I'm right" in the direct sense, but as a "I disagree, and here's why".

I did see your conversation with the other person here, and I agree that government censorship is bad (such as the weird concept of having to upload your ID to view porn), but I just don't view this in the same way I suppose.

Obviously, Substack is within their rights to allow red and pink diamonds if they want, but if they didn't then that would not be censorship (in my eyes, at least).

this ain't about you

Are you arguing against private entities having editorial freedom? Should private entities not be in charge of their own publications and platforms?

Yes, absolutely. Lemmy.world should be able to ban Nazis if they want to, as should Substack. Personally, I think it would be better in some cases if people didn't. Although, there's so much overlap between Nazis and general-toxic-behavior users that I wouldn't really fault them for banning Nazis outright even if they theoretically supported the Nazis' right to free speech.

Notably though, I think Substack should also be free to not ban Nazis, and no one should give them shit for it. In particular, they definitely shouldn't be talking about trying to get their Stripe account cancelled, or pressuring their advertisers, as I've seen other posters here advocate for (although I think the thing about advertisers is just a result of pure confusion on the poster's part about how Substack even makes income).

In this particular case, I think allowing the Nazis to speak is the "right answer," so I definitely don't advocate for interfering in anything Substack wants to do with their private servers. But no, I also don't think anyone who doesn't want to host Nazis should have to, and it's a pretty good and reasonable question.

As I said to someone else, there is presumably a line that’s too much to cross. Is it “live stream of grinding up live babies and puppies and snorting them”? If there is no line, I don’t even know where to begin.

Let me say it this way: If what you're doing or saying would be illegal, even if you weren't a Nazi, it should be illegal. It shouldn't suddenly become illegal to say if you're wearing a Nazi uniform. Threatening violence? Illegal. Threatening violence as part of your Nazi political platform? Illegal. Wearing a Nazi uniform, saying that white people are superior and the holocaust didn't happen? Legal as long as you're not doing some other illegal thing, even though historically that's adjacent to clearly-illegal behavior.

I realize there can be a good faith difference of opinion on that, but you asked me what I thought; that's what I think. If it's illegal to wear a Nazi uniform, or platforms kick you off for wearing one, then it can be illegal to wear a BLM shirt, and platforms can kick you off for saying #blacklivesmatter. Neither is acceptable. To me.

Probably the closest I can come to agreeing with you is on something like Patriot Front. Technically, is it legal to gather up and march around cities in threatening fashion, with the implication that you'll attack anyone who tries to stop you? Sure. Is it dangerous? Fuck yes. Should it be legal? Um... maybe. I don't know. Am I happy that people attacked them and chased them out of Philadelphia, even though attacking them was interfering with their free speech? Yes. I put that in a much more dangerous category than someone hosting a web site that says the holocaust didn't happen.

Platforms taking some responsibility for what they allow would go a long way without requiring a heavy handed government solution. Substack could just say “nah, we’re not letting nazis post stuff.”

Would it go a long way, though?

Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter have been trying to take responsibility for antivax stuff and election denialism for years now, and banned it in some cases and tried to limit its reach with simple blacklisting. Has that approach worked?

Nazi stuff is unpopular because it's abhorrent and people can see that when they read it. I genuinely don't think that allowing Nazi speech on Substack is a step towards wider acceptance of Naziism. I don't think there are all these people who might have been Nazis but they're prevented by not being able to read it on Substack. I do think allowing Nazi stuff on Substack would be a step towards exposing the wider community to the actual reality of Naziism, and exposing the Nazis to a community which can openly disagree with them instead of quarantining them in a place where they can only talk to each other.

I do think responsibility by the platforms is an important thing. I talked about that in terms of combatting organized disinformation, which is usually a lot more sophisticated and a lot more subtle than Nazi newsletters. I just don't think banning the content is a good answer. Also, I suspect that the same people who want the Nazis off Substack also want lots of other non-Nazi content to be "forbidden" in the same way that, e.g. Dave Chappelle or Joe Rogan should be "forbidden" from their chosen platforms. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but that's part of why I make a big deal about the Nazi content.