I understand but lament the choice so many thoughtful people have made to publish their newsletters on the odious Substack.
-
how does them posting here pollute anything if you never get tagged (we should moderate hard for unwanted tagging and block servers that allow their users to do that) or the people you follow never boost it? the magic of no algos. the web is full of hateful websites we'll never see etc.
my family members should be able to be here, seeing the lefty stuff I boost that might change their opinions over time. not stuck in places with algos that reinforce misinfo and hate etc.
The problem is that abusers of consent tend to try to get into peoples' mentions to start arguments. If they don't do that, you're right that there's no problem. The trouble is that they _do_ do that.
So being able to say "only people I specifically approve can get in my mentions" is really important. Even though there are people I follow who don't let me in their mentions and I'm absolutely crushed by this.
-
how does them posting here pollute anything if you never get tagged (we should moderate hard for unwanted tagging and block servers that allow their users to do that) or the people you follow never boost it? the magic of no algos. the web is full of hateful websites we'll never see etc.
my family members should be able to be here, seeing the lefty stuff I boost that might change their opinions over time. not stuck in places with algos that reinforce misinfo and hate etc.
i am not sure how to respond to this because you're not accurately depicting what bigots do
bigots do not play nice
they don't sit in their corner and play pattycake with each other, they reply guy to trans people, black people, etc
if you can promise me we can let bigots on the fediverse and they will somehow respect what they don't respect (if they could, they wouldn't be bigots in the first place) then you win this argument
but you lose it, because bigots are bigots
-
The problem is that abusers of consent tend to try to get into peoples' mentions to start arguments. If they don't do that, you're right that there's no problem. The trouble is that they _do_ do that.
So being able to say "only people I specifically approve can get in my mentions" is really important. Even though there are people I follow who don't let me in their mentions and I'm absolutely crushed by this.
exactly
-
I understand but lament the choice so many thoughtful people have made to publish their newsletters on the odious Substack. Surely they recognize that they are, at least indirectly, helping some of the worst people in the world spread and monetize malignant views.
RE: https://mastodon.social/@dangillmor/116402391861002505
There are people in the replies "just asking questions" that are easily answered by reading the words Dan Gillmor writes in plain, simple, English.
-
@wjmaggos @benroyce @TheStoneDonkey
Spam blocking software is a _really_ bad model. I not want that here. Free speech has to be balanced with consent. If I do not consent to listen to some asshole spew hatred, I should be able to avoid hearing that.
Anti-spam doesn't accomplish this, because it's porous: assholes can keep changing their identity to get past the filter.
I should be able to simply say "no, I don't want to hear from random strangers." That's not anti-spam. That's consent.
@abhayakara @benroyce @TheStoneDonkey
I don't understand. I'm a random stranger to you. assuming that's in place, how do you ever decide to see my reply without ever seeing it?
I use spam as an example because imo fedi is like browsing plus email. we want free choice to see what we want but also want help with unwanted intrusions.
yes the jerks can switch servers which is why servers should also be able to block servers that don't try to prevent their server from being used this way.
-
BTW, to be clear, I think your position here is 100% valid. I was just trying to figure out what it was.
I don't hold the same position, but I don't 100% disagree with you either. I just think it's a harder problem than people are letting on. I'd much rather hear from Amanda Litman on Substack than not hear from her at all, e.g.
so we try to convince amanda to move elsewhere
show amanda this:
Migrating from Substack to self-hosted Ghost: the details
I migrated Citation Needed from Substack to self-hosted Ghost. Here is exactly how I did that.
Citation Needed (www.citationneeded.news)
-
I think they are similar, but not the same. We think of ISPs as "common carriers," which is a term that goes back to the days of the railroads, and was really important to making interstate commerce work at that time. It carried forward to the telcos and to some extent the ISPs.
So in a sense the question is, is substack a common carrier? I think you can definitely make an argument that they are not, but you can also say they are. Neither is obviously correct.
i think a website and an ISP are different enough concepts that the argument doesn't hold
-
so we try to convince amanda to move elsewhere
show amanda this:
Migrating from Substack to self-hosted Ghost: the details
I migrated Citation Needed from Substack to self-hosted Ghost. Here is exactly how I did that.
Citation Needed (www.citationneeded.news)
The thing is, how much of Amanda's time are you willing to burn on this? It's her time. We've been talking about consent. Doesn't she get to consent (or not) to this?
I think the reason people like Amanda use substack is because they've already thought about this and made the decision that works for them. So me demanding that they revisit it seems disrespectful and, indeed, ungrateful. Holy shit is she doing a lot of good for democracy right now.
-
i think a website and an ISP are different enough concepts that the argument doesn't hold
Okay, but my retort here is "why do you think that." No need to actually answer this question unless you want to, but that's the thing I'm getting at. For me it's nowhere near as obvious as it seems to be for you.
I think the bending point would be whether it's a community or a public space. If it's a community, imposing community standards makes sense. If it's a public space, then stopping abuse makes sense, but stopping disagreeable speech feels too far.
-
The thing is, how much of Amanda's time are you willing to burn on this? It's her time. We've been talking about consent. Doesn't she get to consent (or not) to this?
I think the reason people like Amanda use substack is because they've already thought about this and made the decision that works for them. So me demanding that they revisit it seems disrespectful and, indeed, ungrateful. Holy shit is she doing a lot of good for democracy right now.
amanda can choose between following molly white off substack and deal with that hassle
or amanda can choose to lose subscribers because she's still on substack
both choices have difficulties
and?
life is full of such choices
i'm not forcing her to do anything. i'm merely noting a choice exists, and i'm describing it. i'm not unilaterally imposing anything on her
-
Okay, but my retort here is "why do you think that." No need to actually answer this question unless you want to, but that's the thing I'm getting at. For me it's nowhere near as obvious as it seems to be for you.
I think the bending point would be whether it's a community or a public space. If it's a community, imposing community standards makes sense. If it's a public space, then stopping abuse makes sense, but stopping disagreeable speech feels too far.
if your argument depends on treating ISPs and websites as the same sort of thing, i don't know what to say
-
so we try to convince amanda to move elsewhere
show amanda this:
Migrating from Substack to self-hosted Ghost: the details
I migrated Citation Needed from Substack to self-hosted Ghost. Here is exactly how I did that.
Citation Needed (www.citationneeded.news)
So, that is both a great explanation for why Molly left, and at the same time a completely clear explanation for why e.g. Amanda and Anand don't leave. Holy shit that's a lot of work!
I've been contemplating the same thing, and as a result of my dithering over this, haven't actually set up my blog. This question has had me blocked for nearly a year—I really don't want to do substack, but the alternative is.. a LOT of work.
-
So, that is both a great explanation for why Molly left, and at the same time a completely clear explanation for why e.g. Amanda and Anand don't leave. Holy shit that's a lot of work!
I've been contemplating the same thing, and as a result of my dithering over this, haven't actually set up my blog. This question has had me blocked for nearly a year—I really don't want to do substack, but the alternative is.. a LOT of work.
it should be easier, no argument about that
-
if your argument depends on treating ISPs and websites as the same sort of thing, i don't know what to say
And that is the essence of the problem, isn't it. It feels different to you, and I completely understand and respect that, and I even feel the same way. I just don't trust the feeling very much.
Two points Molly made connected the most for me:
1. Can't recommend people on other sites (not sure how that's enforced, mind you).
2. Can't accept payments elsewhere (again, does that mean if I also have Ghost I can't accept payments there?) -
i am not sure how to respond to this because you're not accurately depicting what bigots do
bigots do not play nice
they don't sit in their corner and play pattycake with each other, they reply guy to trans people, black people, etc
if you can promise me we can let bigots on the fediverse and they will somehow respect what they don't respect (if they could, they wouldn't be bigots in the first place) then you win this argument
but you lose it, because bigots are bigots
not all the people that you call bigots because of their opinions or posting what you consider misinfo, would intentionally bother people if given the chance. the former should be welcome here, the latter should not be.
it's hard for me to believe everyone doesn't have experience with people like this, who believe stuff that seems crazy/evil but also would never intentionally bother others. who would go out of their way to help a stranger. but they are anti trans etc.
-
I don't think we disagree about Andrew Tate. My question is, what specifically are they doing to platform him? Like, did they incentivize him to post on substack? If so, that's a good argument against using substack.
Right now I see them treating him neutrally, which I don't love, but again, so does Comcast (or my ISP, Odido). Should I quit Odido?
So I'm asking, what specifically are they doing. I'm asking because I haven't found a clear answer by searching.
@abhayakara @benroyce @TheStoneDonkey
For some people it’s not necessarily about a specific action or being right or wrong. The issue is seeing horrific people on substack (ss) and being horrified by it. If ss has disgusting people on it, then the site itself disgusts some people.
I’m not saying using ss is wrong, it’s just that everything to do with it disgusts me, so I will miss the opportunity to hear their words. I’m OK with that.
-
And that is the essence of the problem, isn't it. It feels different to you, and I completely understand and respect that, and I even feel the same way. I just don't trust the feeling very much.
Two points Molly made connected the most for me:
1. Can't recommend people on other sites (not sure how that's enforced, mind you).
2. Can't accept payments elsewhere (again, does that mean if I also have Ghost I can't accept payments there?)no, the essence of the problem is substack platforming sex traffickers and nazis
your complaints are valid, but your complaints have nothing to do with the real problem here, which creates the need to leave substack, leading to your complaints
the platforming of bigotry is the root issue
-
I understand but lament the choice so many thoughtful people have made to publish their newsletters on the odious Substack. Surely they recognize that they are, at least indirectly, helping some of the worst people in the world spread and monetize malignant views.
I wish @rbreich and Sarah Kendzior would make the move.
-
not all the people that you call bigots because of their opinions or posting what you consider misinfo, would intentionally bother people if given the chance. the former should be welcome here, the latter should not be.
it's hard for me to believe everyone doesn't have experience with people like this, who believe stuff that seems crazy/evil but also would never intentionally bother others. who would go out of their way to help a stranger. but they are anti trans etc.
Why do they need to be _here_? Why can't they be on their own instance that we don't federate with? Is it wrong for me to want to be able to read my site feed without being triggered? For wanting neighbors that I like?
I have "family" (not actual family, but effectively) who are MAGA. I don't want to not be in touch with them at all, but I really don't want to have to listen to them spew.
-
no, the essence of the problem is substack platforming sex traffickers and nazis
your complaints are valid, but your complaints have nothing to do with the real problem here, which creates the need to leave substack, leading to your complaints
the platforming of bigotry is the root issue
In a sense yes. But for me the common carrier question still holds. I follow several people on substack. I've never, as a result of this, had to read posts by sex traffickers or nazis. That feels more like "common carrier" than "community" to me.
E.g. on Facebook, which I left years ago for obvious reasons, I couldn't _not_ encounter nazis. Same thing on Twitter. So that's a very different experience.
