I’m not at all surprised that a Koch-funded publication thinks that Substack should allow Nazis to use their platform to make money.
Comment on Substack says it will not remove or demonetize Nazi content
mo_ztt@lemmy.world 6 months agoDo they not allow sex workers to use their service? Here’s a sex worker who posts on Substack.
Reason.com actually mentions keeping the ability for sex workers to post there intact as a reason not to ban Nazis, with a take which I more or less agree with (basically that deciding who are “good” posters and allowing only them leads to a steadily-expanding list of “bad” categories of people who need to get banned, with sex workers as an obvious additional early target).
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 months ago
mo_ztt@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Ad hominem. Nice. That said, I get it if you think Reason.com is a sketchy source to try to point to as an argument for anything. I restructured my message, so I’m simply stating my facts and opinions directly, so you can disagree directly if you like, instead of just jeering at the “Reason.com” part of it.
If the fact that I cited “Reason.com” as an aside is a problem, but it’s not a problem the person I was replying to was calmly stating something that was highly relevant to the argument that wasn’t actually true… you might be only concerned with whether something agrees with your biases, not whether it’s accurate. Does that not seem like a problem to you?
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 months ago
The Kochs are Nazis. That’s not an ad hominem, that’s just a fact.
David, along with his brother Chuck Koch continued their father’s rabid anti-communism and anti-semitism by founding and funding both the Reason Foundation and the Cato Institute. Both “think tanks” billed themselves as libertarian. Both published holocaust denial literature including the writings of school mates of the Koch brothers.
mockingbirdpaper.com/…/david-koch-industrialist-a…
They were even partly raised by a Nazi.
Here again, you get this strange recurrence of a kind of little touch of Nazi Germany, because … Charles and Frederick, the oldest sons, were put in the hands of a German nanny who was described by other family members as just a fervid Nazi. She was so devout a supporter of Hitler that finally, after five years working for the family, she left of her own volition in 1940 when Hitler entered France because she wanted to celebrate with the Fuehrer.
npr.org/…/hidden-history-of-koch-brothers-traces-…
And no, it doesn’t seem like a problem to me to call Nazis Nazis. Because they’re Nazis.
mo_ztt@lemmy.world 6 months ago
“Ad hominem” refers to ignoring the content of a message, and making your argument based on who is speaking. It doesn’t mean that your statement about the speaker isn’t factual, or that understanding more about who is speaking might not be relevant – it simply refers to the idea that you should at some point address the content of the message if you’re going to debate it.
In this case, I said something, you ignored the content and instead focused on the fact that I’d linked to something, and criticized the source of the thing I’d linked to. Okay, fair enough, the Koch brothers are Nazis. I don’t like them either. If you want to respond to the content of my message, I’ve now reframed it so the stuff I’m saying is coming directly from me, so that “but Reason.com!” isn’t any longer a way to dismiss it because of who is speaking.
ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 6 months ago
They don’t allow sexually explicit content. From their TOS:
So, a porn star could write about the industry but couldn’t use it like “OnlyFans but blog” where she had a post and included some pictures for subscribers.
Which is fine. They’re the publisher. They can decide smut is a step too far. But don’t pretend to be some free speech martyr for publishing Nazi propaganda while banning showing a tit.
mo_ztt@lemmy.world 6 months ago
… which is very different from “not allowing sex workers to use their service,” and undermines the whole argument that “well they do do moderation, they just think Nazis are on the ‘ok’ list.” I would have had a totally different response if the person I was responding to had tried to argue that since they don’t allow actual porn, they should also be obligated to ban extreme viewpoints.