Comment on Substack says it will not remove or demonetize Nazi content

• mo_ztt@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Honestly? I didn’t read the Reason.com article. Someone else linked to it, I skimmed it and agreed with parts of the take that I saw, and threw a link in there as sort of an expansion of what I was saying so I wouldn’t have to keep typing the same types of arguments over and over. I just skimmed it again, from the beginning, and I have to say that broadly I agree with almost everything I see.

  Quick work with wc indicates that I’ve typed about 4500 words on this topic within this post. I typed one sentence where I linked to Reason.com, and somehow out of all the thousands of words, it seems like that one sentence is all you want to talk about. I don’t know how many times to say this before it sinks in, but it’s a lot more valid way to discuss with me, if you want to address directly what I’m saying as opposed to pointing to a certain source and saying I’m invalid because I used that source. I can assure you that the Reason.com article had 0% to do with forming these opinions in my mind.

  Additionally, I’ll say that this whole model you seem to have in mind, where I read an article on Reason.com and inhaled it like a AI language model and now I’m just parroting whatever I was exposed to, and blame for anything I’m saying attaches to the article because I was powerless to resist anything wrong in it, is kind of telling as to why you want to ban Nazi speech. The thing is, people can use judgement. I do. I read stuff and I consider it critically. I might see something with a swastika and read it, and come away somehow without having become a Nazi. I might agree with something even if I find the source reprehensible personally (as I do the Koch brothers, to whatever extent they were personally involved in this article), or I might just not care what the source is, and evaluate it on its own merits. That’s a good way to do it. Right? That’s why I genuinely just don’t care about the Reason.com article as a thing to argue about, and want to get back to discussing the facts of this actual discussion.

  source

  • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    That you broadly agree with everything you see on a website funded by Nazis, that doesn’t speak highly of you.

    source

    • mo_ztt@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      That you broadly agree with everything you see on a website funded by Nazis, that doesn’t speak highly of you.

      This thing I’m broadly agreeing with, in addition to being a viewpoint of this one article which you’ve managed to construct a connection back to some Nazis from, is also a viewpoint of the list of cosigners on this essay, which includes Edward Snowden and Richard Dawkins. Does that all of a sudden change your viewpoint on whether this is a valid thing for me to agree with? If, all of a sudden, some “good people” are saying it instead of some “bad people”?

      I also agree with Winston Churchill on some things, even though he was a colonizing racist. I agree with some things Thomas Jefferson said, even though he was a literal slaveowner, which is arguably a much worse thing to be than an internet Nazi. Yes. I evaluate things on the merits, not on who agrees or disagrees with me. I’m not sold on the connection between “this essay” -> “the editors of Reason” -> “the Koch brothers giving it funding” -> “Nazis” meaning I’m directly agreeing with Nazis if I agree with this essay. But the big point is, I mostly just don’t care who said it when evaluating whether it’s true.

      To me, it sounds like you’re so attached to saying viewpoints are good or bad depending on the people who said them that I’m not going to talk you out of it. Best of luck with it then, I guess.

      Also, I said nothing about banning speech. I have been talking about not monetizing Nazis this entire time. Do not lie and put words in my mouth.

      If you’re only advocating for “demonetizing,” allowing the Nazis to remain on Substack but not get subscription revenue, my feeling on that is pretty much the same. The platform shouldn’t be in the business of rewarding or punishing people depending on whether they agree with the viewpoint. That should be up to the person reading.

      It wasn’t a deliberate lie; I just assumed you wanted to ban them, but I’m happy to talk about it in terms of demonetizing instead. I apologize if I was misconstruing anything. I gave a quick stalk to your profile just now and you did say “If you do not support removing Nazis from the public sphere, you aren’t necessarily a Nazi. But you do support Nazis,” which some people could construe as advocating for banning them.

      source

      • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Substack makes money from the Nazis being monetized. They don’t monetize out of the kindness of their heart. They take a cut. It should be unacceptable to you that a mainstream company is profiting off of Nazis. It’s worrisome that it isn’t.

        And before you ask me to define Nazi, we are talking about literal Nazis using Nazi symbology on Substack. Substack makes money from them. Why are you okay with that?

        Also, I’m worried that you’re defending them making money from Nazis and not their banning sex workers. From OP’s article:

        His response similarly doesn’t engage other questions from the Substackers Against Nazis authors, like why these policies allow it to moderate spam and newsletters from sex workers but not Nazis.

        Do you “broadly agree” with that? If not, were you even aware of it? Did you read the article?

        source

        • -> View More Comments