Comment

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

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

Sort:hotnew top

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨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
- mo_ztt@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨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.
  
  Starbucks profits off Nazis whenever one walks in and buys a coffee. The Nazi’s banking institution profits off them when they use an ATM card and get charged a fee. Yes, that’s all acceptable to me.
  
  I should say – someone who’s violent on a daily basis, or posting messages saying “we need to kill Dr. Rosenstein, he lives at (whatever address)”, that’s criminal, and it should be prosecuted. That is some Nazis, yes; like all fascism it’s an inherently violent “politics.” So maybe there’s more overlap between our viewpoints than you’re thinking. I’m just saying that someone who doesn’t do that but does go on and uses Nazi symbology, talks about Hitler, basically a “technically legal” version of this abhorrent viewpoint, that should be allowed. Not because I like it or want it to spread. Because allowing it is the most effective way to combat it. Trying to suppress political speech that most people are going to recoil in abhorrence from, (1) can get used against your political speech, which I can guarantee you some people find as abhorrent as you find the Nazis (2) will not prevent it, just drive it underground and separate it from the exchange of ideas which is the most effective way to defeat it.
  
  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?
  
  I’m still confused about this one. Are they banning sex workers? The same comment of mine that linked to Reason.com also linked to a sex worker who’s on Substack. It looks to me like they ban porn, but any non-pornographic newsletters by sex workers is fine.
  
  I do think they should be able to delete spam, yes. I do think they should be allowed to ban porn, yes, because that’s not political speech. When I was going to set up a Lemmy instance, I did exactly the same thing; any viewpoint is allowed but no porn. I don’t think they should be allowed to ban non-pornographic newsletters from sex workers. I’d be strongly against them doing that, for the exact same reasons as I wouldn’t want them to ban Nazis. I actually used that example somewhere; sex workers are a perfect example of the next step on the slippery slope that banning Nazis leads to. You ban Nazis, then sex workers, then antivaxxers, then all of a sudden some journalist you agree with is banned, and so on. I think any political / social viewpoint that someone feels, they should be able to type up. Again, that is one of the most effective way to combat Nazis.
  
  source
  - FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Interesting. You’re okay with them banning porn but you’re not okay with them getting money from specific Nazi content featuring Nazi imagery. Which, by the way, is not the same as ordering from Starbucks or using an ATM and I don’t believe you’re so stupid that you’re unaware of that. Also, Nazi imagery is not political speech, something I’m also sure you’re aware of. And porn is 100% legal, so you should have the same opinion about porn as you do about swastikas. But you don’t.
    
    Instead, you are spending a lot of time defending Substack’s right to make money from Nazis, you posted from a Nazi website… it is not a good look.
    
    source
    mo_ztt@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I… what?
    
    Let me ask you a question. Do you like Nazis? Do you want their ideas to spread, or should they be defeated and dwindle away in the court of public opinion over time?
    
    I’m gonna assume it’s the latter. My feeling is that the most effective way to get that done is to let them take part in the exchange of ideas in the public sphere, as opposed to driving them underground. Their ideas are so abhorrent that giving them a good public airing is the quickest way to turn people against them and make sure people know who they are. Would you like me to search for support from experts on extremism on that? Maybe I will learn that I am wrong in this, but that’s a big part of what’s at the root of why I’m saying what I’m saying.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments