Comment on There is a federation problem on Programming.dev
Skiluros@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks agoI am not American (although I have lived there, and have traced extensively and have many good friends); I did not find American polemics around freedom of speech to be in the least convincing.
Absent convincing evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to be sceptical of Substack’s claims. People in other countries get severally beaten up (or even killed) in an attempt to do real journalism - that is a commitment to free speech. Not some drama about blog hosting.
I do have some exposure to silicon valley go-to-market strategies. It is not at all “nonsense” to speculate that in theory a startup could engage in a guerrilla marketing (especially using free speech copytext, which is extremely fashionable among their target market).
Where did I make any claims about how the A16Z money was used? Sure, it likely was used to fund journalists on the platform, including people who do good work. It is a good thing that they are getting paid.
I think you misunderstand my worldview, I have nothing particularly against substack.
I just don’t buy the colourful story about “commitment to free speech” and the uncritical view of the A16Z investment.
PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 3 weeks ago
Great, congratulations.
What "claims"?
IDK if you've been paying attention, but they've been putting journalists here in ICE detention for doing real journalism. IDK why you are trying to frame pro-journalism as a thing that is somehow unique to non-America, or in any way related to Substack. That framing just makes literally 0 sense.
Journalists good. Beating up journalists bad. Hopefully we can agree on that.
Also, hosting journalists good. Hopefully we can agree on that. No? Or does the first thing mean the second one is bad somehow? This is the type of weird circuitous framing I always see when people are bringing in some kind of bullshit narrative. "Substack hosts Nazis, I don't like that" makes perfect sense, I can dig it, we can talk about it. This is just some weird circuitous nonsense.
I mean, you sure brought it up as a bad thing. Which, yes, it's pretty suspect. I would actually describe the centralization of Substack (which means it's vulnerable to a single legal action or something torpedoing the whole thing or putting them in a position where they actually do have to skew their journalism in some sort of pro-fascist direction) as the biggest problem, but you didn't touch on that, because it can't be summed up in a bite-sized "What about tthe A16Z money!" nugget.
Great! Glad we finally agree on something. Yes, it is, and it's why the centralization and VC money was maybe a necessary evil to some extent where something like Ghost will have a harder time sending bunches of money to journalists, which is why all these good left-wing journalists are on Substack right now. Which is a good thing. I mean, at least we're getting somewhere on that part lol.
Honestly, why not? If a platform is 80% left wing voices and raised money specifically to give to those left wing voices, and then also hosts a tiny minority (much less than 20%, just kind of the ones who show up who don't cross certain objective lines, like being Nazis) of right-wing voices, why would "free speech" not be the most logical explanation for why they're doing that?
I am aware that "free speech" is often used as a code-word to excuse Nazi platforms, but those ones are usually pretty easy to identify because they host majority Nazi voices, they kick the left-wing ones off instead of raising funding for them, and so on and so on. I get the knee-jerk suspicion of "free speech" at this point in the American media landscape, but I don't get why someone who took more than a cursory look at what Substack's doing would come to any other conclusion about why they're doing it.
Sounds good! If I find anyone taking an uncritical view of the A16Z investment, I'll let you know, and you and they can hash it out.
Skiluros@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
The claim that they are somehow really committed to “free speech”. I don’t believe this. Heard these sort of polemics a lot when I lived there (both on an instituinal level and from individuals).
Me not trusting their alleged commitment to “free speech” doesn’t necessarily mean I think Substuck is particularly bad or that one shouldn’t use it or read it.
It’s not circuitous nonsense to highlight that statements made by Americans companies (and many individuals for that matter) about “free speech” are often shallow, performative and unconvincing. From my perspective, this is a factual statement.
This has nothing to do with the % split between leftist or rightist bloggers.
I don’t deny VC money may be necessary evil. A16Z is not the only VC company there is.
I am just pointing out that not trusting Substack’s claims about their alleged passion for free speech and seeing more nuance than “A16Z investment is a necessary, end of story! No discussion allowed!” does not make one a purity obsessed leftists that thinks substack is full of Nazis.
The piece about Substack making nazi blogs to stir up drama was not meant to be taken seriously; I was making fun of American startup culture (and many startups do engage is super sketchy behaviour, perhaps not substack though) and the bombast with which free speech polemics are often marketed.
PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au 3 weeks ago
Aw, jeez, you're right. I hate discussion and I hate nuance. You got me. That's exactly a really good summary of what I was saying.
Ah, yes, Schroedinger's leftist. "I was just joking! Unless...? Also, BTW, Substack's got a Nazi problem."
Skiluros@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
But you do take any scepticism of A16Z as an immediate sign that one is a “purity obsessed leftist”. This is not reasonable.
OK, so you are saying that I started lying in this thread, I actually believe substack is full of Nazis, but I decided to temporarily back down from this view in order to try and “win” this discussion.
You can agree that substack is not full of Nazis and it’s a viable platform, while also recognising that they are an American tech company that received money from a VC firm that is commited to authoritarianism, corruption and criminal schemes.
What’s your logic here? I am genuinely curious.
You are ranting against “left orthodoxy on purity”, yet you yourself are demanding acceptance of A16Z specifically.