With respect, I do not think it is tricky. The issue is not considering who damns you, but doing what is right. Substack is doing what is morally and commercially wrong. Judging by the people they invited on their podcast they do not have a clue about politics and are way out of their depth.
OK. We are also full time musicians who publish a blog and podcast on Substack. In our opinion any extreme view which impacts upon personal freedom and true equality should not be promoted. The problem is is where you stop with the censorship. What guidelines do you follow? Do they exist? I personally have not seen any of these right wing posts, no longer participate on X and now luxuriating in Mastodon, which also has its issues. It’s very easy to say censor but hellishly difficult to get it right.
Are you bothered that the BBC, Oxford University, Harvard University, all the major record labels, every major book publisher, all of Hollywood and Bollywood, and the entire computer game industry give no space to the promotion of Nazi ideas? They are effectively banned from all those places. Has that concerned you for a nanosecond of your life?
What I would do. Ban them the minute they promote their violent ideas. Then draw the line at a sensible place. Nobody will notice or care. There's never been more free speech in human history. They are not owed a microphone, a logo, or any respectability. Let them scream into the void by all means, but in the empty corner of the universe that they belong.
I am not being difficult but what is a sensible place? Who decides where that line is? Of course the publications you mention are journalist based and have editors, quite different than Social Media. You also mention Nazi ideology, they are not the only issue.
I don't think you are being difficult. I think they are sensible questions and I am not trying to trivialise them. I can't give a perfect answer, but Nazis, proper ones, would be one group. The rest would have to be worked out and discussed by serious minds at Substack, the same way that serious minds converge at The BBC to decide where to draw lines. Also, 'not' drawing a line (even though they have with porn, crush videos etc.) is taking a position. So there's no escape from the messy, complication of what is a modern challenge.
Let me say this. I helped the UK Labour MP Dr Rosena Khan campaign in two elections. In the 2019 election she was a target of the far right (probably in the previous one too). She would not be see out with her children for fear of their safety. I'm sure nobody directly incited violence against her, but through their own perverse language and ways a climate of hate and violence was created by the far right, that made it understood that people like her should be killed. I've heard a lot over the last few weeks about Nazis' rights of speech, but what about the rights of their targets to take their kids for a walk in the park without fearing for their lives?
Of course I can't disagree with any of this and Nazi's are evil - 100%. I honestly don't have an answer and hope that the good folks at Substack can sort it out. Lets all reconvene in a few months to see how things have moved on - or not...
bbc promotes war on faraway countries regularly.... that is essentially promoting violence and death towards others... nyt, wapo and wsj all do the same... whose interests are they serving? i agree with simon at the top - how and where do you draw the line? it ain't easy...
oh and not to be obtuse, but the azoz battilion was and wasn't listed as a nazi group... that had to change in order to accept their valiant attempts to save ukraine.... the west is presently on the side of nazis in the war on ukraine, but very little is said about any of this... much of the western media is complicit in this... does anyone care? is anyone paying attention? it appears not..
dada drummer - thanks for the update.. i am a subscriber, but not a paying one.. i appreciate and value your insights.. happy new year..
More good discussion. I think reporting on war is a necessary part of being a news based media organisation and it's been the same since the distribution and collection of news back in Venice in 1556.
I really distrust history as books are written on the basis of available information regardless if it true or not. At any newsworthy event, every bystander will have a slightly different story about what actually happened.
Anyway, I agree with you on this, there are a lot of double standards and with respect to Ukraine the issue is clear. A nation state was invaded by another and west is terrified that if they let it go, it will happen again. Estonia? Lithuania?
But back to censorship, IMHO if they are not on substack they will go somewhere else. And read my reply on Doms last comment.
thanks simon.. the situation in many respects regarding many topics is anything but clear.. apparently russia was running out of missiles sometime early in this war.. was that a lie? one has to go out of their way to read what russia thinks.. it is 'censored' lol... as for history - yes indeed... the history on this war according to the west all started in feb 2022... russia sees it very differently - feb 2014 in fact...
i agree with you on censorship, but would like to make the broader point, that we live in a very propagandized world at present where anyone with an alternative viewpoint is either dismissed immediately, or referred to as a conspiracy theorist.. yes - people will go where they have to go to gain a more balanced perspective, if they have the time and recognize how they are not receiving anything in the way of a balanced view - speaking generally of course..
I appreciate your taking a consistent stand on this, Damon. The reminder to stay subscribed is helpful. I've considered bailing on Substack, but I appreciate the discussion communities that you, Kevin Alexander, and Marc Stein (basketball) have created. I miss the old-school days when listservs and then blogs were vibrant, and your Substacks are the closest I've found to that.
Thank you for speaking up, Damon. I don't see any free speech or 1st Amendment issue involved here at all. Kicking Nazis and white supremacists off Substack is not being compelled by the government so how would the 1st Amendment be an issue? As to free speech: No forum, venue or publishing platform is obligated to amplify any voice that requests the microphone.
The Nazis and white supremacists promote an ideology of hate and violence. When Substack allows them a platform to amplify their views—to reach more people—Substack becomes complicit in the damage that can cause.
Can we make a distinction between kinds of "censorship"? Substack isn't a government entity. Nazis have plenty of other public forums where they can make their case heard -- including City Hall Plaza (of Your Town, USA). Yes, there are "slippery slopes" in all kinds decisions regarding public utterances, but Substack is entitled to monitor its "community" in any way it sees fit. It seems to me that responding to "Jews will not replace us" by saying, "Sorry, we don't allow talk like that here" is perfectly acceptable. I mean, it's not like they'd be canceling the Smothers Brothers. Or even the Butthole Surfers (a band name that could not be published in some "family" newspapers... Censorship!). And, hey, Hamisch, or whatever you name is, why don't your just say what you mean: "Nazi money is still green."
I sincerely thank you for staying on Substack. I firmly believe in their mission and financially support at least half of my subscriptions for creators I'm afraid I have to disagree with like Stephen Beschloss, Andrew Sullivan, Heather Cox Richardson, Laura K from the Normal, and Ricky from Council Estate Media.
If you read my writing, simply bc I was white, I had to live with Nazis in prison. One dude called Snickers had a swastika tattooed between his eyebrows and hated Jews. They're insane. And most white people believe that. 16 writers out of 17,000 accounts? Wow - they are big time man! White Nazis are losers, and most white people believe that. And most white people also believe that Jew-hating is wrong, no matter what color you are. What about the chant "from the river to the sea" we hear blocking airports, roads, and bridges? Any strong thoughts there? Any tersely worded letters to the editors on that? Any letters I can sign that deplore blocking access to a paid-for flight on Christmas Eve?
Some good news from substack https://open.substack.com/pub/platformer/p/substack-says-it-will-remove-nazi
Well said. It’s a very tricky problem for sure. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t...
With respect, I do not think it is tricky. The issue is not considering who damns you, but doing what is right. Substack is doing what is morally and commercially wrong. Judging by the people they invited on their podcast they do not have a clue about politics and are way out of their depth.
OK. We are also full time musicians who publish a blog and podcast on Substack. In our opinion any extreme view which impacts upon personal freedom and true equality should not be promoted. The problem is is where you stop with the censorship. What guidelines do you follow? Do they exist? I personally have not seen any of these right wing posts, no longer participate on X and now luxuriating in Mastodon, which also has its issues. It’s very easy to say censor but hellishly difficult to get it right.
How about we turn the tables.
Are you bothered that the BBC, Oxford University, Harvard University, all the major record labels, every major book publisher, all of Hollywood and Bollywood, and the entire computer game industry give no space to the promotion of Nazi ideas? They are effectively banned from all those places. Has that concerned you for a nanosecond of your life?
What I would do. Ban them the minute they promote their violent ideas. Then draw the line at a sensible place. Nobody will notice or care. There's never been more free speech in human history. They are not owed a microphone, a logo, or any respectability. Let them scream into the void by all means, but in the empty corner of the universe that they belong.
I am not being difficult but what is a sensible place? Who decides where that line is? Of course the publications you mention are journalist based and have editors, quite different than Social Media. You also mention Nazi ideology, they are not the only issue.
I don't think you are being difficult. I think they are sensible questions and I am not trying to trivialise them. I can't give a perfect answer, but Nazis, proper ones, would be one group. The rest would have to be worked out and discussed by serious minds at Substack, the same way that serious minds converge at The BBC to decide where to draw lines. Also, 'not' drawing a line (even though they have with porn, crush videos etc.) is taking a position. So there's no escape from the messy, complication of what is a modern challenge.
Let me say this. I helped the UK Labour MP Dr Rosena Khan campaign in two elections. In the 2019 election she was a target of the far right (probably in the previous one too). She would not be see out with her children for fear of their safety. I'm sure nobody directly incited violence against her, but through their own perverse language and ways a climate of hate and violence was created by the far right, that made it understood that people like her should be killed. I've heard a lot over the last few weeks about Nazis' rights of speech, but what about the rights of their targets to take their kids for a walk in the park without fearing for their lives?
Of course I can't disagree with any of this and Nazi's are evil - 100%. I honestly don't have an answer and hope that the good folks at Substack can sort it out. Lets all reconvene in a few months to see how things have moved on - or not...
bbc promotes war on faraway countries regularly.... that is essentially promoting violence and death towards others... nyt, wapo and wsj all do the same... whose interests are they serving? i agree with simon at the top - how and where do you draw the line? it ain't easy...
oh and not to be obtuse, but the azoz battilion was and wasn't listed as a nazi group... that had to change in order to accept their valiant attempts to save ukraine.... the west is presently on the side of nazis in the war on ukraine, but very little is said about any of this... much of the western media is complicit in this... does anyone care? is anyone paying attention? it appears not..
dada drummer - thanks for the update.. i am a subscriber, but not a paying one.. i appreciate and value your insights.. happy new year..
More good discussion. I think reporting on war is a necessary part of being a news based media organisation and it's been the same since the distribution and collection of news back in Venice in 1556.
I really distrust history as books are written on the basis of available information regardless if it true or not. At any newsworthy event, every bystander will have a slightly different story about what actually happened.
Anyway, I agree with you on this, there are a lot of double standards and with respect to Ukraine the issue is clear. A nation state was invaded by another and west is terrified that if they let it go, it will happen again. Estonia? Lithuania?
But back to censorship, IMHO if they are not on substack they will go somewhere else. And read my reply on Doms last comment.
thanks simon.. the situation in many respects regarding many topics is anything but clear.. apparently russia was running out of missiles sometime early in this war.. was that a lie? one has to go out of their way to read what russia thinks.. it is 'censored' lol... as for history - yes indeed... the history on this war according to the west all started in feb 2022... russia sees it very differently - feb 2014 in fact...
i agree with you on censorship, but would like to make the broader point, that we live in a very propagandized world at present where anyone with an alternative viewpoint is either dismissed immediately, or referred to as a conspiracy theorist.. yes - people will go where they have to go to gain a more balanced perspective, if they have the time and recognize how they are not receiving anything in the way of a balanced view - speaking generally of course..
I appreciate your taking a consistent stand on this, Damon. The reminder to stay subscribed is helpful. I've considered bailing on Substack, but I appreciate the discussion communities that you, Kevin Alexander, and Marc Stein (basketball) have created. I miss the old-school days when listservs and then blogs were vibrant, and your Substacks are the closest I've found to that.
Comparison to older freer days of internet community is very flattering, thank you!
Thank you for speaking up, Damon. I don't see any free speech or 1st Amendment issue involved here at all. Kicking Nazis and white supremacists off Substack is not being compelled by the government so how would the 1st Amendment be an issue? As to free speech: No forum, venue or publishing platform is obligated to amplify any voice that requests the microphone.
The Nazis and white supremacists promote an ideology of hate and violence. When Substack allows them a platform to amplify their views—to reach more people—Substack becomes complicit in the damage that can cause.
Can we make a distinction between kinds of "censorship"? Substack isn't a government entity. Nazis have plenty of other public forums where they can make their case heard -- including City Hall Plaza (of Your Town, USA). Yes, there are "slippery slopes" in all kinds decisions regarding public utterances, but Substack is entitled to monitor its "community" in any way it sees fit. It seems to me that responding to "Jews will not replace us" by saying, "Sorry, we don't allow talk like that here" is perfectly acceptable. I mean, it's not like they'd be canceling the Smothers Brothers. Or even the Butthole Surfers (a band name that could not be published in some "family" newspapers... Censorship!). And, hey, Hamisch, or whatever you name is, why don't your just say what you mean: "Nazi money is still green."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/censorship/History-of-censorship
I sincerely thank you for staying on Substack. I firmly believe in their mission and financially support at least half of my subscriptions for creators I'm afraid I have to disagree with like Stephen Beschloss, Andrew Sullivan, Heather Cox Richardson, Laura K from the Normal, and Ricky from Council Estate Media.
If you read my writing, simply bc I was white, I had to live with Nazis in prison. One dude called Snickers had a swastika tattooed between his eyebrows and hated Jews. They're insane. And most white people believe that. 16 writers out of 17,000 accounts? Wow - they are big time man! White Nazis are losers, and most white people believe that. And most white people also believe that Jew-hating is wrong, no matter what color you are. What about the chant "from the river to the sea" we hear blocking airports, roads, and bridges? Any strong thoughts there? Any tersely worded letters to the editors on that? Any letters I can sign that deplore blocking access to a paid-for flight on Christmas Eve?
Keep drumming, I'll keep listening