I'm at a similar crossroads. Part of the question is whether writing weekly posts here helps with marketing my fiction. Another is if I should try to publish fiction here. I don't think this platform is well-suited for publishing stories.
But for me, the big one is the freeze peach issue. I published the SAN letter after reading Katz's post and researching what he wrote. Hamish and Best's responses were more than what I expected (I thought they would continue to evade the issue) but exactly what I expected them to say if they suddenly developed the wherewithal to speak.
But the vehemence with which so many people on this platform defended the "right" of Nazis to hang out here shocked me. There's a difference between believing the gov't shouldn't decide what people can say and attacking citizens for highlighting objectionable speech. There are a lot of Substackers that take delight in waging war on fellow writers on behalf of Nazis.
So, I'm considering looking for a better home. Maybe I can at least find one with people that are willing to admit that calling oneself a National Socialist means that you are, in fact, a Nazi.
That said, I'm sorry that people are "waging war" with you - that seems a little stupid. Imagine defending Nazis' right to speech and then attacking you for giving your opinion.
Nah, we want to hear all voices - and may the best player win.
When a company (or person) regulates speech, they are speaking. (Yes, I know this overlaps the infamous Citizens United opinion, but the Supremes had a point, even if they missed the one they were asked to make.)
Taking that right away from them is wrong. There are plenty of good reasons for a company to regulate speech. The main one being it's often good for their customers.
"No loud conversations that disturb the other guests in my restaurant."
"No selling pornography at our fundraising garage sale."
"No soliciting legal clients in our emergency room."
"No Nazis in my bar."
Are all reasonable examples of businesses regulating speech that, if they don't, could lose them business.
Letting business regulate speech is an important of how keeping the government out works. Business effectively choose their clients based on how they do this. If I want a quiet drink, I pick one bar. If I want Godsmack and Metallica at 90db, I pick the other one.
And you can see it in action. It's why Xitter, Gab, and Truth Social are so successful!
You said companies deciding what people should say is "a bad idea in almost every way."
I said it's often good for customers and gave four examples of where I feel it is. Sometimes it's about little things, like music or talking loud. Sometimes it's about bigger things, like racism and porn.
Do you want a Note publicizing one of your posts in the "Explore" tab next to one about why people with a certain skin color are better or worse than others? Or about why the Third Reich had some pretty good ideas?
Why did so many companies pull their ads from Xitter? Whether their ads were frequently appearing next to objectionable content isn't the point, they pulled out *just in case it was.* Because being next to that stuff is *not better.*
You tell me: why is completely open automatically good?
> or about why the Third Reich had some pretty good ideas?
I would, actually, because I believe that most of the Third Reich's ideas were not good. If the post doesn't convince me, then that's just made my resolve stronger.
Open is good because our boundaries get pushed and we're left on strong ground for the morals we preach. Your examples are good: only I disagree with the last one. I definitely wouldn't bar Nazis so long as they don't threathen me with violence. Ideally, I enjoy debating them. The other examples are that of behavior, this is of identity and exposing identity. Plus, Substack isn't really a niche company like in your examples: it's huge.
I don't get it, though. Yeah, seeing Nazi propaganda is very disturbing. But it's not as disturbing as seeing them win, nor is it as disturbing as going against my ethical standards, which is what we're doing when we censor folks.
My question would be this: would a Nazi convince you to join? If not, engage with them and convince them to jump ship over to our side. Hey, if we all shrink back into our own small communities, we can't solve the many conflicts that plague the world. Yeah, both options are kinda repugnant, but I think letting them be is the more moral and wise decision.
Mark, as you know, I have been reading your newsletter for sometime. We share enthusiam for libraries and we disagree on free speech issues. I like the way that you try to consider the other fellow's viewpoints and your general thoughtfulness. Here's too a Happy New Year!
Thanks for this, Mark. You've made so many points that make total sense and to which I agree. I've made my decision, too, and I won't judge anyone else's decision--as I hope they won't judge mine.
I'm staying at Substack.
I hate what they're doing with their Nazi problem, but I love the friends I've made here as well as the niche I've created. I'll speak out when I feel the need, because that's what I do, but I'll also go on writing the quiet, more tender pieces--because it's what I do. I've always done both and nothing will have changed.
I want to stay--not to make it a constant fight, but I won't back down, either. If it becomes too awful, then I'll leave.
This is what I wrote a while back. It might better explain what I mean:
Mark, I appreciate your frank and open reflections on writing and publishing. Like you, I often find myself asking questions about whether this is the place to publish, what else I can do, and what the whole point of it is. I love writing and have many motivations for doing it. I'm also aware -- and willing to recognize -- that while my first audience is me (I write to reflect, work through problems, explore ideas, enhance my engagement in my professional work, fuel curiosity, and have fun) I also write for others. That second point is what keeps me on Substack. I've written for years on Medium and hosted a blog for 15 years. The issue is that neither of those platforms have offered great ease-of-use, community building, and engagement opportunities like Substack offers. (I'm sure there are other platforms that offer great benefits, too).
When I think of changing platforms, I find myself remembering my many attempts over the years that usually end up with me finding that the grass isn't greener elsewhere; it's just another shade of green. I don't know what the answer is. I do know that we are in a space where more content is being generated by more people + things + people with things (AI assist) than ever and that the metrics of success, reach and engagement that I once used need to change. Or rather, my expectations of them.
I never seriously expected an income off of Substack, although I'm always interested in finding ways to do it largely for the challenge, not because I expect much from it.
Thanks for your writing. I'll follow you wherever you go, as I appreciate your writing, but also appreciate you being here on Substack. Despite the Nazis, I find it to be a kinder, more supportive platform than most (and that's by my design as much as the platforms' design).
Wow Cameron, thank you so much for your comment! There are many things that I still love about this platform and I've encountered a lot of wonderful people here. Keep doing your own great work!
I opted to pull my writing off of this platform, for now I'm not going anywhere else. I'm going to keep writing and submitting stories. I'm sticking around for the community and the writers who make it up.
I'm seeing this post - and hearing about this (US/English) debate/conversation - for the first time. For better or worse, I feel compelled to "weigh in" with my own work of the past 15 years or so.
First, I would like to establish a guideline, of sorts: No one is *always* a Nazi, in my mind; any more than one is *always* a racist. As an aging white American male, growing up in the 1960s and 1970s, I have wrongly said (and thought) racist (or sexist) things -- but (I would contend) this doesn't make me a racist or sexist, now and forever...
So, my work of these past many years has been to understand what made Germans -- especially very large numbers of young German men, both rural and urban -- racist, fascist, "joiners" of Hitler's ("racialist") National Socialist (Nazi) Party 100 years ago. (As a reader/writer of history, I recommend Christopher Clark's "Time and Power: Visions of History in German Politics...")
Generally, in better understanding history in early 20th-century Berlin, we cannot ignore widespread, devastating poverty feeding an ideological domestic "cultural war" that quickly (from 1919-onward) boiled over into an outright shooting German civil war that, in turn, became a European- and world war....
For my part, I am perhaps best understood as a historical researcher and ghost-writer / -editor (once working in Washington DC). My current 35-chapter Substack series is based on the after-the-fact testimony of a group of Marxist theater artists who produced the *last* three stage-works of public cultural resistance to fascism, here in Berlin, before Hitler took power, in January-March 1933.
The original writer of this 35-part German document -- a 22-year-old actress -- intended it to be used as instruction for similarly minded theater workers of the future who hope to avoid the mistakes of the past.... My US$.02.
I'm at a similar crossroads. Part of the question is whether writing weekly posts here helps with marketing my fiction. Another is if I should try to publish fiction here. I don't think this platform is well-suited for publishing stories.
But for me, the big one is the freeze peach issue. I published the SAN letter after reading Katz's post and researching what he wrote. Hamish and Best's responses were more than what I expected (I thought they would continue to evade the issue) but exactly what I expected them to say if they suddenly developed the wherewithal to speak.
But the vehemence with which so many people on this platform defended the "right" of Nazis to hang out here shocked me. There's a difference between believing the gov't shouldn't decide what people can say and attacking citizens for highlighting objectionable speech. There are a lot of Substackers that take delight in waging war on fellow writers on behalf of Nazis.
So, I'm considering looking for a better home. Maybe I can at least find one with people that are willing to admit that calling oneself a National Socialist means that you are, in fact, a Nazi.
I think vehemence is a great description, Eric.
Hi Eric, yes, the government shouldn't decide what people can say - but neither should companies IMO. It's a bad idea in almost every way -https://open.substack.com/pub/humanpolitics/p/censorship-is-never-the-answer
That said, I'm sorry that people are "waging war" with you - that seems a little stupid. Imagine defending Nazis' right to speech and then attacking you for giving your opinion.
Nah, we want to hear all voices - and may the best player win.
When a company (or person) regulates speech, they are speaking. (Yes, I know this overlaps the infamous Citizens United opinion, but the Supremes had a point, even if they missed the one they were asked to make.)
Taking that right away from them is wrong. There are plenty of good reasons for a company to regulate speech. The main one being it's often good for their customers.
"No loud conversations that disturb the other guests in my restaurant."
"No selling pornography at our fundraising garage sale."
"No soliciting legal clients in our emergency room."
"No Nazis in my bar."
Are all reasonable examples of businesses regulating speech that, if they don't, could lose them business.
Letting business regulate speech is an important of how keeping the government out works. Business effectively choose their clients based on how they do this. If I want a quiet drink, I pick one bar. If I want Godsmack and Metallica at 90db, I pick the other one.
And you can see it in action. It's why Xitter, Gab, and Truth Social are so successful!
I agree with you that the government perhaps shouldn't disallow speech regulation. But I don't think Substack should moderate.
> The main one being it's often good for their customers.
But why is it good for the customers here? Being closed up isn't a good thing.
You said companies deciding what people should say is "a bad idea in almost every way."
I said it's often good for customers and gave four examples of where I feel it is. Sometimes it's about little things, like music or talking loud. Sometimes it's about bigger things, like racism and porn.
Do you want a Note publicizing one of your posts in the "Explore" tab next to one about why people with a certain skin color are better or worse than others? Or about why the Third Reich had some pretty good ideas?
Why did so many companies pull their ads from Xitter? Whether their ads were frequently appearing next to objectionable content isn't the point, they pulled out *just in case it was.* Because being next to that stuff is *not better.*
You tell me: why is completely open automatically good?
> or about why the Third Reich had some pretty good ideas?
I would, actually, because I believe that most of the Third Reich's ideas were not good. If the post doesn't convince me, then that's just made my resolve stronger.
Open is good because our boundaries get pushed and we're left on strong ground for the morals we preach. Your examples are good: only I disagree with the last one. I definitely wouldn't bar Nazis so long as they don't threathen me with violence. Ideally, I enjoy debating them. The other examples are that of behavior, this is of identity and exposing identity. Plus, Substack isn't really a niche company like in your examples: it's huge.
I don't get it, though. Yeah, seeing Nazi propaganda is very disturbing. But it's not as disturbing as seeing them win, nor is it as disturbing as going against my ethical standards, which is what we're doing when we censor folks.
My question would be this: would a Nazi convince you to join? If not, engage with them and convince them to jump ship over to our side. Hey, if we all shrink back into our own small communities, we can't solve the many conflicts that plague the world. Yeah, both options are kinda repugnant, but I think letting them be is the more moral and wise decision.
Mark, as you know, I have been reading your newsletter for sometime. We share enthusiam for libraries and we disagree on free speech issues. I like the way that you try to consider the other fellow's viewpoints and your general thoughtfulness. Here's too a Happy New Year!
Thank you, Jeanne. Best wishes to you!
Thanks for this, Mark. You've made so many points that make total sense and to which I agree. I've made my decision, too, and I won't judge anyone else's decision--as I hope they won't judge mine.
I'm staying at Substack.
I hate what they're doing with their Nazi problem, but I love the friends I've made here as well as the niche I've created. I'll speak out when I feel the need, because that's what I do, but I'll also go on writing the quiet, more tender pieces--because it's what I do. I've always done both and nothing will have changed.
I want to stay--not to make it a constant fight, but I won't back down, either. If it becomes too awful, then I'll leave.
This is what I wrote a while back. It might better explain what I mean:
https://writereverlasting.substack.com/p/hateful-speech-vs-hate-speech
Thanks Ramona, I always appreciate your perspective.
Thanks for the post link - I've commented there.
Mark, I appreciate your frank and open reflections on writing and publishing. Like you, I often find myself asking questions about whether this is the place to publish, what else I can do, and what the whole point of it is. I love writing and have many motivations for doing it. I'm also aware -- and willing to recognize -- that while my first audience is me (I write to reflect, work through problems, explore ideas, enhance my engagement in my professional work, fuel curiosity, and have fun) I also write for others. That second point is what keeps me on Substack. I've written for years on Medium and hosted a blog for 15 years. The issue is that neither of those platforms have offered great ease-of-use, community building, and engagement opportunities like Substack offers. (I'm sure there are other platforms that offer great benefits, too).
When I think of changing platforms, I find myself remembering my many attempts over the years that usually end up with me finding that the grass isn't greener elsewhere; it's just another shade of green. I don't know what the answer is. I do know that we are in a space where more content is being generated by more people + things + people with things (AI assist) than ever and that the metrics of success, reach and engagement that I once used need to change. Or rather, my expectations of them.
I never seriously expected an income off of Substack, although I'm always interested in finding ways to do it largely for the challenge, not because I expect much from it.
Thanks for your writing. I'll follow you wherever you go, as I appreciate your writing, but also appreciate you being here on Substack. Despite the Nazis, I find it to be a kinder, more supportive platform than most (and that's by my design as much as the platforms' design).
Wow Cameron, thank you so much for your comment! There are many things that I still love about this platform and I've encountered a lot of wonderful people here. Keep doing your own great work!
I opted to pull my writing off of this platform, for now I'm not going anywhere else. I'm going to keep writing and submitting stories. I'm sticking around for the community and the writers who make it up.
Good luck with your submissions, Kim!
Nice post - I hope your health will be great next year. I like your newsletter, so I really hope you continue posting.
I do disagree with you, though. Censorship is never the answer - as I write here: https://open.substack.com/pub/humanpolitics/p/censorship-is-never-the-answer.
I'm seeing this post - and hearing about this (US/English) debate/conversation - for the first time. For better or worse, I feel compelled to "weigh in" with my own work of the past 15 years or so.
First, I would like to establish a guideline, of sorts: No one is *always* a Nazi, in my mind; any more than one is *always* a racist. As an aging white American male, growing up in the 1960s and 1970s, I have wrongly said (and thought) racist (or sexist) things -- but (I would contend) this doesn't make me a racist or sexist, now and forever...
So, my work of these past many years has been to understand what made Germans -- especially very large numbers of young German men, both rural and urban -- racist, fascist, "joiners" of Hitler's ("racialist") National Socialist (Nazi) Party 100 years ago. (As a reader/writer of history, I recommend Christopher Clark's "Time and Power: Visions of History in German Politics...")
Generally, in better understanding history in early 20th-century Berlin, we cannot ignore widespread, devastating poverty feeding an ideological domestic "cultural war" that quickly (from 1919-onward) boiled over into an outright shooting German civil war that, in turn, became a European- and world war....
For my part, I am perhaps best understood as a historical researcher and ghost-writer / -editor (once working in Washington DC). My current 35-chapter Substack series is based on the after-the-fact testimony of a group of Marxist theater artists who produced the *last* three stage-works of public cultural resistance to fascism, here in Berlin, before Hitler took power, in January-March 1933.
The original writer of this 35-part German document -- a 22-year-old actress -- intended it to be used as instruction for similarly minded theater workers of the future who hope to avoid the mistakes of the past.... My US$.02.
https://toppersherwood.substack.com/p/28-troupe31s-audience-german-youth