3 ms·

Every space in the physical and digital world limits speech. Hacker News limits speech, no? Can I go an insane racist tirade here? Otherwise we would all devolv

by twaitt 6y ago

Every space in the physical and digital world limits speech. Hacker News limits speech, no? Can I go an insane racist tirade here? Otherwise we would all devolve into 4chan. People set up rails in the communities that they participate in, I don't think that's a bad thing. It's just to which degree you want those rails to be.

beshrkayali 6y ago
Nah I'm not knocking down his decision. Like what another comment here said; I think this is a win-win. Good for him for sticking to his principles, and good for substack for not budging to pressure about their business-strategy because some content produced by some members doesn't sit right with some other members. I just find it weird personally.
bhupy 6y ago
> Every space in the physical and digital world limits speech Just because some spaces limit speech, doesn't necessarily mean that "every" space limits speech. As you go further down the stack, the fewer limits there are. In the US, in the public commons, there are effectively 0 limits to speech (calls to imminent lawless action are an extremely narrow exception). The pub vs public park analogy is a good one. A pub is typically allowed to exercise stronger control and moderation over its patrons. The same is untrue for public parks (see: the Westboro Baptist Church). You're correct that HN limits speech, but that's because HN is more analogous to a club/pub; it doesn't purport to be an open platform. Substack's stance appears to be that they simply follow the law, as they seek not to be a pub, but a public commons by acting as an open platform. And no, investing in certain writers does not automatically turn an entity from a proverbial "public park" to a proverbial "pub".
xxxxxxxx7 6y ago
> It's just to which degree you want those rails to be. In my experience as a queer person, lots of vocal pro-trans types take issue with anything and everything. It's not as though this is an issue of rails, because frankly, in my opinion, that whole activist group has derailed themselves.

by twaitt 6y ago

beshrkayali 6y ago

Nah I'm not knocking down his decision. Like what another comment here said; I think this is a win-win. Good for him for sticking to his principles, and good for substack for not budging to pressure about their business-strategy because some content produced by some members doesn't sit right with some other members. I just find it weird personally.

bhupy 6y ago

> Every space in the physical and digital world limits speech Just because some spaces limit speech, doesn't necessarily mean that "every" space limits speech. As you go further down the stack, the fewer limits there are. In the US, in the public commons, there are effectively 0 limits to speech (calls to imminent lawless action are an extremely narrow exception). The pub vs public park analogy is a good one. A pub is typically allowed to exercise stronger control and moderation over its patrons. The same is untrue for public parks (see: the Westboro Baptist Church). You're correct that HN limits speech, but that's because HN is more analogous to a club/pub; it doesn't purport to be an open platform. Substack's stance appears to be that they simply follow the law, as they seek not to be a pub, but a public commons by acting as an open platform. And no, investing in certain writers does not automatically turn an entity from a proverbial "public park" to a proverbial "pub".

xxxxxxxx7 6y ago

> It's just to which degree you want those rails to be. In my experience as a queer person, lots of vocal pro-trans types take issue with anything and everything. It's not as though this is an issue of rails, because frankly, in my opinion, that whole activist group has derailed themselves.