I understand but lament the choice so many thoughtful people have made to publish their newsletters on the odious Substack.
-
because there are ranges of acceptable behavior
if people have disagreements about politics on the left, this can be great venom and outrage, but it is valid discourse. i can be quite angry with someone, but i have no right to silence them
meanwhile, there is no valid discourse with bigotry. nothing is gained. so silencing their voice is not acceptable, it's preferable
why do you want the fediverse to devolve into pathetic endless useless arguments with hateful morons?
and i know your response already
"there is no valid discourse with bigotry. nothing is gained"
yes, in some rare instances, you can cure a bigot
great!
go do that
twitter is full of these fuckwits
engage some. do your thing. enjoy. i wish you great success
but you will not unilaterally decide against the opinion of the fediverse that this place is going to be polluted with their endless evil stupid bad faith nonsense, whatever noble goal you have
-
@abhayakara @TheStoneDonkey
Boycotting a company is called "voting with your wallet".Because it's the option that comes closest to what you should do as a citizen - not renounce your citizenship, but vote.
If we are voting against assholes with our wallet, then we have to stop driving (which I've pretty much done, but that was hard, and not everyone can do it).
The thing about voting with your wallet is that unless you are a billionaire, you don't have equal levarage, because the billionaires can just outbid you.
So TBH I do not take voting with my wallet very seriously as a way of changing the world. I do it when I can, but it's not a hill to die on.
-
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.
"My question is, what specifically are they doing to platform him?"
what?
andrew tate is on substack
they platformed him
so i don't understand your point
you don't platform sex traffickers
period
well, you can:
and then a large group of people will decide that this is unacceptable, as they should, and leave your platform
-
@benroyce @abhayakara @TheStoneDonkey
the fedi should be as open as the internet and as protective as email with spam blocking software. this best balances interactions we each decide we want with helping everyone avoid those they don't want. my community includes my family members who have opinions I hate. your prescription is a very small fedi that feeds groupthink. see how Dems and the further left vehemently disagree re Gaza and so many other issues.
@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.
-
"My question is, what specifically are they doing to platform him?"
what?
andrew tate is on substack
they platformed him
so i don't understand your point
you don't platform sex traffickers
period
well, you can:
and then a large group of people will decide that this is unacceptable, as they should, and leave your platform
So your answer is that they are not censoring him. That's what you mean by platforming.
Let me know when you cancel your ISP connection.
-
and i know your response already
"there is no valid discourse with bigotry. nothing is gained"
yes, in some rare instances, you can cure a bigot
great!
go do that
twitter is full of these fuckwits
engage some. do your thing. enjoy. i wish you great success
but you will not unilaterally decide against the opinion of the fediverse that this place is going to be polluted with their endless evil stupid bad faith nonsense, whatever noble goal you have
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.
-
So your answer is that they are not censoring him. That's what you mean by platforming.
Let me know when you cancel your ISP connection.
what?
an ISP is not a website
you're arguing "trains can carry nazis, so don't ride trains"
it's a completely incoherent analogy
-
So your answer is that they are not censoring him. That's what you mean by platforming.
Let me know when you cancel your ISP connection.
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.
-
what?
an ISP is not a website
you're arguing "trains can carry nazis, so don't ride trains"
it's a completely incoherent analogy
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.
-
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
