Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Substack faces user revolt over anti-censorship stance on neo-Nazis

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 55 posts

Re: Substack faces user revolt over anti-censorship stance on neo-Nazis

#31

Post by janalsncm »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #8
SkipperCat wrote: post #2

I'm of the mindset that it takes work to keep democracy, freedom and egalitarianism alive. You can't just let anyone publish anything and think that it will all work out in the end. It is tough because separating freedom of expression from hate speech is hard and prone to errors, but the alternate is to let Nazis and other hate groups to grow and strengthen. History has shown that when evil is given a platform, it gr…

Perhaps the reasons why those groups grow so easily should be addressed instead of treating it like it is an inevitable force of nature that can have a dam placed in the right spot to keep it eternally contained.

There have always been racist groups in the US. Usually they become more popular after Congress gives minorities more rights. For example after reconstruction, it led to the rise of the KKK, which again experienced a resurgence in the 60s and 70s after the Civil Rights Act was passed.

Re: Substack faces user revolt over anti-censorship stance on neo-Nazis

#32

Post by janalsncm »

thegrim33 wrote: post #5

So .. is it 1 in 10 posts that are allegedly "neo-Nazi" content? 1 in 10,000? 1 in 10,000,000? What's the threshold where if X% of posts on any given platform are alleged to be wrong people revolt and cancel that service? Is that threshold higher or lower than what a motivated group that wanted to destroy the service could produce?

This is a bit like asking what the threshold amount of mouse droppings is in your soup before you would stop eating it.

Re: Substack faces user revolt over anti-censorship stance on neo-Nazis

#33

Post by NoZebra120vClip »

krapp wrote: post #18
Mountain_Skies wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the reasons why those groups grow so easily should be addressed instead of treating it like it is an inevitable force of nature that can have a dam placed in the right spot to keep it eternally contained.

No one is treating anything like an inevitable force of nature, nor is anyone claiming that it can be eternally contained. But it should be obvious given the last decade or so, if you've been living above a rock, that the internet and social media provide a force multiplier for speech that, due to the priorities and incentives of algorithms, prioritizes speech many might consider harmful and dangerous. One can no lon…

krapp here sounds exactly like a Catholic Pope in the 16th century.

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it," indeed.

Re: Substack faces user revolt over anti-censorship stance on neo-Nazis

#34

Post by BobaFloutist »

TheCaptain4815 wrote: post #4

For those who support this, could you name another instance throughout history where people restricting speech of others ended up being "in the right", no matter the circumstance?

Yes: the guidelines of Hacker News promote civility, good faith, and logical argument, which drastically reduces the amount of trolling, flaming, and general vitriol.

Without moderation, forums quickly become unusable. If you disagreed, you'd be on 4chan, not Hacker News.

So I think you recognize the utility of at least some level of content moderation, which is a specific type of speech restriction.

Re: Substack faces user revolt over anti-censorship stance on neo-Nazis

#35

Post by polski-g »

janalsncm wrote: post #32
thegrim33 wrote: post #5

So .. is it 1 in 10 posts that are allegedly "neo-Nazi" content? 1 in 10,000? 1 in 10,000,000? What's the threshold where if X% of posts on any given platform are alleged to be wrong people revolt and cancel that service? Is that threshold higher or lower than what a motivated group that wanted to destroy the service could produce?

This is a bit like asking what the threshold amount of mouse droppings is in your soup before you would stop eating it.

This is actually a number that the FDA/USDA regulates.

Re: Substack faces user revolt over anti-censorship stance on neo-Nazis

#36

Post by polski-g »

fzeroracer wrote: post #30

I mean, seems pretty simple to me. They have an anti-hate speech provision in their content guidelines. They have groups that very explicitly violate it (and not in the sense of people randomly accusing others of being nazis, but of upfront and prominent nazis that display swastikas and loudly advertise being nazis). They're choosing not to enforce their own rules. I would consider taking my audience elsewhere as wel…

"Being a Nazi" or displaying a swastika isn't against their TOS. They have specific requirements that one has to breach to violate.

Re: Substack faces user revolt over anti-censorship stance on neo-Nazis

#38

Post by janalsncm »

polski-g wrote: post #35
janalsncm wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bit like asking what the threshold amount of mouse droppings is in your soup before you would stop eating it.

This is actually a number that the FDA/USDA regulates.

I hope so, but I would personally prefer less.

Re: Substack faces user revolt over anti-censorship stance on neo-Nazis

#39

Post by passivegains »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #33
krapp wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is treating anything like an inevitable force of nature, nor is anyone claiming that it can be eternally contained. But it should be obvious given the last decade or so, if you've been living above a rock, that the internet and social media provide a force multiplier for speech that, due to the priorities and incentives of algorithms, prioritizes speech many might consider harmful and dangerous. One can no lon…

krapp here sounds exactly like a Catholic Pope in the 16th century. "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it," indeed.

I haven't read a lot of primary sources from the period, but "the internet and social media provide a force multiplier for speech that, due to the priorities and incentives of algorithms, prioritizes speech many might consider harmful and dangerous" and "limiting the scope and velocity by which they can spread their message and recruit has proven effective in slowing their influence" aren't things I'd expect to hear from a catholic pope in any century.

Re: Substack faces user revolt over anti-censorship stance on neo-Nazis

#40

Post by jasonvorhe »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #34
TheCaptain4815 wrote: post #4

For those who support this, could you name another instance throughout history where people restricting speech of others ended up being "in the right", no matter the circumstance?

Yes: the guidelines of Hacker News promote civility, good faith, and logical argument, which drastically reduces the amount of trolling, flaming, and general vitriol. Without moderation, forums quickly become unusable. If you disagreed, you'd be on 4chan, not Hacker News. So I think you recognize the utility of at least some level of content moderation, which is a specific type of speech restriction.

But I'm on HN and on 4chan, for different reasons. While I find no joy in the tone on 4chan, I love how more open minded a lot of people there are on certain topics (that aren't related to politics).
Post reply on HN