Thank you for weighing in, Elizabeth. I am firmly on the side of those who see essential caveats in the 'free speech unless someone is actually harmed' belief.
I'm firmly on the side of the letter writers to the Substack owners, and have published my own, as well as defended the others on Notes.
I'm not here to argue my points again, but I'll simply say the rush to defend hate speech as free speech is the gift that keeps on giving for the haters.
There's no denying that this proliferation of hatred toward anyone who doesn't go along with whatever the haters demand is hideously harmful. We see it in action every day in this country. We elected a hater as president, and now we have an entire sector in Congress full of haters. Hate has become normalized, and giving them the freedom to speak without consequences has only made their movement grow.
Substack is a private company. They can do as they please, of course, but they can't expect to allow and encourage those blatant haters without some pushback. They need to explain.
There are no gray areas with the haters we're pointing out. Their entire existence on Substack is to promote hate. To turn it into a simple 'free speech' issue is to give them permission to keep on.
I appreciate all of this, Ramona, and have the utmost respect for you and those who wrote, shared and signed the letter calling for explanations and actions from Substack. I am in full agreement on that. While I don't think there is such a thing as a 'simple free speech issue," I can also see the value making it harder (or less rewarding) for hate to exist on the platform. Since the mechanics is the area with which I'm having the greatest difficulty, I wonder if you or those you've defended on Notes have concepts for how this gets managed? Is it an all-out ban? Is it flagged accounts? I think, for me, the why is clearer than the how.
Lovely, thoughtful post from the “messy middle,” Elizabeth. (I’m catching up on reading today.)🎄❄️ I wish we could hear from Substack leadership that they were spending time in the middle, too. Maybe it’s a slow influence that will manifest after everyone gets a holiday break. I hope you are having a lovely holiday. ✨
Thanks, Tara. I think it's possible that they *are* in the messy middle, as they sort how to navigate such decisions and how to convey that back out to us writers. I find it curious (?) that they offer the option to toggle sexually explicit content on or off, but provide no other filters. I wonder what something along those lines would look like for other potentially unsavory/violent content. A difficult path to walk, to say the least. Grateful for your comment and the holiday wishes. Same to you!
I agree with Ramona below; I likewise am on the side of those who favor free speech unless actual harm comes about. And, of course, I know YOU KNOW your article immediately brought to my mind our religious controversy (disaffiliation v. stay united, and I won't go further here as you know whereof I speak...). Our world is consumed by these controversies, and like you, I feel as if I am on the outer edges because I have been afraid of the murkiness in the center. I will say this; sometimes you just have to jump in the water. I jumped, and I sleep better now for having made that leap, that decision, heart-wrenching as it was and continues to be. Love you, and all the questions you raise!
I agree with Ramona, too (she's awesome, by the way). I'm realizing that it's the actual implementation that is giving me the most heartburn. I'd like to learn more about the how alongside the why. And yes, for a few minutes the draft had some lines about the Methodist disaffiliation tragedy, but I couldn't find a way to weave it in sensibly. As for jumping, I think this piece is my version of that. Maybe not a very impressive leap. But admitting fears, feeling the sway from one side to the other, and back again, without needing to stake a claim before I'm ready, looking for what feels like the best next steps -- that's what makes sense for me on this issue right now. Grateful for you and your thoughts here!
In a way, I probably have no right to comment as The First (and indeed your terrifying Second Amendment) has no significance to me living far from the USA.
The trouble is that the world is full of imitators and we have our own share. And the world through time repeats history. Over and over, learning nothing. What makes it worse these days is media-coverage: mainstream and social. It allows people to openly machinate under safe cover and that can be and is, terrifying.
I've thought long and hard since reading Katz's article and subsequently the Substack letter that Ramona shared. I despise hate speech and hate action, of that there is no doubt. But Substack is probably one of the best forms of social media for me - it allows me to write and indulge the poetic side of my life without fear of rejection. If I'm rejected at all, I get a notification that said rejecter has cancelled their sub. And that's fine. I've done the same with accounts that don't gel for me. Is that enough? Does it protect my (our) sensibilities?
When I look at the people to whom I subscribe, they are of a kind - they make me feel safe and contented in an essentially unsafe and disconnected world. Is that enough? Because it's me voluntarily subscribing, it has to be.
I live on a tiny island that I have often called a pimple on the arse-end of the world. What I think, what I say and how I act has little influence on the greater world. But what I would really like is for my posts to be a haven for people in tough times.
I'm putting a great deal of faith in Substack for that never to change.
Thank you so much for your always reasoned and harmonious views on life. It is appreciated from down here at the bottom.
Prue, I'm right there with you on appreciating the good/right/beautiful parts of Substack. It serves me well and brings me joy. It also allows me to associate with people who challenge, inspire, and reassure me. No great surprise that in the microcosm created here, we drift toward those with whom we feel connection. Ultimately, that's what I'm looking for most in life and what I try to cultivate in my interactions. Thank you for being someone who reminds me just how important and possible that is!
Thank you, June. Trying to get things in writing definitely helps me make a little more sense of the mess in my head. Or, at least, helps me quiet the shrieking.
Thanks for this post, Elizabeth. I appreciate the honesty and nuance you bring to this debate. It’s refreshing in a world that’s increasingly simplified to this way or that with no in between.
Funny (not) how "simplified" feels like it's on a parallel track with increasing hostilities. Us/them, right/wrong, all/none... We are so much more than opposite ends of a spectrum, and that is often revealed right away when we find ourselves in curious conversation. Online, not so much. Appreciate you being here.
Yes! I feel like there is a good sized group of us who have sympathies with both sides, with the tiebreaker being “how?” One can bemoan that it’s not our job as users to propose a fix, but until one is described I fall back on the old saw “if you don’t got a solution you don’t got a problem”.
I was actively on Notes for the whole kerfuffle, so I can unfortunately report that I didn’t see single mind changed throughout the arguments.
I guess maybe me? At first, I leaned towards the “absolutist” but reading the back and forth made me slightly soften my stance because (like 99% of us) I hate Nazi’s too. But at my core I’ve always been a practical dude so the “conversation” has only led me back to my natural tendency to side on the question of implementation.
I find that most online arguments end like this. None of the participants’ minds are changed in any significant fashion, just sharpened in their original positions.
I can't say that my original position has been sharpened, but I do have a deeper understanding of the two sides of the debate. I count that as a good thing, something I'm trying to cultivate more of with other contentious topics. Conversation and finding out where my ideas align with someone else's is far more valuable to me that pinpointing the differences. Your comment is much appreciated, Justus, and I appreciate your open-mindedness. Be well.
Yes, I love that idea of focusing on the alignments instead of the differences. For goodness sake, we all hate Nazi's (well I guess 99% percent of us)...we're just divided on how to best address their hateful speech. However this plays out, I think there are reasonable arguments for both sides.
Have you read Ken White's (Popehat's) essay on this kerfuffle? It was interesting, Ken spent the first half acknowledging the difficulty of content moderation, but took strong issue with Hamish's self-congratulatory Notes on the subject. https://popehat.substack.com/p/substack-has-a-nazi-opportunity
Justus, I've only now made time to read Ken's piece (clearly late to the game) and appreciate you linking it. With more eloquence and depth, he expresses much of what I tried to convey. Struggling (or failing) to find the best mechanisms for moderation is not the same as not trying, nor as saying you are when you're not. I think it's okay for those of us focused on that distinction to remain undecided. Meanwhile, I'm going to keep looking for ways to cultivate the good, even when the horrible is breathing in my ear. Happy New Year!
Thank you for weighing in, Elizabeth. I am firmly on the side of those who see essential caveats in the 'free speech unless someone is actually harmed' belief.
I'm firmly on the side of the letter writers to the Substack owners, and have published my own, as well as defended the others on Notes.
I'm not here to argue my points again, but I'll simply say the rush to defend hate speech as free speech is the gift that keeps on giving for the haters.
There's no denying that this proliferation of hatred toward anyone who doesn't go along with whatever the haters demand is hideously harmful. We see it in action every day in this country. We elected a hater as president, and now we have an entire sector in Congress full of haters. Hate has become normalized, and giving them the freedom to speak without consequences has only made their movement grow.
Substack is a private company. They can do as they please, of course, but they can't expect to allow and encourage those blatant haters without some pushback. They need to explain.
There are no gray areas with the haters we're pointing out. Their entire existence on Substack is to promote hate. To turn it into a simple 'free speech' issue is to give them permission to keep on.
What's to stop them then?
I appreciate all of this, Ramona, and have the utmost respect for you and those who wrote, shared and signed the letter calling for explanations and actions from Substack. I am in full agreement on that. While I don't think there is such a thing as a 'simple free speech issue," I can also see the value making it harder (or less rewarding) for hate to exist on the platform. Since the mechanics is the area with which I'm having the greatest difficulty, I wonder if you or those you've defended on Notes have concepts for how this gets managed? Is it an all-out ban? Is it flagged accounts? I think, for me, the why is clearer than the how.
Lovely, thoughtful post from the “messy middle,” Elizabeth. (I’m catching up on reading today.)🎄❄️ I wish we could hear from Substack leadership that they were spending time in the middle, too. Maybe it’s a slow influence that will manifest after everyone gets a holiday break. I hope you are having a lovely holiday. ✨
Thanks, Tara. I think it's possible that they *are* in the messy middle, as they sort how to navigate such decisions and how to convey that back out to us writers. I find it curious (?) that they offer the option to toggle sexually explicit content on or off, but provide no other filters. I wonder what something along those lines would look like for other potentially unsavory/violent content. A difficult path to walk, to say the least. Grateful for your comment and the holiday wishes. Same to you!
I agree with Ramona below; I likewise am on the side of those who favor free speech unless actual harm comes about. And, of course, I know YOU KNOW your article immediately brought to my mind our religious controversy (disaffiliation v. stay united, and I won't go further here as you know whereof I speak...). Our world is consumed by these controversies, and like you, I feel as if I am on the outer edges because I have been afraid of the murkiness in the center. I will say this; sometimes you just have to jump in the water. I jumped, and I sleep better now for having made that leap, that decision, heart-wrenching as it was and continues to be. Love you, and all the questions you raise!
I agree with Ramona, too (she's awesome, by the way). I'm realizing that it's the actual implementation that is giving me the most heartburn. I'd like to learn more about the how alongside the why. And yes, for a few minutes the draft had some lines about the Methodist disaffiliation tragedy, but I couldn't find a way to weave it in sensibly. As for jumping, I think this piece is my version of that. Maybe not a very impressive leap. But admitting fears, feeling the sway from one side to the other, and back again, without needing to stake a claim before I'm ready, looking for what feels like the best next steps -- that's what makes sense for me on this issue right now. Grateful for you and your thoughts here!
I battle the same battle... You have helped me at least in the discipline of processing...
The discipline of processing is sometimes all I really have to bring to the table, Barry. Thanks for being here.
What a reasoned, intellectual view Elizabeth.
In a way, I probably have no right to comment as The First (and indeed your terrifying Second Amendment) has no significance to me living far from the USA.
The trouble is that the world is full of imitators and we have our own share. And the world through time repeats history. Over and over, learning nothing. What makes it worse these days is media-coverage: mainstream and social. It allows people to openly machinate under safe cover and that can be and is, terrifying.
I've thought long and hard since reading Katz's article and subsequently the Substack letter that Ramona shared. I despise hate speech and hate action, of that there is no doubt. But Substack is probably one of the best forms of social media for me - it allows me to write and indulge the poetic side of my life without fear of rejection. If I'm rejected at all, I get a notification that said rejecter has cancelled their sub. And that's fine. I've done the same with accounts that don't gel for me. Is that enough? Does it protect my (our) sensibilities?
When I look at the people to whom I subscribe, they are of a kind - they make me feel safe and contented in an essentially unsafe and disconnected world. Is that enough? Because it's me voluntarily subscribing, it has to be.
I live on a tiny island that I have often called a pimple on the arse-end of the world. What I think, what I say and how I act has little influence on the greater world. But what I would really like is for my posts to be a haven for people in tough times.
I'm putting a great deal of faith in Substack for that never to change.
Thank you so much for your always reasoned and harmonious views on life. It is appreciated from down here at the bottom.
I
Prue, I'm right there with you on appreciating the good/right/beautiful parts of Substack. It serves me well and brings me joy. It also allows me to associate with people who challenge, inspire, and reassure me. No great surprise that in the microcosm created here, we drift toward those with whom we feel connection. Ultimately, that's what I'm looking for most in life and what I try to cultivate in my interactions. Thank you for being someone who reminds me just how important and possible that is!
I think you speak for me too, Elizabeth. And thank you for putting your thinking into words.
Thank you, June. Trying to get things in writing definitely helps me make a little more sense of the mess in my head. Or, at least, helps me quiet the shrieking.
Thanks for this post, Elizabeth. I appreciate the honesty and nuance you bring to this debate. It’s refreshing in a world that’s increasingly simplified to this way or that with no in between.
Funny (not) how "simplified" feels like it's on a parallel track with increasing hostilities. Us/them, right/wrong, all/none... We are so much more than opposite ends of a spectrum, and that is often revealed right away when we find ourselves in curious conversation. Online, not so much. Appreciate you being here.
Thank you, Elizabeth, for your thoughtful and beautiful piece!
Thanks, Erica. I appreciate you reading it.
Yes! I feel like there is a good sized group of us who have sympathies with both sides, with the tiebreaker being “how?” One can bemoan that it’s not our job as users to propose a fix, but until one is described I fall back on the old saw “if you don’t got a solution you don’t got a problem”.
I was actively on Notes for the whole kerfuffle, so I can unfortunately report that I didn’t see single mind changed throughout the arguments.
I guess maybe me? At first, I leaned towards the “absolutist” but reading the back and forth made me slightly soften my stance because (like 99% of us) I hate Nazi’s too. But at my core I’ve always been a practical dude so the “conversation” has only led me back to my natural tendency to side on the question of implementation.
I find that most online arguments end like this. None of the participants’ minds are changed in any significant fashion, just sharpened in their original positions.
I can't say that my original position has been sharpened, but I do have a deeper understanding of the two sides of the debate. I count that as a good thing, something I'm trying to cultivate more of with other contentious topics. Conversation and finding out where my ideas align with someone else's is far more valuable to me that pinpointing the differences. Your comment is much appreciated, Justus, and I appreciate your open-mindedness. Be well.
Yes, I love that idea of focusing on the alignments instead of the differences. For goodness sake, we all hate Nazi's (well I guess 99% percent of us)...we're just divided on how to best address their hateful speech. However this plays out, I think there are reasonable arguments for both sides.
Have you read Ken White's (Popehat's) essay on this kerfuffle? It was interesting, Ken spent the first half acknowledging the difficulty of content moderation, but took strong issue with Hamish's self-congratulatory Notes on the subject. https://popehat.substack.com/p/substack-has-a-nazi-opportunity
Justus, I've only now made time to read Ken's piece (clearly late to the game) and appreciate you linking it. With more eloquence and depth, he expresses much of what I tried to convey. Struggling (or failing) to find the best mechanisms for moderation is not the same as not trying, nor as saying you are when you're not. I think it's okay for those of us focused on that distinction to remain undecided. Meanwhile, I'm going to keep looking for ways to cultivate the good, even when the horrible is breathing in my ear. Happy New Year!
Yes! Let’s hope making great work will overwhelm those goddamn nazi’s!!