I appreciate your measured and thoughtful approach when discussing this topic. As you know from me harping on this stuff going back to summer, my belief is Substack makes editorial decisions and choices about which content it displays and promotes.
That's great. But doing so puts the onus on management to then make editorial choices across the platform. They can't have it both ways.
At this point I think it's clear management has declared its editorial stance by remaining silent.
I'm not a lawyer, but it's possible to read the ToS and conclude the hate speech and neo-Nazism on the platform falls within them as long as there's not a clear call to commit violence.
Problem with that line of thinking is: ideologies built on hate only ever end in violence.
This circus will only get crazier, but I'm taking a wait and see approach as well.
Hey Amran: yeah, you've been sounding the warning bell for some time. Your comment makes sense to me, particularly the point about the clear call to violence, as I also alluded to.
Thanks for this, Mark. I think where this lack of response will bite Substack is in their next round of funding. It's going to be difficult to do under that shadow (they've struggled in the last two rounds, from my understanding). I'm sure Hamish muted me back in April when Notes was launched and their lack of response to hate speech was brought up then (and repeatedly). Like it or not, they are going to have to take action. The scary thing is why haven't they? Have they not been paying attention for the past 8 years? xo
I think we are trauma exhausted and aren't sure where, how or who to fight all at once. Not that we are laying down the sword, just trying to catch our breath and steady our aim. xo
Thank you, Mark. I'm really tired of all of this hiding behind some diaphanous 'free speech' veil that nobody can really define. 'Hate speech' isn't well defined, either, which leads me now to suggest we're all just going on gut instinct. The old 'we know it when we see it'--except the move toward Nazi-like public behavior is steadily growing in steadily growing hate groups here in America.
We can't deny the fact that hate groups are growing, nor can we deny that hate is so accepted now it's openly promoted on the airwaves, on the internet, and nudged along by Donald Trump and most Republicans in and out of political office. Those of us who see normalizing hate as a real threat can't stop warning against it. Those who see it as just so much hyperbole, nothing to worry about unless they actually begin killing us, are winning this battle.
History tells us this is how the pattern begins. We have records going back centuries that show this pattern of dehumanizing, dismissing, denying. History also tells us we should have nipped it in the bud long before it became so accepted even a U.S President could latch onto it and make it part of not just his platform. but the entire Republican Party's.
We have our work cut out for us. We can't and shouldn't quit trying to save our citizens from actions stemming from outright hatred, but one of the ways we can do that--by shutting down the hate factories using public or private forums to spread their ugly messages--is being taken away from us by the 'free speech' absolutists who insist there should be no consequences to any of it unless someone finally gets hurt.
Thank you for your vigilance and thoughtfulness. I've not been in a position to pay attention to very much outside my own life recently but I appreciate your efforts!
But surely you understand that this ‘type’ of person is a sweeping generalization. I fail to understand the request to not profit from them as nothing more than a purity test. You wear tennis shoes? You buy products from nations with oppressive regimes? I find the proposition difficult to understand both logically and emotionally. Why is it bad to ‘hate’ when you ‘hate’ people you adamantly disagree with? I don’t want to go back and forth on this. I try harder than I should to avoid these types of things. I am a free speech absolutionist
Hi Jeanne. I feel like I cut this discussion off rather abruptly the other day and I apologize for that, it was occurring at a time when I was busy doing other things in parallel. Your comment about a purity test: is this used in the same way that I've heard the term virtue signaling used?
No, not at all. I meant economically speaking nearly every company profits from groups we don’t approve of. Amazon sells Nazi memorabilia for example. Nike sells shoes manufactured in part by oppressed groups. We buy products manufactured in totalitarian regimes. There is no real way to escape that in the global environment. By asking what was asked by San, you imply that only ‘purely good’ is acceptable. We know this is not possible. That is what I meant.
Hi Jeanne. I'm not prepared to debate this further at this time. I understand you have a different point of view than mine as a free speech absolutionist and fair enough.
Mark, A couple if things: you mentioned that US laws define hate speech but are rarely enforced . This is misleading. US has no laws against hate speech. The US has laws against hate crimes which are broadly defined as crimes that violate civil rights. Laws against hate speech are basically prohibited by our first amendment Also you insist that all you want is an answer which you already know. If they put that in writing will you be satisfied and accept that you did not get the result you desired? If you truly cannot reconcile accepting this very US treatment what then? And lastly define Nazi please.
Hi Jeanne, in terms of the use of the word Nazi, please refer to the original post from last week and links within: https://howaboutthis.substack.com/p/substackers-against-nazis. If Substack does answer as I expect them to, fair enough. As for hate speech vs. hate crimes, I believe you are correct and I may not have had the correct understanding, but I thought I had seen a resource which suggested something about no luck in persecuting hate speech items. Probably should update this.
Suffice it to say that if people are using the Nazi insignia online or in person to represent their beliefs,, publicly identifying as a Nazi, etc. and advocating for ethnic cleansing, white supremacy, etc. that's the type of people I'm referring to.
Well Mark, you've thrown down the gauntlet. I'm pausing payments too, at least until we hear from them. It's sad that it has come to this. I am reposting and calling on other signees of the letter to consider doing the same.
I appreciate your measured and thoughtful approach when discussing this topic. As you know from me harping on this stuff going back to summer, my belief is Substack makes editorial decisions and choices about which content it displays and promotes.
That's great. But doing so puts the onus on management to then make editorial choices across the platform. They can't have it both ways.
At this point I think it's clear management has declared its editorial stance by remaining silent.
I'm not a lawyer, but it's possible to read the ToS and conclude the hate speech and neo-Nazism on the platform falls within them as long as there's not a clear call to commit violence.
Problem with that line of thinking is: ideologies built on hate only ever end in violence.
This circus will only get crazier, but I'm taking a wait and see approach as well.
Hey Amran: yeah, you've been sounding the warning bell for some time. Your comment makes sense to me, particularly the point about the clear call to violence, as I also alluded to.
Thanks for this, Mark. I think where this lack of response will bite Substack is in their next round of funding. It's going to be difficult to do under that shadow (they've struggled in the last two rounds, from my understanding). I'm sure Hamish muted me back in April when Notes was launched and their lack of response to hate speech was brought up then (and repeatedly). Like it or not, they are going to have to take action. The scary thing is why haven't they? Have they not been paying attention for the past 8 years? xo
Thanks Sandra. I don't know how things will play out. This experience has certainly led me to think about these topics more than I have in the past.
I think we are trauma exhausted and aren't sure where, how or who to fight all at once. Not that we are laying down the sword, just trying to catch our breath and steady our aim. xo
Thank you, Mark. I'm really tired of all of this hiding behind some diaphanous 'free speech' veil that nobody can really define. 'Hate speech' isn't well defined, either, which leads me now to suggest we're all just going on gut instinct. The old 'we know it when we see it'--except the move toward Nazi-like public behavior is steadily growing in steadily growing hate groups here in America.
We can't deny the fact that hate groups are growing, nor can we deny that hate is so accepted now it's openly promoted on the airwaves, on the internet, and nudged along by Donald Trump and most Republicans in and out of political office. Those of us who see normalizing hate as a real threat can't stop warning against it. Those who see it as just so much hyperbole, nothing to worry about unless they actually begin killing us, are winning this battle.
History tells us this is how the pattern begins. We have records going back centuries that show this pattern of dehumanizing, dismissing, denying. History also tells us we should have nipped it in the bud long before it became so accepted even a U.S President could latch onto it and make it part of not just his platform. but the entire Republican Party's.
We have our work cut out for us. We can't and shouldn't quit trying to save our citizens from actions stemming from outright hatred, but one of the ways we can do that--by shutting down the hate factories using public or private forums to spread their ugly messages--is being taken away from us by the 'free speech' absolutists who insist there should be no consequences to any of it unless someone finally gets hurt.
That's crazy. So we keep on.
Thanks for your comment, Ramona. Nothing to add.
Thank you for your vigilance and thoughtfulness. I've not been in a position to pay attention to very much outside my own life recently but I appreciate your efforts!
Thanks.
I'd rather have porn than Nazis, to be honest.
But surely you understand that this ‘type’ of person is a sweeping generalization. I fail to understand the request to not profit from them as nothing more than a purity test. You wear tennis shoes? You buy products from nations with oppressive regimes? I find the proposition difficult to understand both logically and emotionally. Why is it bad to ‘hate’ when you ‘hate’ people you adamantly disagree with? I don’t want to go back and forth on this. I try harder than I should to avoid these types of things. I am a free speech absolutionist
Hi Jeanne. I feel like I cut this discussion off rather abruptly the other day and I apologize for that, it was occurring at a time when I was busy doing other things in parallel. Your comment about a purity test: is this used in the same way that I've heard the term virtue signaling used?
No, not at all. I meant economically speaking nearly every company profits from groups we don’t approve of. Amazon sells Nazi memorabilia for example. Nike sells shoes manufactured in part by oppressed groups. We buy products manufactured in totalitarian regimes. There is no real way to escape that in the global environment. By asking what was asked by San, you imply that only ‘purely good’ is acceptable. We know this is not possible. That is what I meant.
Hi Jeanne. I'm not prepared to debate this further at this time. I understand you have a different point of view than mine as a free speech absolutionist and fair enough.
Mark, A couple if things: you mentioned that US laws define hate speech but are rarely enforced . This is misleading. US has no laws against hate speech. The US has laws against hate crimes which are broadly defined as crimes that violate civil rights. Laws against hate speech are basically prohibited by our first amendment Also you insist that all you want is an answer which you already know. If they put that in writing will you be satisfied and accept that you did not get the result you desired? If you truly cannot reconcile accepting this very US treatment what then? And lastly define Nazi please.
Hi Jeanne, in terms of the use of the word Nazi, please refer to the original post from last week and links within: https://howaboutthis.substack.com/p/substackers-against-nazis. If Substack does answer as I expect them to, fair enough. As for hate speech vs. hate crimes, I believe you are correct and I may not have had the correct understanding, but I thought I had seen a resource which suggested something about no luck in persecuting hate speech items. Probably should update this.
Thanks for answering Mark. I reread the letter and did not find a definitive definition of Nazi.
Suffice it to say that if people are using the Nazi insignia online or in person to represent their beliefs,, publicly identifying as a Nazi, etc. and advocating for ethnic cleansing, white supremacy, etc. that's the type of people I'm referring to.
'Nazi' is self-defined. And, in the 21st Century, self-evident. It's not a matter of semantics and doesn't need a 'definitive definition.'
Well Mark, you've thrown down the gauntlet. I'm pausing payments too, at least until we hear from them. It's sad that it has come to this. I am reposting and calling on other signees of the letter to consider doing the same.
I'm not suggesting that other people should do this, it's just my personal choice.
I made it clear in my repost that it is I who is suggesting other people do this.