Yeah, so 18% of the stuff is shipped by someone else. IDK if you want to call that “a lot”, but I definitely wouldn’t call it “very few.” Anyway glad we got to the answer, however to characterize it.

Cat deleted their account. Ghyste, who complained about Cat, got a 15 day ban.

You are saying “the bad is a necessary evil to protect free speech,” and not at all addressing the fact that the “bad” doesn’t appear to exist on modern Substack. If you have seen it, where have you seen it?

I literally linked an example.

Okay, so you’re in favor of removing any content which is dishonest and anti-gay from Substack. Fair enough, I get it.

I actually do agree with Substack’s original moderation stance, precisely for reasons of free speech. We can talk about that if you want, although it’s a more complex conversation and we probably won’t come to agree on it.

I had a feeling, and maybe this reply isn’t outright confirmation, but it’s enough. I think you tunnel visioned so hard on defending poor Substack and free speech that you’re not even properly reading what you’re replying to. You’re going up and down this thread, finger on the trigger, and the moment you see the word Nazi you just fire.

You’re right, we probably wouldn’t agree, and if my read on you is any good, I’d rather not waste time on that conversion.

Sounds good. What do you think should be done about Substack’s hosting of anti-gay content? Do you think it should impact me posting Tim Snyder articles from Substack? Do you think it’s accurate to summarize it as “Nazi” content?

A lot of us know by now that Substack has a Nazi problem.

It is moral and correct to censor Nazis.

Nazis love that argument, and they’re a threat to much more than just free speech. They shouldn’t get to block attempts at censoring them, and they specially shouldn’t get support to do so, because they’re one of the reasons it’s necessary in the first place.

Got it.

If you think my problem with Substack is “Nazis are there right now,” then you didn’t get it.

At no point do I claim there are Nazis there. To reiterate: bad is not specifically and exclusively Nazis.

Got it.

Anyway, the core of my point is that anyone who’s talking about this type of free speech argument on Substack, particular if it’s specifically applied in the context of Nazis, is largely living in a fantasy-land.

You are commenting under an article that says “A lot of us know by now that Substack has a Nazi problem,” and then saying that you’re not talking about Nazis.

You are saying “the bad is a necessary evil to protect free speech,” and not at all addressing the fact that the “bad” doesn’t appear to exist on modern Substack. If you have seen it, where have you seen it?

Substack may not be Nazi-central, but it’s surely a product of broligarchy.

There’s a lot of this type of innuendo in the OP article and in your response. I’m dealing only with your factual arguments, sort of leaving aside things like this “many innocent ideas turn out to be dog-whistles” “it’s always the same shit” and things. If you want me to try to mount some kind of counterargument for the broligarchy claim, I can I guess. How would you define the broligarchy?

If you’re upset that I am mischaracterizing your argument as being about Nazis (because in some crazy fashion I got that idea), tell me what ideas you are in favor of removing from Substack. Where are they on Substack, right now?

I actually do agree with Substack’s original moderation stance, precisely for reasons of free speech. We can talk about that if you want, although it’s a more complex conversation and we probably won’t come to agree on it. But that whole side of things is completely moot at this point, because they caved to the pressure and removed all the Nazis, quite a while ago.

So why are you still upset at them? Wasn’t that the goal, to mount public pressure, and deplatform the Nazis?

Edit:

At no point do I say people shouldn’t listen to good journalists because of their platform of choice.

I should answer this, also. What are you saying the solution should be, if not to avoid Substack?

I don’t agree with your characterization of the “problem” with Substack, in terms of there being Nazi-adjacent content they are not moderating. But if there does turn out to be that content, what should you and I be doing about it?

Holy shit! Genocide, banning, censoring, trolling, and worst of all, brigading.

I didn’t realize you’d written my name down. Oh shit. Well, that pretty much settles it, I withdraw entirely my request for some sort of proof of these things you’re accusing me of.

That was actually what inspired me to post this here. We’d been talking about it in the comments over there.

I’ve seen people defend Substack saying it’s not so bad

Surely “there are not actually any Nazis on Substack” is a fair counterargument to “Substack has a Nazi problem and no one should listen to all of these good journalists who are on it now that even the tiny minority of Nazis have been ejected” is different from “not so bad.”

, or the bad is a necessary evil to protect free speech.

Surely “there are excellent journalists saying excellent things on Substack, and no Nazis” is different from “necessary evil to protect free speech.”

You’re living in opposite world, man.

They deleted their account.

The communists and tankies are about 90% on the lemmy.ml instance. The rest of Lemmy is left but most as are not communists.

Yeah. In case it wasn’t clear, I was talking about being able to encounter overt authoritarian communists at all on lemmy.world, not saying that most of the lemmy.world users themselves are communists. My reaction was very specifically to the word “communist” and not referring to the existence of anarchist / general working-class oriented stuff on Lemmy.

I think most of the lemmy.world users fall pretty much in the sensible region of opinion: Israel is bad, the CCP is bad, Russia’s war in Ukraine is bad. Gay people are ok. Unions are good and the US state is oppressive. Just normal stuff (within my own personal Overton window). Of course a lot of US people would see that as some horrifying communism, but that’s not at all what I was saying, although I can see maybe it came across that way.

Mostly I was saying that I can sympathize with this person coming to lemmy.world and seeing federated content that says “yay China, Tienanmen Square was exaggerated, all this stuff about North Korea is just giving them a bad rap because imperialism” and having this shocked reaction because of it. Whether or not it originates from lemmy.world, it’s weird to see it on lemmy.world or on the modern internet at all. Usually the free exchange of ideas can educate people out of that pretty quickly. I think it’s a symptom of (a) Lemmy having particular features which enable someone to create an echo chamber specifically for proliferating that stuff (b) the world as a whole has gotten more unhinged from reality and so it’s easier for counterfactual stuff to find a solid footing.

Removed by mod

Do you have numbers for this? I tried to find some, and couldn’t.

Yeah, that’s me. Mr. Genocide. Which ones though? What of my comments which of course are in favor of genocide is your favorite of the ones that are in favor of genocide? I’m sure you wouldn’t just be making up bullshit.

I am. I’ve traveled internationally some amount. I am sure it varies by country, but the people who have a notable reaction to China/USSR-style communism, from outside the US, have a much stronger hostility to it than the US people I know. Because generally they have more experience with it.

US people don’t like socialism, and think it is “communism.” That part is true, but that wasn’t what I was talking about.

Removed by mod

Guy, you need to get outside more. This person’s reaction matches about 95% of people in the world.

So like I said, the whole thing is pointless, because Substack changed their minds and kicked out the Nazis about a year ago. Anyone who is attacking them for being a Nazi platform is looking for an excuse, because it isn’t true anymore.

That’s the point, right? Give public pressure to platforms so they will deplatform the Nazis? What sense does it make to fail to notice when they do, and pretend that are still hosting Nazis, and talk incessantly about it when some important non-Nazi is just trying to pursue the critically endangered act of journalism on this platform which has no Nazis?

Why would you do that?

https://www.pcmag.com/news/substack-changes-its-mind-will-remove-pro-nazi-content-after-all

I asked this dude to show me some Nazis on Substack, because he was extremely upset about it. Guess who they insisted should do their own research, instead of him having to show them?

https://ponder.cat/post/1720133/1955701

Yeah, Ghost is great. I’m not trying to say any bad thing about it. I think they’re slightly different: Substack went to bat in a big way to foster a community where real journalists could do their journalism there, and get paid for it, and to a large extent it worked. That’s why there are so many high-profile lefties writing there. Ghost is trying to set up a FOSS-style platform that anyone can use. Ghost has monetization too, but they didn’t prime the pump with it nearly as much as Substack did.

They’re both great. I think it’s pretty likely that anyone who’s screaming about Nazis on Substack is just looking for reasons to scream, and the Nazis have very little to do with it except as an excuse.

Inb4 “Substack Nazis boo Nazis Nazis Nazis.” That is incorrect. There were only like 3 neo-Nazis, with about 10 followers apiece, but anyway they kicked them all out some time back now, because the entire internet was yelling at them.

I think it’s highly likely that someone who is screaming at you about how Substack is full of Nazis and officially “bad” probably is either just looking for an opportunity to yell and virtue-signal about how their purity test is more pointlessly pure than yours is, and not up to date on anything about the reality they’re talking about, or else they’re motivated by not wanting you and I to read Tim Snyder and Robert Reich. Either way the Nazis are mostly just an excuse.

I’m not planning to post any Nazi blogs. Everyone can relax.

absolutely not involved in any right wing conspiracy.

How do you know that? Do you know them personally, or audited them or something?

I don’t know that they are, and looking over their resume it does seem unlikely. But, also, I would have said that same thing looking at Taibbi’s or Greenwald’s resume in 2017. I just know that in this story, they are presenting things in this absolutely wildly inaccurate fashion that would be right at home in a right-wing conspiracy. Certainly, working at The Intercept for a long time isn’t some kind of bulwark against being infected with right-wing-propaganda-ism, with Greenwald himself as one absolutely interesting counterexample clearly on offer.