this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
784 points (96.6% liked)
Technology
59635 readers
2856 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't really understand Substack or fully grasp the issues involved; I'm just gonna say how I see it. I looked over their monetization page, and it kind of looks like the way it works is that the Nazi's readers (other Nazis, presumably) can sign up for a subscription, and Substack I assume takes a cut, and the rest goes to the Nazi. So it kind of sounds like the Nazis are paying each other, with a cut of that going to Substack. Do I have that right? It sounds like the Nazis (in the aggregate) are paying Substack. Nobody at Substack is raising money and using it to subsidize any Nazis. The Nazis are subsidizing hosting for random other publishers who don't have subscriptions. I think.
Irregardless of all that, I just have this general dislike of "demonitization" and the modern ethos of publishing on the internet. The demonitization on Youtube is totally weird. You can't say "suicide" or refer to sexual abuse or have gunshot sounds or say "fuck" in the first thirty seconds, except sometimes you can, and some content which is clearly harmful is allowed, and other stuff gets randomly taken away. Everyone lives under the constant threat of saying the wrong thing and suddenly getting, essentially, fired. One extremely popular Youtuber I liked left because he couldn't say what he wanted. John Stewart got "demonetized" from Apple+ just recently because he said something about China. The whole thing is stupid. Just let people say stuff. If it's illegal, take it down and prosecute them. If it's not, then let them say it. Yes I know the letter of the first amendment only applies to the government. I'm just saying I like the spirit, too. This culture's developed of policing what people can and can't say to a degree I find really off putting.
I get how we got here. You don't want people saying not to take the COVID vaccine or that the election was stolen, and producing real harm in the real world. But the landscape we've wound up at is stupid. Just let people be Nazis if they're Nazis. They're going to be Nazis, whether you allow them to or not. In fact, letting them participate in an open forum of ideas makes it more likely that they'll reform than chasing them away to a Nazi-only forum. If they're being toxic to other users, or doing something illegal in addition (which, to be fair, Nazis often are), then prosecute them for that behavior, not for being Nazis.
One of the really earthshattering moments for me on the early internet was reading posts from people who were "the enemy" in a shooting war that at the time I thought my country was "the good guys" of. It really blew my mind once I realized that Hamas is allowed to be on the internet, and North Korea, and Israel and The Daily Stormer and Hugo Chavez and Noam Chomsky. They're all allowed to have their web site. The modern internet is becoming more and more siloed, so that "I'm allowed to run a web server if I want" is less and less a determiner of whether that culture can continue. For better or worse, we're more than a little dependent now on whether big corporations who run the infrastructure want to let that chaotic "the bad guys are allowed to be here too" nature continue. They don't seem like they want to, and I don't like that.
Again, maybe this is an unpopular view, but that's how I see it.
Simply put propaganda works. If you allow people to spread hate then it grows. I don't think you have ever been a person on the receiving side of hate where a group of people want you to cease to exist, to take your rights away, or to torture you.
In our modern world if you spread intolerance you are shunned and deplatformed. That is a big improvement compared to the past. It is not perfect either.
You mentioned people get silenced unfairly or cut short because of pushing boundaries. This weighs heavy on your thought process imagining bogey men taking away people's freedoms.
It is ultimately a naive and impractical viewpoint though borne out of privilege and lack of experience. This whole freedom of speech movement is a red hearing for hate speech and you bought into it trying to be reasonable. There is no reasoning with them and you are simply wrong.
"Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate.” -Thomas Jefferson
Professionally produced and packaged propaganda to sway public opinion is absolutely a critical modern problem. I won't say I have the solution. I can tell you from experience interacting with people who have been victimized by propaganda that they will happily follow the propaganda-sources off the "responsible" content networks who are censoring them and onto some other network that's still willing to host them.
Put it another way: Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube all have policies designed to combat the spread of election denial and COVID denialism, by limiting people's ability to post it on their networks. How's that worked?
If you're intending this as some sort of trump card, where you're allowed to have an opinion on the matter and I'm not (when you have no idea what I have or haven't been on the receiving end of), then don't respond to this message and we can go our separate ways. If you're interested in talking with me about it, then I'm happy to do that, and take what you say on your own merits and not come up with external reasons to dismiss it.
(Edit, since I just saw it in another comment: If you're real into certain people being allowed to express their views when other people aren't, here's Edward Snowden, among other people, telling you that you're wrong. Has he had a group of people want to take his rights away? They did promise not to torture him but I'm not sure that was a truthful statement.)
Oh, good. So intolerance's spread on the internet is getting progressively smaller over time, is it? Thank God, it seemed for a while like that was a problem.
Sometimes, yes. There are a bunch of conservative people in the US who use "free speech" in a very particular way as a red herring for something much different and much darker. Why do you assume that I've been swayed by them? I spent some time yesterday and today arguing with one of them, I actually got annoyed that he didn't seem to want to engage with me when I was eager to tell him about how he was wrong.
I notice, also, that you haven't spent too much time responding to what I actually said; you told me a bunch of things about me, and reasons why my views can be discounted. Like I say, if that's the way then we don't need to talk.
Welp. Glad we cleared that up.
Let's take the Web out of the equation.
Let's imagine this is all being done using the old-school printing press.
Let's say Substack is a magazine publisher.
If you publish a Nazi magazine, that Nazis pay you to subscribe to ...
... and you pay the Nazi authors of the Nazi articles in your Nazi magazine ...
... then you're a material supporter of Nazism.
Happy to.
With you so far.
Sounds good. The situation's a little different because the publisher exercises editorial control over what they're publishing, can get sued if it crosses certain lines, and so on, whereas literally any random person can publish stuff on Substack with some legal and technical differences. But it's a pretty close analogy.
With you.
This is where it breaks down for me. This would be something like Substack Pro, where Substack really is subsidizing and organizing the make the Nazi content happen, instead of just hosting it like a Lemmy instance hosts a community. If they were giving Substack Pro to Nazis, then yes, I'd have a problem with that. That would fit very well with what you're describing.
I would describe this part of the analogy as applying a little more sensibly to something like, Substack is the print shop that typesets the material for the Nazi magazine on behalf of the Nazi that wants to publish it. The Nazi is organizing their subscribers. The Nazi is putting out the content. The print shop is taking a cut, and willing to do business with Nazis. Are they free to say no? Absolutely. Actually in that analogy I'd probably refuse to typeset the magazine as well, for what it's worth. Are they also free, though, to say, no, this is a free speech issue and we believe the KKK is allowed to have rallies and the Nazis are allowed to publish magazines? Sure. That to me would be a sensible thing to say. I don't like Nazis any more than you do. But I do think they should be allowed to publish magazines, yes, and I think that applies to making it actually possible for them to publish, and not just the government telling them they have permission, but the system they're placed within making it impossible for it to actually happen.
In financial flow terms, the Nazi subscribers are supporting Substack through the 10% cut that Substack takes. No money is flowing out of the Substack account to the Nazis without having first flowed in from other Nazis, and Substack keeps some of it. Right? That's why I think the print shop analogy is a little more fitting in this case.
Oh, well that makes it okay then. It's Substack earning money from Nazis.