Thank you for the thoughtful post...I’m a new Substack writer and am now very conflicted about this issue and how to address it. My goal in coming to the platform was to simplify my life and build a community, but the context in which that happens is important to me.
Thanks so much for your support and kind words, Ann. I absolutely love Substack and have no plans to leave the platform. What I love most about it is the complete absence of advertising. That said, its owners, like all of us, are flawed human beings with moral blind spots, especially when it comes to rationalizing financial gain. Please read my response to Timothy Hyde's comment below. Hang in there, and keep writing!
I'm not talking about government-protected free speech, Richard. I'm talking about protecting Substack as a platform where many different views can be heard. If you look around the world right now, the speech that is most endangered is pro-Israeli speech. Do you really want the ability to support Israel put in the hands of people who will be intensely pressured to ban such speech? It's already happening with Jewish speakers in our universities, missing-children posters on our streets, Israeli flags on our businesses. Such speech and symbols are called Nazi propaganda.
Sorry Tim, but neither Substack nor any organization is obligated, nor should it be obligated, to publish, distribute or share views with which it disagrees or finds objectionable. This IS freedom of speech. This is why you have vastly different points of view on Fox News, MSNBC, and Democracy Now! Freedom of speech is also expressed in the right for ANYONE to verbally "intensely pressure" ANY organization to NOT share, publish or promote any points of view deemed objectionable. This is both legal and moral, and one of the very foundations of a free society. One of the ironic, although not surprising, things about the Israeli/Palestinian debate is that certain parties on BOTH sides of that debate feel unfairly ‘canceled’. The (largely misunderstood) concept of ‘canceling’ a person or point of view is actually just an example of the expression of free speech. It just happens to be speech that the ‘canceled’ party does not like.
Substack should not ban any speech. Nazi is a term that has recently been used against people who support Isreal. Should all pro-Isreal speech be banned? Some people think so. I do not.
Tim, I've been thinking more about our thread, and I do have one additional thought, especially relevant, I think, to your argument:
I concede that it is justified to take a principled and consistent libertarian position of being completely "hands-off" in terms of content moderation. But Substack is not consistent at all, in that it bans other content like nudity, porn and sex work, hence the hypocrisy. Also, at present, newsletter publishers have no way to opt-out of subsidizing hate speech, unless they forego all paid subscriptions.
Personally, I don't want my content to be hosted on an unmoderated platform, because I don't want to be associated with hate speech, nor do I want to subsidize it.
Fair enough, Richard. That is of course your right and judgement call. My point is something different. I am reluctant--antipathetic even-- to give anyone else the power decide what is "hate speech," what is "over the line," what is misinformation, and so on. If we've learned nothing else in the recent past, we've learned that concentrating the power to control information will usually result in pernicious distortions. It doesn't matter whether those controlling the information reside in Beijing, Washington, Tel Aviv, Tehran, Atlanta, Silicon Valley, or Wall Street. I'm not a fanatic about it, I get the need for practical and legal-liability limits, but as a principle I am pretty unwavering.
Tim, thanks so much for commenting. That said, I emphatically disagree with your reasoning. Substack should not be confused with a government body or agency seeking to silence or censor critics it finds disagreeable or threatening. Rather, Substack is a privately held, for-profit company, freely choosing to subsidize hate speech for its own financial gain.
As I said, it is my hope that Substack will realize the ethical error of its ways and banish these abominably hateful newsletters. If that happens, and the newsletters attempt to sue for discrimination, they will rightly have no legal standing, because they in no way qualify as a "protected class", a well acknowledged legal precedent.
I 'd just heard the distressing news about Substack from a friend. I'm now in a quandary.
Yes, we find ourselves in quite a quandary. Will reach out to you personally regarding all this when I can. Thanks.
Yes, please do!
Could you please send me your email? I don't trust emailing through the app...mine is rt@richardtuschman.com Thanks!
Thank you for the thoughtful post...I’m a new Substack writer and am now very conflicted about this issue and how to address it. My goal in coming to the platform was to simplify my life and build a community, but the context in which that happens is important to me.
Thanks so much for your support and kind words, Ann. I absolutely love Substack and have no plans to leave the platform. What I love most about it is the complete absence of advertising. That said, its owners, like all of us, are flawed human beings with moral blind spots, especially when it comes to rationalizing financial gain. Please read my response to Timothy Hyde's comment below. Hang in there, and keep writing!
Beautifully thought out and well said. Thank you.
Thank you, Rowann, so very much appreciated!
I'm not talking about government-protected free speech, Richard. I'm talking about protecting Substack as a platform where many different views can be heard. If you look around the world right now, the speech that is most endangered is pro-Israeli speech. Do you really want the ability to support Israel put in the hands of people who will be intensely pressured to ban such speech? It's already happening with Jewish speakers in our universities, missing-children posters on our streets, Israeli flags on our businesses. Such speech and symbols are called Nazi propaganda.
Sorry Tim, but neither Substack nor any organization is obligated, nor should it be obligated, to publish, distribute or share views with which it disagrees or finds objectionable. This IS freedom of speech. This is why you have vastly different points of view on Fox News, MSNBC, and Democracy Now! Freedom of speech is also expressed in the right for ANYONE to verbally "intensely pressure" ANY organization to NOT share, publish or promote any points of view deemed objectionable. This is both legal and moral, and one of the very foundations of a free society. One of the ironic, although not surprising, things about the Israeli/Palestinian debate is that certain parties on BOTH sides of that debate feel unfairly ‘canceled’. The (largely misunderstood) concept of ‘canceling’ a person or point of view is actually just an example of the expression of free speech. It just happens to be speech that the ‘canceled’ party does not like.
Substack should not ban any speech. Nazi is a term that has recently been used against people who support Isreal. Should all pro-Isreal speech be banned? Some people think so. I do not.
Tim, I've been thinking more about our thread, and I do have one additional thought, especially relevant, I think, to your argument:
I concede that it is justified to take a principled and consistent libertarian position of being completely "hands-off" in terms of content moderation. But Substack is not consistent at all, in that it bans other content like nudity, porn and sex work, hence the hypocrisy. Also, at present, newsletter publishers have no way to opt-out of subsidizing hate speech, unless they forego all paid subscriptions.
Personally, I don't want my content to be hosted on an unmoderated platform, because I don't want to be associated with hate speech, nor do I want to subsidize it.
Fair enough, Richard. That is of course your right and judgement call. My point is something different. I am reluctant--antipathetic even-- to give anyone else the power decide what is "hate speech," what is "over the line," what is misinformation, and so on. If we've learned nothing else in the recent past, we've learned that concentrating the power to control information will usually result in pernicious distortions. It doesn't matter whether those controlling the information reside in Beijing, Washington, Tel Aviv, Tehran, Atlanta, Silicon Valley, or Wall Street. I'm not a fanatic about it, I get the need for practical and legal-liability limits, but as a principle I am pretty unwavering.
Tim, thanks so much for commenting. That said, I emphatically disagree with your reasoning. Substack should not be confused with a government body or agency seeking to silence or censor critics it finds disagreeable or threatening. Rather, Substack is a privately held, for-profit company, freely choosing to subsidize hate speech for its own financial gain.
As I said, it is my hope that Substack will realize the ethical error of its ways and banish these abominably hateful newsletters. If that happens, and the newsletters attempt to sue for discrimination, they will rightly have no legal standing, because they in no way qualify as a "protected class", a well acknowledged legal precedent.