Technology

60101 readers

2060 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

855

Substack says it will not remove or demonetize Nazi content (www.theverge.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

428 comments fedilink hide all child comments

More than 200 Substack authors asked the platform to explain why it’s “platforming and monetizing Nazis,” and now they have an answer straight from co-founder Hamish McKenzie:

I just want to make it clear that we don’t like Nazis either—we wish no-one held those views. But some people do hold those and other extreme views. Given that, we don’t think that censorship (including through demonetizing publications) makes the problem go away—in fact, it makes it worse.

While McKenzie offers no evidence to back these ideas, this tracks with the company’s previous stance on taking a hands-off approach to moderation. In April, Substack CEO Chris Best appeared on the Decoder podcast and refused to answer moderation questions. “We’re not going to get into specific ‘would you or won’t you’ content moderation questions” over the issue of overt racism being published on the platform, Best said. McKenzie followed up later with a similar statement to the one today, saying “we don’t like or condone bigotry in any form.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] [email protected] -6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your analogy is false

And why ? Just because I pointed out a scenario that do not imply a clearly illegal situation like yours ?

but yes if you are pro-forced birth you should not profit from pro-choice groups. Personal integrity is important and while I very much don’t agree with the forced birth crowd I am willing to pretend that some of them are sincere.

You are right from a a personal perspective, I as a person must have personal integrity.
But a platform ? Should not be the duty of a platform to carry both points of view and let the reader to decide what is wrong or what is good ?

Should a newspaper not talk about something because some readers don't agree with it ? Because that is what you are saying: what I think is true and good while what they think is wrong and bad, and so they need to be removed.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If someone says it is raining outside, the newspaper's job is to actually check whether it is raining outside NOT to say it both is and is not raining and let their "readers decide."

Should a newspaper not talk about something because some readers don't agree with it ?

You are arguing that newspapers should discuss NAZI ideals as if they are as valid as any other. No one decent agrees with you.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are arguing that newspapers should discuss NAZI ideals as if they are as valid as any other. No one decent agrees with you.

Nope, I am arguing that if something is not illegal it is not up to the platform to censor it.

If that 200 authors asked a judge to command substack to remove the post, then good.

If you decide that today is good that a platform censor something, (and I agree that nazis are not that nice thing to even consider to discuss) then tomorrow you cannot protest that a platform remove something that you consider good.

Like Meta removing all the pro palestinian post/propaganda: is it acceptable that it is Meta to decide that even if it is not illegal?

Free speech is absolute, and it include even what we hate.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Free speech IS NOT freedom from social consequences. And one of those social consequences is that people are allowed to tell you to take a hike.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And I agree. But it seems that you still don't understand how dangerous is to go after the platform instead of the authors of the messages.

But let's suppose that it is correct to go after the platform, so this time the offending content is removed. Fine, good thing.

Next month 174 authors ask to remove everything about the right to have an abortion because they are offended by it and they think that it is wrong (and in some place it is even illegal), what do you think should happen?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You are arguing as if people are wanting the government to intervene and that IS NOT what people are saying. People are allowed to not want an entire company to be a fascist bar.