7 ms·
Substack on Nazi Views
- chris_wot 3y agoI looked at a number of comments, and while I can understand their position, substack seem to actively remove articles by sex workers. If this is true, how are sex workers considered to be worse than Nazis?
- gnat 3y agoPayment processors enforce the ban on paying sex workers whereas they do not ban paying Nazis.
- josefritz 3y agoThat's an interesting but highly distressing paradigm.
- HideousKojima 3y agoDo you have any examples? And was being a sex worker the actual reason given, or was it something specific about the content they were posting?
- chris_wot 3y agoI was going on the comments made. They appear to be talking about any sex worker who posts about their work or issues around sex work. I’m trying to find out if this is the reality. Apologies if it is not, but there are more than a few people commenting on it.
- throwawa14223 3y agoMy understanding is that sex work opens you up to a pretty extreme levels of liability in the USA. That may be the whole of the issue
- cowpig 3y agoNazis make them money, sex workers lose them money. ~~Free~~ Monetized speech.
- throwawa14223 3y agoYou are correct. Government regulation has resulted in less free speech, but that's hardly Substack's fault.
- anonymousab 3y agoSubstack's claim and argument is about free speech, though. Not "free speech, but".
- chris_wot 3y agoBut payment processors won’t penalize you for promoting Nazism? I do understand that this may not be the fault of Substack, but they could clear this all up by noting why they have to make an exception. Perhaps they do and I haven’t seen it?
- throwawa14223 3y agoI was under the impression it started in line with the USA passing FOSTA. This could be spurious correlation on my part though.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- porkbeer 3y agoBecause we rebranded sex work as human trafficking
- timeon 3y agoPeople who are giving platform to Nazis - do not have problem with them. For some reason this is often case with free speech absolutists: they are eager to be devil's advocates while banning harmless things.
- dbrueck 3y agoI agree with this stance both because shining light on bad ideas is generally the better approach, but also because the alternative (censoring the "bad" stuff) seems to always break down.
- cowpig 3y agoThe proliferation of fascist messaging, on the other hand? Breakdown-proof.
- krapp 3y agoI realize it's radical to say in today's post-truth world but Nazi content is bad, no scare quotes necessary. And censoring it does work, whereas "shining a light on it" only causes it to spread more aggressively.
- throwawa14223 3y agoNazi content is bad, Communist content is equally if not worse. Some people would argue banning sex work related content is just as justified. Who chooses what is bad enough to be censored? A content free-for-all may be the best we can hope for.
- krapp 3y agoNo, not everything is a slippery slope. It is possible to ban one kind of content without being forced to inevitably ban all content, or any content anyone might object to. Most human beings are capable of discernment and of comprehending context and nuance in this regard.
- throwawa14223 3y agoAnd yet we're having a talk about nazis when substack is literally hosting the most vile ideology humanity has ever created. If censorship is on the table communists need to be part of the first batch to go. Since deplatforming works.
- 3y ago
- bbatsell 3y agoPopehat’s nuanced response that is well worth reading: https://popehat.substack.com/p/substack-has-a-nazi-opportunity https://popehat.substack.com/p/substack-has-a-nazi-opportuni...
- chris_wot 3y agoIt’s an interesting piece. Now let’s swap out “Nazis” for paedophiles. I’ll be your bottom dollar their principled stance starts to fall apart. Platforming paedophiles has never stoppped them. In fact, it encourages them to group together. It’s a pity this is a difficult thing to handle. Moderation decisions are hard. Very hard. But being hard has never been an excuse for not doing the thing that is hard.
- bananapub 3y agoit's important to not buy their bullshit about > We believe that supporting individual rights and civil liberties while subjecting ideas to open discourse is the best way to strip bad ideas of their power. while they ban porn.
- drivingmenuts 3y agoSubstack isn’t the government. They are not required to provide equal access to all. Like many tech companies, they are attempting to avoid consequences by appearing neutral.