I’ve seen people defend Substack saying it’s not so bad, or the bad is a necessary evil to protect free speech.
I’m gonna say it: fuck free speech, I like myself some censorship. I sincerely believe some things are too harmful to be allowed to openly proliferate, that there’s often a feasible path to reaching that conclusion, and it’s not that difficult.
We mustn’t avoid this because “it harms free speech.” 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.
“But not every case is clear-cut like Nazis,” people will say, “you shouldn’t support censorship, since it can be used for evil. Innocent ideas always get censored, too.” To which I’ll reply, “tell me more about those innocent ideas.” When that happens, tell me. I’ll reach out to people in charge, spread the news, get mad, help you in any way I can to fix it. We’ll do it together. Fucking tell me more.
But lo and behold, many innocent ideas turn out to be dog-whistles or worse, it’s always the same shit.
I don’t care if it’s Substack, or Ghost, or Twitter, or Reddit, or whatever. It’s one thing to platform harmful views unaware. I get it, moderation is hard. Once aware, though, if your response is “but free speech,” fuck off. It is moral and correct to censor Nazis. Same for people saying immigrants will eat your pets, or that gays want to sexualize children, change their genders, and harm women. Fuck that.
Platforms defining themselves on free speech is a red flag. “We’re popular with both extremes” isn’t a defense, it’s a self-report that you’re just a mercenary and like it that way—both sides being users means double the revenue.
Substack may not be Nazi-central, but it’s surely a product of broligarchy.
Most people know this in some capacity, but it’s not talked about enough: the shape of the platform massively shapes its culture. Every mechanism, intentional feature or not, is a factor in resulting user behavior and should be accounted for.
Reddit Karma was (shitty) reputation from the start, but Slashdot user IDs became one despite being mere sequential identifiers; negative user feedback such as downvotes can be harmful to communities (yet, users without an outlet may lash out in other ways e.g. reports); even how the platform communicates with users influences them; and so on.
I’m not saying you shouldn’t be nice and incentivize others to do the same, but unless the system naturally leads to the desired behavior, you’ll have a bad time in the long term because building culture by interactions doesn’t scale. By the time you realize there’s a shift, it’s too late; interactions will compound and affect how the average user acts faster than you can try to course-correct.
I wish lemmy was more experimental, because by building a clone of reddit, we’ve copied too many of its faults. We’ve already got gatherings to complain about mods, and the one time devs considered changing a core component, discussion was killed by an onslaught of users. Problems with the current setup that were brought up then will likely never see that amount of people thinking about how to solve them.
Contrast with Mastodon, which gets crap for not being a faithful copy of twitter, but their reasoning for not including quote-reblogs is understandable. They’re now putting a lot of thought into how to add them safely. Not ignoring functionality users want, but also not ignoring how it will affect culture, that’s compromise.
I’d like it if we could talk more about how our platforms work and, particularly, how they affect us, because that’s a big way we can build better platforms, right up there with being nice.