- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
More than 200 Substack authors asked the platform to explain why it’s “platforming and monetizing Nazis,” and now they have an answer straight from co-founder Hamish McKenzie:
I just want to make it clear that we don’t like Nazis either—we wish no-one held those views. But some people do hold those and other extreme views. Given that, we don’t think that censorship (including through demonetizing publications) makes the problem go away—in fact, it makes it worse.
While McKenzie offers no evidence to back these ideas, this tracks with the company’s previous stance on taking a hands-off approach to moderation. In April, Substack CEO Chris Best appeared on the Decoder podcast and refused to answer moderation questions. “We’re not going to get into specific ‘would you or won’t you’ content moderation questions” over the issue of overt racism being published on the platform, Best said. McKenzie followed up later with a similar statement to the one today, saying “we don’t like or condone bigotry in any form.”
You must log in or register to comment.
To be clear — what McKenzie is saying here is that Substack will continue to pay Nazis to write Nazi essays. Not just that they will host Nazi essays (at Substack’s cost), but they will pay for them.
They are, in effect, hiring Nazis to compose Nazi essays.
Do not tolerate the intolerant.
This is such a wonderfully ironic statement. It is through toleration that they are painted in a poor light.
Tolerance is a social contract not a right. If you are tolerant, you earn tolerance for yourself. If you are intolerant, you don’t deserve tolerance yourself. It’s really not that complicated imo. I don’t feel the need to be tolerant of racist, bigoted people.
You dont. You just have to be tolerant of their existence because theirr existance is protected by right and law. If you punch a Nazi your still getting charged with assault and battery. If you kill a racist your still going to jail. We dont illegalize views and ideas in america.
No you don’t have to tolerate their existence.
We fought a war against Nazis for a fucking reason.
Their ideals are shut and anyone who pushes them is worth less than the air they breath and the dirt they shit in.
The first amendment says you do in fact have to tolerate them sir. You may not commit acts of violence against them for their speech or you get put in prison. Thats the way it is.
The first amendment applies to the government’s actions. Not personal actions.
Hate speech is not a protected class so you can be refused service for it at any business,
Tolerance is a social contract not a right. If you are tolerant, you earn tolerance for yourself. If you are intolerant, you don’t deserve tolerance yourself.
I’ve never heard it said that way. This is a fantastic way to put it.
paradox of tolerance
paradox of tolerance
From the article…
“I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.”
there is nothing worthwhile lost silencing nazi bullshit from social media
there is nothing worthwhile lost silencing nazi bullshit from social media
"… as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.”
If you don’t win the argument, the argument goes on forever.
lol imagine trying to ‘win’ an argument with an idiot instead of just mocking them for the lulz…
lol imagine trying to ‘win’ an argument with an idiot instead of just mocking them for the lulz…
It’s not about winning, or replying directly to just the troll/conflict bot.
It’s about leaving an elaboration of the initial opinion, for everyone else who comes by later to the topic and reads.
“Yeah they’re nazis but hey, they bring the money in. Why should I ban them?”
what’'s “hey” for?
“but hey” is a colloquial conjunction phrase in American English. It’s usually used to indicate that the previous clause had a valid concern or made a good point, but the speaker is choosing to make light of it in order to disregard it despite knowing better, because they shortsightedly want the outcome described in the clause that follows.
Another example: “My doctor told me to watch my weight, but hey, it’s Christmas and those cookies look fantastic.”
British don’t say “but hey”. Australians don’t. New Zelanders don’t. South African don’t. They could but they don’t. Therefore, “but hey” is fucking, broken american english which they instead call colloquial.
But hey! It’s ok to speak fuckingly broken english.
Lmao why are people on the internet so miserable?
Relax.
JSAO, you have a 3cm dick. Relax.
Yea… Meta took the same “free peaches” approach and the entire fucking globe is now dealing with various versions of white nationalism. So like, can we actually give censorship of hate a fucking try for once? I’m willing to go down that road.
Never ever fall for that one. You can look at various regimes in the world what happens when “hate” gets censored. Demonitizing is one thing, technical implementations to “live censor hate” would be catastrophic.
I’m looking. Is something supposed to stand out about Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK?
If there are 10 nazis at a table and you decide to sit among them, there are 11 nazis sitting at that table.
Hearing some one out and not changing your viewpoint after the conversation, doesn’t make you one of them. 🙄
Welp. On my way to Substack and peek in over there.
What does Substack plan to do with the profits that it makes from hosting Nazi content?
Another day of thanking
godthe devs for the decentralized Fediverse and Lemmy 🙏😔
