this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

58761 readers
3905 users here now

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

Our Rules

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

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
2
Substack says it will not remove or demonetize Nazi content (www.theverge.com)
submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
30 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] 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

This is such a wonderfully ironic statement. It is through toleration that they are painted in a poor light.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Tolerance is a social contract not a right. If you are tolerant, you earn tolerance for yourself. If you are intolerant, you don't deserve tolerance yourself. It's really not that complicated imo. I don't feel the need to be tolerant of racist, bigoted people.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You dont. You just have to be tolerant of their existence because theirr existance is protected by right and law. If you punch a Nazi your still getting charged with assault and battery. If you kill a racist your still going to jail. We dont illegalize views and ideas in america.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

No you don't have to tolerate their existence.

We fought a war against Nazis for a fucking reason.

Their ideals are shut and anyone who pushes them is worth less than the air they breath and the dirt they shit in.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The first amendment says you do in fact have to tolerate them sir. You may not commit acts of violence against them for their speech or you get put in prison. Thats the way it is.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

The first amendment applies to the government's actions. Not personal actions.

Hate speech is not a protected class so you can be refused service for it at any business,

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Tolerance is a social contract not a right. If you are tolerant, you earn tolerance for yourself. If you are intolerant, you don't deserve tolerance yourself.

I've never heard it said that way. This is a fantastic way to put it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

paradox of tolerance

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

paradox of tolerance

From the article...

"I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

there is nothing worthwhile lost silencing nazi bullshit from social media

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

there is nothing worthwhile lost silencing nazi bullshit from social media

"... as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.”

If you don't win the argument, the argument goes on forever.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

lol imagine trying to ‘win’ an argument with an idiot instead of just mocking them for the lulz…

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

lol imagine trying to ‘win’ an argument with an idiot instead of just mocking them for the lulz…

It's not about winning, or replying directly to just the troll/conflict bot.

It's about leaving an elaboration of the initial opinion, for everyone else who comes by later to the topic and reads.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

it’s not trolling to refuse to engage bad actors

anyone who thinks you can reason those fools into enlightenment is lol

mock, deride, condemn, move on

social rejection is how you handle it, when they want to be a part of the social contract they can return