this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
849 points (96.4% liked)
Technology
59421 readers
2842 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ad hominem. Nice. That said, I get it if you think Reason.com is a sketchy source to try to point to as an argument for anything. I restructured my message, so I'm simply stating my facts and opinions directly, so you can disagree directly if you like, instead of just jeering at the "Reason.com" part of it.
If the fact that I cited "Reason.com" as an aside is a problem, but it's not a problem the person I was replying to was calmly stating something that was highly relevant to the argument that wasn't actually true... you might be only concerned with whether something agrees with your biases, not whether it's accurate. Does that not seem like a problem to you?
The Kochs are Nazis. That's not an ad hominem, that's just a fact.
https://www.mockingbirdpaper.com/content/david-koch-industrialist-and-holocaust-denier-dies-age-79-american-politicians-scramble-new
They were even partly raised by a Nazi.
https://www.npr.org/2016/01/19/463565987/hidden-history-of-koch-brothers-traces-their-childhood-and-political-rise
And no, it doesn't seem like a problem to me to call Nazis Nazis. Because they're Nazis.
"Ad hominem" refers to ignoring the content of a message, and making your argument based on who is speaking. It doesn't mean that your statement about the speaker isn't factual, or that understanding more about who is speaking might not be relevant -- it simply refers to the idea that you should at some point address the content of the message if you're going to debate it.
In this case, I said something, you ignored the content and instead focused on the fact that I'd linked to something, and criticized the source of the thing I'd linked to. Okay, fair enough, the Koch brothers are Nazis. I don't like them either. If you want to respond to the content of my message, I've now reframed it so the stuff I'm saying is coming directly from me, so that "but Reason.com!" isn't any longer a way to dismiss it because of who is speaking.
I'm aware. And that is perfectly valid when the content of the message is defending monetizing Nazis is funded by Nazis.
You missed what I'm saying. I'm not funded by Nazis. You took my message and ignored what I was saying in favor of criticizing Reason.com. Fair enough. I was inviting you to continue the conversation, if you have an argument against the content, now that I've removed anything that could be construed as "because Reason.com says so" and simply said what I think about it.
Was your message based on what you read on a Nazi website? Otherwise, why did you link to it?
So no, I'm not suggesting you're funded by Nazis. I'm suggesting that's who you get your information from in order to make your argument, hence your linking to it.
Honestly? I didn't read the Reason.com article. Someone else linked to it, I skimmed it and agreed with parts of the take that I saw, and threw a link in there as sort of an expansion of what I was saying so I wouldn't have to keep typing the same types of arguments over and over. I just skimmed it again, from the beginning, and I have to say that broadly I agree with almost everything I see.
Quick work with
wcindicates that I've typed about 4500 words on this topic within this post. I typed one sentence where I linked to Reason.com, and somehow out of all the thousands of words, it seems like that one sentence is all you want to talk about. I don't know how many times to say this before it sinks in, but it's a lot more valid way to discuss with me, if you want to address directly what I'm saying as opposed to pointing to a certain source and saying I'm invalid because I used that source. I can assure you that the Reason.com article had 0% to do with forming these opinions in my mind.Additionally, I'll say that this whole model you seem to have in mind, where I read an article on Reason.com and inhaled it like a AI language model and now I'm just parroting whatever I was exposed to, and blame for anything I'm saying attaches to the article because I was powerless to resist anything wrong in it, is kind of telling as to why you want to ban Nazi speech. The thing is, people can use judgement. I do. I read stuff and I consider it critically. I might see something with a swastika and read it, and come away somehow without having become a Nazi. I might agree with something even if I find the source reprehensible personally (as I do the Koch brothers, to whatever extent they were personally involved in this article), or I might just not care what the source is, and evaluate it on its own merits. That's a good way to do it. Right? That's why I genuinely just don't care about the Reason.com article as a thing to argue about, and want to get back to discussing the facts of this actual discussion.
That you broadly agree with everything you see on a website funded by Nazis, that doesn't speak highly of you.
Also, I said nothing about banning speech. I have been talking about not monetizing Nazis this entire time. Do not lie and put words in my mouth.
This thing I'm broadly agreeing with, in addition to being a viewpoint of this one article which you've managed to construct a connection back to some Nazis from, is also a viewpoint of the list of cosigners on this essay, which includes Edward Snowden and Richard Dawkins. Does that all of a sudden change your viewpoint on whether this is a valid thing for me to agree with? If, all of a sudden, some "good people" are saying it instead of some "bad people"?
I also agree with Winston Churchill on some things, even though he was a colonizing racist. I agree with some things Thomas Jefferson said, even though he was a literal slaveowner, which is arguably a much worse thing to be than an internet Nazi. Yes. I evaluate things on the merits, not on who agrees or disagrees with me. I'm not sold on the connection between "this essay" -> "the editors of Reason" -> "the Koch brothers giving it funding" -> "Nazis" meaning I'm directly agreeing with Nazis if I agree with this essay. But the big point is, I mostly just don't care who said it when evaluating whether it's true.
To me, it sounds like you're so attached to saying viewpoints are good or bad depending on the people who said them that I'm not going to talk you out of it. Best of luck with it then, I guess.
If you're only advocating for "demonetizing," allowing the Nazis to remain on Substack but not get subscription revenue, my feeling on that is pretty much the same. The platform shouldn't be in the business of rewarding or punishing people depending on whether they agree with the viewpoint. That should be up to the person reading.
It wasn't a deliberate lie; I just assumed you wanted to ban them, but I'm happy to talk about it in terms of demonetizing instead. I apologize if I was misconstruing anything. I gave a quick stalk to your profile just now and you did say "If you do not support removing Nazis from the public sphere, you aren’t necessarily a Nazi. But you do support Nazis," which some people could construe as advocating for banning them.
Substack makes money from the Nazis being monetized. They don't monetize out of the kindness of their heart. They take a cut. It should be unacceptable to you that a mainstream company is profiting off of Nazis. It's worrisome that it isn't.
And before you ask me to define Nazi, we are talking about literal Nazis using Nazi symbology on Substack. Substack makes money from them. Why are you okay with that?
Also, I'm worried that you're defending them making money from Nazis and not their banning sex workers. From OP's article:
Do you "broadly agree" with that? If not, were you even aware of it? Did you read the article?
Starbucks profits off Nazis whenever one walks in and buys a coffee. The Nazi's banking institution profits off them when they use an ATM card and get charged a fee. Yes, that's all acceptable to me.
I should say -- someone who's violent on a daily basis, or posting messages saying "we need to kill Dr. Rosenstein, he lives at (whatever address)", that's criminal, and it should be prosecuted. That is some Nazis, yes; like all fascism it's an inherently violent "politics." So maybe there's more overlap between our viewpoints than you're thinking. I'm just saying that someone who doesn't do that but does go on and uses Nazi symbology, talks about Hitler, basically a "technically legal" version of this abhorrent viewpoint, that should be allowed. Not because I like it or want it to spread. Because allowing it is the most effective way to combat it. Trying to suppress political speech that most people are going to recoil in abhorrence from, (1) can get used against your political speech, which I can guarantee you some people find as abhorrent as you find the Nazis (2) will not prevent it, just drive it underground and separate it from the exchange of ideas which is the most effective way to defeat it.
I'm still confused about this one. Are they banning sex workers? The same comment of mine way up there that linked to Reason.com also linked to a sex worker who's on Substack. It looks to me like they ban porn, but any non-pornographic newsletters by sex workers is fine.
(Edit: To answer the question, yes I skimmed the article. It's short in length and on detail. I also tried to read and pay more attention to the original Atlantic article, which seemed a lot more in depth and to the point, but it wanted my credit card and I abandoned the idea.)
(Edit: When I say "able to" or "allowed to" in the following paragraph, I just mean what I like and don't like. Obviously, in a legal sense, Substack is "allowed to" do whatever they choose with their servers, as is entirely proper since they're a private company and they own the servers. I'm just using that language, which I chose a little poorly, in order to define what I do and don't like for them to do with their servers.)
I do think they should be able to delete spam, yes. I do think they should be allowed to ban porn, yes, because that's not political speech. When I was going to set up a Lemmy instance, I did exactly the same thing; any viewpoint is allowed but no porn. I don't think they should be allowed to ban non-pornographic newsletters from sex workers. I'd be strongly against them doing that, for the exact same reasons as I wouldn't want them to ban Nazis. I actually used that example somewhere; sex workers are a perfect example of the next step on the slippery slope that banning Nazis leads to. You ban Nazis, then sex workers, then antivaxxers, then all of a sudden some journalist you agree with is banned, and so on. I think any political / social viewpoint that someone feels, they should be able to type up. Again, that is one of the most effective way to combat Nazis.
Interesting. You're okay with them banning porn but you're not okay with them getting money from specific Nazi content featuring Nazi imagery. Which, by the way, is not the same as ordering from Starbucks or using an ATM and I don't believe you're so stupid that you're unaware of that. Also, Nazi imagery is not political speech, something I'm also sure you're aware of. And porn is 100% legal, so you should have the same opinion about porn as you do about swastikas. But you don't.
Instead, you are spending a lot of time defending Substack's right to make money from Nazis, you posted from a Nazi website... it is not a good look.
I... what?
Let me ask you a question. Do you like Nazis? Do you want their ideas to spread, or should they be defeated and dwindle away in the court of public opinion over time?
I'm gonna assume it's the latter. My feeling is that the most effective way to get that done is to let them take part in the exchange of ideas in the public sphere, as opposed to driving them underground. Their ideas are so abhorrent that giving them a good public airing is the quickest way to turn people against them and make sure people know who they are. Would you like me to search for support from experts on extremism on that? Maybe I will learn that I am wrong in this, but that's a big part of what's at the root of why I'm saying what I'm saying.
Whether or not they should be allowed in the public sphere, and I disagree that letting someone talk is more effective than not letting them talk, why are you okay with Substack making money from Nazi content?
Because that's the way of allowing them in the public sphere. I think that's the core of our disagreement. Simple business operations that aren't connected with allowing an extremist "political" viewpoint in the public sphere or not, I don't feel the same way about. That's why I'm fine with the government combating organized misinformation, or Substack banning porn, or Google banning advertising by Nazis. Once someone tries to publish a newsletter with their abhorrent views, and someone else says "whoa whoa whoa you're not allowed to even say that," then I object to that, whether that "abhorrent" view is a Nazi or a sex worker or a BLM protestor. That's the other big part at the root of what I'm saying -- different people have different definitions of what's "abhorrent," and you're on some people's lists the same way Nazis are on yours.
Sorry, you're saying that private companies should not only be forced to have Nazis on their servers but should be forced to profit from their content otherwise Nazis are not in the public sphere and thus people will not know about what Nazis believe and therefore... something?
Because as far as I can tell, not allowing Nazi content in Germany hasn't been an issue.
When did I say anything about forcing? The first amendment applies to the government only. Any company can do what they like, and I might have my opinion on it, but that doesn't mean I think anyone should have to have Nazis if they don't want to. I'm just saying what is my take on what the right thing to do is.
It sounds like you're the one advocating for Substack to have to operate their private servers in a fashion that they clearly don't want to do. Not saying this is you, but I've seen other (presumably confused) people in this thread advocating for talking to Substack's "advertisers" to pressure them into banning the Nazis, and talking to Stripe about what kind of content Substack is allowing, to try to coerce Substack into banning the Nazis. I'm strongly against that, whether it comes from the "pro-free-speech" crowd or the anti-Nazi crowd.
Except, of course, for that one time. That one time it was a pretty big issue.
That's not purely a flip answer. As far back ago as the business plot, and certainly all the way through the heyday of the KKK, there have been fascist and extremist elements in the USA. There was an American Nazi party. The US always had strong protections (in theory and mostly in practice) for those abhorrent views in the public sphere, whereas in Germany it's legal for the current government to ban Nazis, or for the Nazi government to ban communists.
Why, then, did the fascists take over in Germany and not the US? If allowing Nazi speech is so dangerous and banning it is such a powerful tool against it?
(Edit: phrasing)
So you're directly saying that's what it sounds like I'm doing, but you're not saying it's me?
That one time before anything relating to the Nazis was banned in Germany? What's your point?
I'm saying that you're saying Substack shouldn't be letting Nazis on their servers, and when they issue a detailed statement explaining why they're doing that, you object to it. I never said any company should change their policy away from the policy they want to have, and you have, but you're accusing me of trying to "force" a private company to change their policy.
There are other people in the thread who are saying "we" should start trying to coerce Substack into banning the Nazis. As far as I know, that's not you, so I didn't accuse you of it, but I did bring it up as an example of something else that I object to even more strongly.
My point is, hateful political speech can be banned in Germany. That was true before the Nazis. And yet, they came to power. Hateful political speech can't be banned in the US, and yet fascists didn't come to power here (or... not as thoroughly as it did in Germany, at least). I listed some examples from way before WW2. Does my thinking not make sense here? You don't have to agree or anything, just trying to lay out another reason behind why I think that way.
I have blatantly told you already that I am not saying that. So now you are deliberately lying.
Bullshit. Absolute and utter bullshit. So no, your bullshit does not make sense.
What?
I'm really not trying to get into anything heated with you. I'm not the enemy of you or anything, regardless if you're getting irritated at the conversation.
I don't really want to play some kind of gotcha game of going back through your comments, but I want to defend myself against you saying I'm deliberately lying. You told me, for example, "you are spending a lot of time defending Substack’s right to make money from Nazis". It's hard for me to take that any way than that you wouldn't defend Substack's right to make money from Nazis... i.e. that you object to them making money from Nazis, you think they shouldn't be allowed to monetize Nazis if they want to. Yes, I think they have that right, if they want to.
If this is, again, me being fuzzy on the difference between banning versus monetizing, then I apologize again. Can you just clarify exactly what you mean? Do you think for example that it's okay if Substack hosts Nazi content, but doesn't monetize it? If you tell me exactly what you think I can be careful to respect it and not misrepresent you.
What?
What protection was there for unpopular political speech in Germany before the war? I know the Nazis banned communists, in a way that the US wasn't able to ban socialists and communists despite wanting to, before the war. Is that not an example? Can you explain a little more instead of just cursing at me? Again, I'm not trying to get heated at you. If you just get mad and start cursing at me instead of having some kind of rational disagreement I'll go do something else.
For fuck's sake... there is a big, BIG difference between "Substack should not be making money from Nazis" and "Substack should not allow Nazi content." You must know this but you keep claiming I want the former. That is what is called a lie.
And yes, it is bullshit that Nazi hate speech was banned before the Nazis came to power. Utter bullshit. And calling something bullshit is not me cursing at you. But it's interesting that you find 'bullshit' so hard to tolerate that you don't want me saying it but 'kill the Jews' acceptable and defensible.
So, you think it's fine if Substack hosts Nazi content but doesn't profit from it? Just subsidizes it with free hosting? That's surprising to me if it's true, yes; that's not what I thought your viewpoint was. But that's not me "lying" deliberately or anything. Maybe I was sloppy and misunderstood or missed some explanation of yours; I'm willing to take your word for it if you tell me explicitly that you think that that's okay.
Please be explicit, though, so I can understand. You think it's fine if Substack hosts Nazi content but doesn't profit from it? Just subsidizes it with free hosting?
I think you're just confused on what I'm saying and getting mad, because what you're getting of it doesn't make sense.
I think you should for-real just go back and read what I actually wrote, to try to understand it, whether or not you agree. I'm obviously not saying Nazi speech specifically was banned before there were Nazis. I'm making a statement about banned political speech in general, using examples of Nazi speech once the Nazis came to be, and communism across some different time periods.
If you're not into the idea of calming down and trying to understand what I actually wrote -- again, whether or not you agree once it comes across -- I'm not into the idea of spending time just yelling at each other.
I literally said that I was talking about monetization and not banning, twice now, so the only reason you could misunderstand is that you're not actually reading my posts... which makes this quite ironic:
It is a lie that I am not calm as well. And I am not yelling. Stop lying... or whatever you claim you're doing instead of lying. And maybe read what I write, especially the blatant statements.
I have no idea why you think you can lie over and over again and get away with it by just claiming you're not lying.
Are you planning to answer my question? I'm fine to just drop it if you're not planning to, but you accused me of deliberately lying because I represented your views a certain way. It seems fair for me to ask directly, okay, what are your views then? So I can understand in what way they don't match the way I described them?
I'm not trying to hound you about it if you just want to drop it. But I am not a liar. If you're going to make that accusation, I'm going to ask you to back it up, and assume that it was unwarranted if you just suddenly go silent when asked clarifying questions.
No, I see no reason to answer questions of people who blatantly lie about me to my face- again, I told you twice that I was talking about monetization and not banning. Two times. Both times when you directly accused me of the opposite. So either you're lying or you're so willfully ignorant that you don't even bother acknowledging people's denial of your claim about them two times because it goes against what you're accusing them of. And since that's far more malicious, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
But hey, if you don't want to call it lying, you can call it gaslighting. That would also be warranted.
Also-
I literally backed it up multiple times now. Are you just a troll?
My brother in Christ you need to relax. This is not a combat. I poked you a little to get clarification because you'd been personally attacking me, not to continue the argument. My goal was just to find out what you believe and bring some clarity to your accusations, because to me they are unfair, and bringing clarity to the issue will show that.
I know you said that Substack should demonetize Nazis. I had the impression that, in addition to supporting the idea of Substack demonetizing Nazis, you would also support the idea of them taking it a step further and banning Nazis outright. Maybe that impression of mine is wrong. You seem to think that I was "lying" and trying to say that your one statement about demonetization was instead one statement about banning. I was, instead of that, just making a more general statement about what I thought you believed. Maybe wrongly. To be honest, I still don't know for sure whether you support Substack banning Nazis (in addition to supporting them demonetizing them, which you said twice, yes), because now you're fully refusing to clarify what you believe, just giving me full on information-free hostility.
I think the productive business of this conversation has concluded. Have a good one. You can repeat your attacks on me if you like; for my side I think the conversation so far pretty much speaks for itself.
I have not personally attacked you at all. Stop lying.
Let me take a different tack and just ask a direct question and nothing else. Do you think it’s fine if Substack hosts Nazi content but doesn’t profit from it? Just subsidizes it with free hosting?