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

21–30 of 55 posts

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

#21

Post by hn_acker »

nvm0n2 wrote: post #12
a-priori wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you went into most restaurants or bars or similar spaces, and you started talking publicly about pro-Nazi stuff, you’d have the owner of the establishment come over and ask you to leave. I don’t see how anyone can think this is unusual or new or not expected.

In practice you will be able to talk about whatever you want in most restaurants or bars, because the owners aren't in the business of listening in on their customer's conversations and picking fights with them.

> the owners aren't in the business of listening in on their customer's conversations and picking fights with them.

Customers can complain about other customers to waiters and restaurant owners. That can happen in person, in reviews, or on customers' blog articles (you know, like the articles they post on Substack, if Substack lets them). "I overheard that other customer saying that waiters get paid too much." "4 stars. I'm reluctant to keep going to the restaurant though, because the waiters do nothing about loud customers." "That restaurant doesn't kick out people wearing Nazi symbols. Boycott it." A customer's suggestions can be unreasonable. The owner can ignore (un)reasonable suggestions. The waiter can ignore (un)reasonable suggestions and decide not to let the owner know about them. But kicking out a customer on the basis of customer complaints isn't necessarily less valid than kicking out a customer who hasn't attracted complaints from other customers or letting a customer who has attracted complaints stay.

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

#22

Post by a-priori »

nvm0n2 wrote: post #19
a-priori wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s why I said “publicly”, as in you’ve called attention to yourself in some way, enough for the staff to be aware and to see that the other patrons are also generally aware of you and what you’re saying.

If you go into a restaurant or bar and start yelling at strangers about pretty much anything you're going to be kicked out, regardless of topic. Exception: during a football match.

Sure, but without going too deep into hypotheticals, think of a group of neo-Nazis talking in the middle of a restaurant dining room or at the bar, sufficiently loud enough to be overheard by staff and patrons.

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

#23

Post by a-priori »

missingcolours wrote: post #20
a-priori wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about newsletters that are explicitly pro-Nazi in nature.

One of the problems with labeling your political opponents Nazis is that no one believes you when actual Nazis show up.

Except that these are “actual Nazis” who have shown up. We’re talking about publications that, in some cases, use terms like “national socialist” and “reich” in their name and/or bio.

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

#24

Post by mannyv »

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?

In Singapore, LKY suppressed the communist party and their patsies to prevent a communist takeover of Singapore.

Puritans back in the old days were basically the Taliban, oppressing anyone who disagreed with their beliefs and way-of-life. They were pretty successful overall.

In Syria, Assad successfully crushed a revolt and is still in power by suppressing speech etc.

In the Arab world, the Arab Spring was successfully squished in multiple countries.

Communist China has been relatively successful by restricting speech.

"In the right" is probably the wrong metric, because it's meaningless. "Succeeded in its goals" is probably a better way of categorizing whether a specific tactic is successful or not. And success depends on the timeframe as well.

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

#25

Post by hn_acker »

__loam wrote: post #3
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…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

The paradox of tolerance is an issue to consider, but not necessarily a situation to avoid. Regardless of whether and when it's reasonable to call certain policies "tolerant of X" or "intolerant of X" or "intolerant of anti-X", the policies are value judgements, just as critical comments toward the policies are value judgements.

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

#26

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

missingcolours wrote: post #20
a-priori wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about newsletters that are explicitly pro-Nazi in nature.

One of the problems with labeling your political opponents Nazis is that no one believes you when actual Nazis show up.

> One of the problems with labeling your political opponents Nazis is that no one believes you when actual Nazis show up.

That's certainly true, but it sure is weird when a certain political leaning causes one to minimize the fact that actual Nazis showed up, which casts a hefty shadow on this perceived boundary between "actual nazi" and "not actual nazi". At what point does one stop imagining that enablement isn't a real thing? Shrug emoji, though, I guess.

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

#27

Post by nvm0n2 »

a-priori wrote: post #22
nvm0n2 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you go into a restaurant or bar and start yelling at strangers about pretty much anything you're going to be kicked out, regardless of topic. Exception: during a football match.

Sure, but without going too deep into hypotheticals, think of a group of neo-Nazis talking in the middle of a restaurant dining room or at the bar, sufficiently loud enough to be overheard by staff and patrons.

You would get kicked out for the same reasons as if you were a group of fanatical libertarian anarchists talking about politics sufficiently loudly to be overhead by staff and patrons.

You seem to be badly missing the point here. A forum for eating is not a place for broadcasting political views. A newsletter platform is. The two aren't comparable.

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

#28

Post by janalsncm »

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?

Free speech in the U.S. is pretty uniquely libertarian compared with most places. So depending on your politics, the answer could be “every day”. Even in the US, there are restrictions on speech.

And the U.S. wasn’t always as unrestricted. Famously, people have been imprisoned for handing out antiwar pamphlets.

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

#29

Post by hn_acker »

nvm0n2 wrote: post #27
a-priori wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but without going too deep into hypotheticals, think of a group of neo-Nazis talking in the middle of a restaurant dining room or at the bar, sufficiently loud enough to be overheard by staff and patrons.

You would get kicked out for the same reasons as if you were a group of fanatical libertarian anarchists talking about politics sufficiently loudly to be overhead by staff and patrons. You seem to be badly missing the point here. A forum for eating is not a place for broadcasting political views. A newsletter platform is. The two aren't comparable.

Restating your words:

> A newsletter platform is [a place for broadcasting political views]

I'm not saying that your assumption is wrong. I'm asking:

1. Why is it reasonable to make that assumption?

2. How much say does the platform owner have over the extent to which the platform is "a place for broadcasting political views"? Put another way, how much leeway should a general purpose newsletter platform have to ban certain topics/speech, including spam?

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

#30

Post by fzeroracer »

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 well.

Post reply on HN