Well done! I will be rereading this again later today. I too like you have been tumbling down some rabbit holes in my search to understand the Substack Leadership's noticeable silence in response to the SAN letter. I have discovered numerous items of interest which I will be cobbling together into an essay to be published by Friday at the latest.
Thank you! I'll keep an eye out. I don't have high hopes but I'm curious to see what Substack leadership's official response is going to be to all this...
The "free speech absolutists" are disingenuously conflating Substack and the "Marketplace of Ideas" - and are encouraged by Substack to do so. Substack doesn't give a rat's ass about "free speech" - they just want to be the sole and whole "Marketplace of Ideas" to maintain the delusion of "infinite growth" to justify their nose-bleed VC valuations. Full stop.
Yeah, seeing the phrase "Marketplace of Ideas" makes my eyes bleed at this point. The best ideas don't always come out on top when the playing field isn't level.
That's my point. "The playing field isn't level." People who got recruited by Substack or had huge audiences already have a louder voice in the marketplace, not necessarily the best ideas.
But they pretend that because they have the most bestselling authors on their side, they're right about giving open hate speech free reign of the platform. Does that make sense?
Not in the least as your personal definition of hate speech clearly does not align with how it has been defined by current US law. Substack draws a line at incitement violence as does current U.S. law in regard to āhate speechā. You may believe that phrases such as āFrom the River to the sea.ā are hate speech. I may not. Or vice versa. Get the point? Who then gets to decide whether or not that phrase is hate speech? You? Me? A judge that may have finished last in their class in law school? In a marketplace of free ideas (yes, I dare to use invoke that concept) the marketplace decides. Donāt like the product? Produce a better one and prove it. You whine about how certain people were initially recruited by Substack, a private entity, āhave a louder voice in the marketplace not necessarily the best ideasā. According to whom? You?
Who do you think decides what pornography they already remove daily? Porn isn't illegal, so why is Substack censoring it? It's freedom of speech. The marketplace should decide whether or not pornographic content rises to the top, but Substack robs those people of their legal freedom of speech.
Youāve actually made my point. Yes thatās correct, Substack decides what is allowed or not allowed on their platform not the Karens of the Katz/ Kabas censorship cabal.
See, you want to pick and choose when Substack is a private company and when they are bound by US freedom of speech laws as though they are a government. You can't lean on the law so heavily when talking about hate speech and then not apply it equally to porn as well. It's hypocritical.
Hate speech incites violence. Taking this stand in this way encourages more of it. Do you think Richard Spencer, the guy who wants a white ethno-state, who has already used Paypal funds to organize the Unite the Right Rally where a neo-Nazi killed Heather Heyer, should be able to continue getting funds through Substack and a little "Bestseller" badge to promote his image?
Substack is a private company, period. They are subject to U.S. Law, period. Substack is allowed to decide whom they choose whom they allow and whom they disallow on their platform, period. If their policies violate US Law they are subject to the consequences. None of these facts are contradictory or mutually exclusive.
The question is not whether I think Spencer should be able to get funds through Substack (although my understanding is that his site is free subscription only). The question is do the Substack founders think he should. The point is thatās their decision to make. If I donāt like their choice I am free to depart from Substack. The 228 or so writers that donāt like Substacks choices in this matter are free to leave as well.
Richard Spencer's Substack has hundreds of paid subscribers, it's in the essay. US law is insufficient on hate speech, which is why private companies should decide to address it, which is what I am trying to convince them to do using the marketplace of ideas.
You said my "personal definition of hate speech clearly does not align with how it has been defined by current US law" as though this is why Substack doesn't moderate their hate speech. As though there's just no one capable of making that decision. It's ridiculous pretending we can't or shouldn't do anything.
Leadership's position is really clear that they are cool with Nazis directly funding their movement here. And you seem to agree they should do nothing about the Nazis because "freedom of speech." Notably you didn't answer my question which was a real softball, you should have knocked that one out of the park but you dodged it.
I didnāt dodge your question. Your question is nit germane to the point of the debate on this matter. I donāt own Substack. The question at hand is should the owners of Substack change their policies in regard to āhate speechā. Some believe that they should, others do not. My point is that is up to Substackās owners. If you want to stay and whine about their policies youāre free to do that. If you donāt like their policies youāre also free to leave their platform. In fact you probably should right? I mean why would you want associated with a media platform that supports Nazis?
Do you think Richard Spencer, the guy who wants a white ethno-state, who has already used Paypal funds to organize the Unite the Right Rally where a neo-Nazi killed Heather Heyer, should be able to continue getting funds through Substack and a little "Bestseller" badge to promote his image?
There is a difference. You state the former throughout the comments, and the latter in your piece. One implies PayPal is a Nazi supporting entity, the other suggests PayPal is a tool used by Nazis.
I see your point but you're splitting hairs. The funds did come from PayPal users, not the company. Do you think Spencer and other violent Nazis should get to stay and get paid here on Substack?
Uneducated unapologetic dumbass is a spot on self-description! You can also add "ignorant Nazi/Confederate simp." Someday I hope you can see through the seething fog of hate and racism. Bye bye! š
Apparently Substack does and by your continued presence on this platform, you do as well. As a matter of fact I find that your continued presence on a platform that by your own definition, āsupports Nazisā, exposes you as a burgeoning fascist. I find this fact to be extremely disturbing and I demand that you be censored and de-platformed. There,see how this works? I donāt have to pose a stronger argument to debunk your espoused position. I just have to attack your position as offensive and hateful and youāre not allowed to make a counter argument. And, I get to decide whatās offensive or hateful and you must accept my definition and comply with my demands.
Amazing! 3 times I gave you the chance to answer. Seeing as I'm such an authoritarian who froths at the mouth to control speech, I'll ask again, and if you won't answer me I'm going to assume you're a Nazi sympathizer engaging in bad faith and ban you from my page.
Do you think Richard Spencer, the guy who wants a white ethno-state, who has already used Paypal funds to organize the Unite the Right Rally where a neo-Nazi killed Heather Heyer, should be able to continue getting funds through Substack and a little "Bestseller" badge to promote his image?
Thanks for helping organize this whole thing! I wouldn't have been aware of the extent of the problem without that SAN post going up on Substack. Good luck drumming up a response from the Big 3 :)
A cosmic coincidence? Amazing. Glad another fellow Hanlon enjoyed it! Hey you might like this, actually. It's like a blessing/saying that my relatives say goes back in the family a long way:
Dec 21, 2023Ā·edited Dec 21, 2023Liked by James Hanlon
Beautiful! My Irish grandpa fought overseas in WWI and came home to be a firefighter--then later fell through the choir loft of a burning church and crushed both legs. He still managed to visit disabled WWI vets all his life, but didn't give out a whole lot of blessings. (He left the Church because the Pope wouldn't bless Ireland's war against England as a holy war.) He did sometimes growl, " MĆ ithis, nar chacair!" or "May you eat, but not be able to sh-t." I miss him.
ššā¤ļøš Best article I've read - because of the receipts & backgrounders you have convinced me! I was on the "I don't SEE the Nazis because only people who CHOOSE to get to read their vile poison" , so the PAYPAL/Charlotteville funding angle hadn't occurred to me, plus also the porn" censorship" already showing a form of "content moderation" is not only possible, but already in place.
I really love it here with the contributors I choose to follow, either for free (because I am income limited) or subscribe because I really appreciate the community they have built of thoughtful caring people, or the research & journalism they are doing is critical right now.
However, I don't want to be one of these who have to explain after the fact how NAZIS took over in the USA because not enough people fought back against them š”š„µš¤¬š¤·
So, count me in on the supporters of the pleas to Substack overlords to at least do what you suggest... Monitor these problematic contributors on a case-by-case basis, and de-monitise those who transgress. I already know GOOD PEOPLE who have left Substack... Are they REALLY making more from the BAD GUYS than the pool of sane rational empathetic people, who spend more time reading anywayš¤āļø
SO glad to hear that this convinced someone! I feel like people are really looking past the facts on this, respect for changing your view and being open about it. šÆ
Thank you for this thorough and well cited post. I personally think it is very clear that they know exactly what they're doing and have zero plans to stop, and all we can do is make enough of a racket to hurt them as we leave the platform. I hope you're not brigaded by free speech absolutists soon.
The argument is not serious when people donāt admit the limits on free speech we currently enjoy such as truth in advertising/fraud and defamation protections. Unless you want to buy some sugar pills I made that will cure everything.
I'm amazed: 1.) at the number of "writers" who are OK with even a smidgen of censorship, and 2.) the failure to recognize that one can be 100% opposed to the Nazis and also be 100% in favor of unfettered free speech.
Censorship approaches a problem using the tride and true method of out of sight out of mind - nope, no problem here, nothing to see, move along, we got it. Free speech recognizes the problem, brings it into the light, and through refutation, diminishes the problem.
I wish that every single one of the SAN signatories had the courage to go read just one Nazi piece on Substack and then put the same amount of energy they put into their piece about there concerns about the Nazis of Substack into a refutation of said article. That would go further towards solving Substack's Nazi problem than all of the in depth projects arguing for censorship.
So you think an idea like "kill all Jews" is worthy of debate? I should go to the Nazi pages and debate them about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and why all their slurs are wrong?
I've been reading what they have to say and it's genocidal. Debating these ideas instead of dismissing them legitimizes them. We fought a world war over this and you think a little debate is going to change their minds.
In a word, Yes! You present yourself as a skilled wordsmith and quality researcher. You craft a good argument. For you, this should be a walk in the park. A one off to start the day, get those juices flowing. Nonetheless, there is little likelihood that you are going to change Nazi writers and their devotees minds. Your good, but not that good.
What you can do though is persuade the uncertain, the uninitiated, and the curious that these are foul and vile ideas without merit. You can't cure the cancer, but you can hinder its growth. Allowing the Nazis to stay on Substack keeps them in the light, banning them sends them back into the dark to continue their poisonous acts. I guarantee that in the dark recesses to which they scurry, there are no skilled wordsmiths nor intellectuals that can match what one finds here. So yes, they should be allowed to continue to operate on Substack, because this battlefield should be a hostile and unfavorable place for them.
Absurd. Lies get halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on. Allowing them to spread their propaganda freely and openly helps them recruit more to their cause.
Substack is not hostile or unfavorable to Nazi ideas! It's welcoming them in, to allow their ideas space to fester and flourish. America is already enough of a breeding ground for ideas like "immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country." If you're likening Nazi ideas to cancer, keeping voices like Richard Spencer on Substack is letting them metastasize instead of doing surgery.
I can't believe I just asked you if "kill all Jews" is an idea worth debating and you happily replied "Yes!"
Happily? You write better than you read. Moreover, it is clear that you would rather try and convince me that your preferred course of action is best rather than take your skills and directly confront and refute the Nazi ideals at their source.
Once upon a time, a group dealt with ideas they found subversive or as representing ideologies they opposed in a manner similar to what you propose. We fought a World War to deal with them, and frankly, I find your desire to limit speech to be a much greater threat than the 20 or so Nazi Substacks. Unlike you though, I'm willing to confront the problem I'm concerned about directly.
We clearly differ on how to handle the Nazi "problem," and we clearly differ regarding our views on free speech. You wish for others to solve the problem so you can go on doing your thing without having to think about the unpleasant Nazi next door, even if that means limiting free speech. I'm willing to tolerate the discomfort of having a Nazi next door in order to preserve freedom of speech.
Grow a pair for Christ's sake. Go comment on Spencer's Substack until he bans you. Read his pieces and write a refutation as thorough as the piece you wrote here for every single one of them. Sitting here arguing with me is easy. Go do the hard work yourself. Take your First Ammendment rights and use them for God's sake before your compatriots manage to censor themselves out of business.
As for me, I expect you to block me soon, like you did that other chap. If you do, I get it. Substack's controls will have worked as designed. I think you're wrong about how to solve "Substack's Nazi problem," but I will argue and fight to the death to preserve your right to express your errant beliefs.
So you legitimately believe that me going to Richard Spencer's page and the other Nazis' pages and debating them directly is going to have more impact than appealing to the people who actually have the power to do anything about it. Richard Spencer has already said everything he needs to say for any reasonable person to draw conclusions about him. He is a violent racist who preaches Nazi ideology and wants to establish a white ethno-state in America.
As for blocking you, what I've been doing is asking this question to people who come here to defend the Nazis' right to continue their rhetoric of violence. Most of the free-speechers won't answer so I have to keep repeating myself. You've already been pretty clear what you're willing to tolerate but I'll ask anyway.
So do you think Richard Spencer, the guy who wants a white ethno-state, who has already used Paypal funds to organize the Unite the Right Rally where a neo-Nazi murdered Heather Heyer, should be able to continue getting funds through Substack and a little "Bestseller" badge to promote his image?
Deplatforming works, it just does. I linked my evidence in the piece but you're just talking past it.
Debating Nazi ideas legitimizes them. Me going to Nazi Substacks and debating them is not going to change anyone's mind. You're delusional if you think that's going to help.
PayPal funds = people donated to him through PayPal. It's in the essay, again. PayPal revoked his ability to collect funds after UTR. Substack in the same way is not directly funding him but allowing him to receive funds here.
He wouldn't have a home to easily get funding if Substack didn't allow him to stay. Deplatforming works. It inhibits his ability to get funds and keep the movement going. You know the whole ethno state thing, which doesn't happen peacefully.
Lol you agree he shouldn't be making money here but you disagree we should pull the plug on him. OK. Another free speech warrior thinks we can stop the Nazis if we just out-debate them instead of doing something actually effective.
Well so long! Nice knowing you. I've wasted enough time debating you.
This is excellent! I have been trying to articulate some of these points --especially about the way fascists arenāt speaking to convey ideas but to disrupt reasoning and to lie--and I simply never quite nailed all of them plus some other very important ones about the context of these concerns (which I am glad you care about being fair to) in the whole Twitter files yadda yadda. I completely forgot about that. Thank you, this is so clear and helpful.
I have avoided this topic til now and i think your's is a good intro.
I'm interested in censorship as i had a couple of short term bans from Twitter for saying that eg Fauci failed at an HIV vaccine, for mentioning MMR and autism in the same sentence and then i was permanently banned for saying that there's no evidence that viruses exist, which there isn't. I wrote to Musk several times when he took over and X finally unsuspended me after a few months.
I'm still really amazed that i can say what i like on here. That i can talk about the scientific evidence for lockdowns and vaccines without being censored. What a concept! And what does it say that i'm still so amazed i can do this?!
I also read Taibbi's Stack until he wrote a post critical of support for Palestine, or rather critical of those against a genocide. He hasn't said much on the most pressing topic of our time since i don't think but certainly Bari Weiss is pro Israel- and therefore pro an ethno state and therefore a Nazi and i'm not surprised they don't want to be banned and lose their income.
The world Nazi is bandied about. The Israelis called Hamas Nazis and the UK government and X is trying to ban saying Free Palestine because they say it means kill all Jews.
So we have to be careful what we are banning and who gets to say who is a Nazi.
I would think it would be better for Substack to refuse to be used as a vehicle for white supremacists to make money.
People argue that pornography is 'free speech'. I don't think it is. Images are different to words. Substack is allowed to veto what goes on their platform, especially as there is very little control of porn elsewhere and violent porn is freely available to minors. Page 3 wasn't banned but we just don't want to subscribe to platforms with that shit.
Same with white supremacy and fascism. Don't ban them from speaking, let them say their hate speech, debate the hell out of them and make them look stupid. But Substack is allowed to chose not to monetise, promote nor have them on their site.
Michael Shellenburger (another co signatory) also tired to control what some free speech organisation fellow committee member CJ Hopkins said! I can't link to the piece as CJ Hopkins has banned me!
Vaccine disinformation is another difficult topic to moderate, but you'd likely run into fewer issues if you didn't use headlines like "There is no covid" and cited sources.
Interesting. Who gets to decide what is 'disinformation' I wonder James? Companies such as Google and Facebook who are heavily invested in vaccine technology? Or government officials who are share holders in big pharma?
Scientific debate should not be moderated in anyway.
Everyone on the 'left' has swallowed unquestioningly what they have been told. It's not only bad for their health but also very disappointing.
What is covid James? A combination of common detox symptoms and a positive result for a test never scientifically validated?
Ferguson's claims came out before there had been many deaths from the alleged new disease 'covid' which he said was as bad as the 1918 flu and they were unfounded, unevidenced and absurb. In March 2020 he said ' The global impact of COVID-19 has been profound, and the public health threat it represents is the most serious seen in a respiratory virus since the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic". Yet on March 18th 2020 'covid' was downgraded from a HIgh Consequence Infectious disease as everyone knew the low death rate and that most were unaffected by it. Seems like a contradiction to me. Why should i be moderated for pointing this out? Unless because it goes against the narrative that made a shed load of money for pharma and their share holders in government. Why was a vaccine policy continued for a low consequence disease?
Yes some deaths were labelled as 'covid' but 'The 4.25 million global deaths figure over 17 months attributed to COVID-19 (mostly elderly) must also be seen in the context of deaths expected in the global population of 7.9 billion during that time, i.e. around 83.9 million deaths over 17 months
Over a million dead since 2020. I'm going to respectfully ask you to stop sharing links to your material here. I'll let what you've said stand so people can make their own decisions, but I don't believe you.
> also forefront of pushing the Sinophobic lab leak theory.
Wow, that the new bat-based Coronavirus just so happened to show up in the only BSL-4 lab in China that was also studying bat-based Coronaviruses. Must be a complete coincidence.
So you don't think the neo-Nazis did anything wrong?
Do you think Richard Spencer, the guy who wants a white ethno-state, who has already used Paypal funds to organize the 2017 Unite the Right Rally where a neo-Nazi killed Heather Heyer, should be able to continue getting funds through Substack and a little "Bestseller" badge to promote his image?
That guy with the Nazi flag in the middle? Neo-Nazi. That's who I'm talking about. You didn't quite finish answering the question either, but I'm guessing that's a "yup I'm cool with violent Nazis like Richard Spencer getting paid on Substack."
The most important part: āWhat we all need to understand is that fascists are fundamentally not obligated to take language seriously. They will say ANYTHING.ā
Secondly, itās been remarkable to see how many people screaming BUT FREE SPEECH clearly havenāt read the SAN letter, which is not long or complicated.
> The most important part: āWhat we all need to understand is that fascists are fundamentally not obligated to take language seriously. They will say ANYTHING.ā
Apparently, neither do the self-proclaimed "anti-fascists" only more so.
Well done! I will be rereading this again later today. I too like you have been tumbling down some rabbit holes in my search to understand the Substack Leadership's noticeable silence in response to the SAN letter. I have discovered numerous items of interest which I will be cobbling together into an essay to be published by Friday at the latest.
Thank you! I'll keep an eye out. I don't have high hopes but I'm curious to see what Substack leadership's official response is going to be to all this...
The "free speech absolutists" are disingenuously conflating Substack and the "Marketplace of Ideas" - and are encouraged by Substack to do so. Substack doesn't give a rat's ass about "free speech" - they just want to be the sole and whole "Marketplace of Ideas" to maintain the delusion of "infinite growth" to justify their nose-bleed VC valuations. Full stop.
Yeah, seeing the phrase "Marketplace of Ideas" makes my eyes bleed at this point. The best ideas don't always come out on top when the playing field isn't level.
Life is not played on a level playing field. Grow a pair.
That's my point. "The playing field isn't level." People who got recruited by Substack or had huge audiences already have a louder voice in the marketplace, not necessarily the best ideas.
But they pretend that because they have the most bestselling authors on their side, they're right about giving open hate speech free reign of the platform. Does that make sense?
Not in the least as your personal definition of hate speech clearly does not align with how it has been defined by current US law. Substack draws a line at incitement violence as does current U.S. law in regard to āhate speechā. You may believe that phrases such as āFrom the River to the sea.ā are hate speech. I may not. Or vice versa. Get the point? Who then gets to decide whether or not that phrase is hate speech? You? Me? A judge that may have finished last in their class in law school? In a marketplace of free ideas (yes, I dare to use invoke that concept) the marketplace decides. Donāt like the product? Produce a better one and prove it. You whine about how certain people were initially recruited by Substack, a private entity, āhave a louder voice in the marketplace not necessarily the best ideasā. According to whom? You?
Please.
Who do you think decides what pornography they already remove daily? Porn isn't illegal, so why is Substack censoring it? It's freedom of speech. The marketplace should decide whether or not pornographic content rises to the top, but Substack robs those people of their legal freedom of speech.
Youāve actually made my point. Yes thatās correct, Substack decides what is allowed or not allowed on their platform not the Karens of the Katz/ Kabas censorship cabal.
See, you want to pick and choose when Substack is a private company and when they are bound by US freedom of speech laws as though they are a government. You can't lean on the law so heavily when talking about hate speech and then not apply it equally to porn as well. It's hypocritical.
Hate speech incites violence. Taking this stand in this way encourages more of it. Do you think Richard Spencer, the guy who wants a white ethno-state, who has already used Paypal funds to organize the Unite the Right Rally where a neo-Nazi killed Heather Heyer, should be able to continue getting funds through Substack and a little "Bestseller" badge to promote his image?
Substack is a private company, period. They are subject to U.S. Law, period. Substack is allowed to decide whom they choose whom they allow and whom they disallow on their platform, period. If their policies violate US Law they are subject to the consequences. None of these facts are contradictory or mutually exclusive.
The question is not whether I think Spencer should be able to get funds through Substack (although my understanding is that his site is free subscription only). The question is do the Substack founders think he should. The point is thatās their decision to make. If I donāt like their choice I am free to depart from Substack. The 228 or so writers that donāt like Substacks choices in this matter are free to leave as well.
Richard Spencer's Substack has hundreds of paid subscribers, it's in the essay. US law is insufficient on hate speech, which is why private companies should decide to address it, which is what I am trying to convince them to do using the marketplace of ideas.
You said my "personal definition of hate speech clearly does not align with how it has been defined by current US law" as though this is why Substack doesn't moderate their hate speech. As though there's just no one capable of making that decision. It's ridiculous pretending we can't or shouldn't do anything.
Leadership's position is really clear that they are cool with Nazis directly funding their movement here. And you seem to agree they should do nothing about the Nazis because "freedom of speech." Notably you didn't answer my question which was a real softball, you should have knocked that one out of the park but you dodged it.
I didnāt dodge your question. Your question is nit germane to the point of the debate on this matter. I donāt own Substack. The question at hand is should the owners of Substack change their policies in regard to āhate speechā. Some believe that they should, others do not. My point is that is up to Substackās owners. If you want to stay and whine about their policies youāre free to do that. If you donāt like their policies youāre also free to leave their platform. In fact you probably should right? I mean why would you want associated with a media platform that supports Nazis?
Do you think Richard Spencer, the guy who wants a white ethno-state, who has already used Paypal funds to organize the Unite the Right Rally where a neo-Nazi killed Heather Heyer, should be able to continue getting funds through Substack and a little "Bestseller" badge to promote his image?
"Used PayPal funds...?"
Used PayPal to fund?
There is a difference. You state the former throughout the comments, and the latter in your piece. One implies PayPal is a Nazi supporting entity, the other suggests PayPal is a tool used by Nazis.
I see your point but you're splitting hairs. The funds did come from PayPal users, not the company. Do you think Spencer and other violent Nazis should get to stay and get paid here on Substack?
Uneducated unapologetic dumbass is a spot on self-description! You can also add "ignorant Nazi/Confederate simp." Someday I hope you can see through the seething fog of hate and racism. Bye bye! š
Apparently Substack does and by your continued presence on this platform, you do as well. As a matter of fact I find that your continued presence on a platform that by your own definition, āsupports Nazisā, exposes you as a burgeoning fascist. I find this fact to be extremely disturbing and I demand that you be censored and de-platformed. There,see how this works? I donāt have to pose a stronger argument to debunk your espoused position. I just have to attack your position as offensive and hateful and youāre not allowed to make a counter argument. And, I get to decide whatās offensive or hateful and you must accept my definition and comply with my demands.
Amazing! 3 times I gave you the chance to answer. Seeing as I'm such an authoritarian who froths at the mouth to control speech, I'll ask again, and if you won't answer me I'm going to assume you're a Nazi sympathizer engaging in bad faith and ban you from my page.
Do you think Richard Spencer, the guy who wants a white ethno-state, who has already used Paypal funds to organize the Unite the Right Rally where a neo-Nazi killed Heather Heyer, should be able to continue getting funds through Substack and a little "Bestseller" badge to promote his image?
I already did write them a sternly worded email. You're commenting on it. Bye bye.
This is the most complete, best contextualized explanation and argument for action I have seen on this topic thus far. Thank you.
Thank you so much, I really appreciate it.
šššÆ I will comment separately, but you've put it perfectly š¤·
Seconded. Thank you.
This is so well-articulated! Thank you, James.
Wow thank you!! I love your page - now I know where to find seemingly everything I could ever need to know about bread š
Hope to see you there, James!
š„š„š„š„š„š„
Thanks for helping organize this whole thing! I wouldn't have been aware of the extent of the problem without that SAN post going up on Substack. Good luck drumming up a response from the Big 3 :)
Hopefully your piece will add to the pressure for them to respond! Really, really good stuff. Thank you.
Awesome, well researched and beautifully drafted, the most complete article on the subject Iāve read! (Full disclosure: my maiden name was Hanlon.)
A cosmic coincidence? Amazing. Glad another fellow Hanlon enjoyed it! Hey you might like this, actually. It's like a blessing/saying that my relatives say goes back in the family a long way:
May your troubles be less
And your fortunes be more
And nothing but happiness
Come through your door.
š
Beautiful! My Irish grandpa fought overseas in WWI and came home to be a firefighter--then later fell through the choir loft of a burning church and crushed both legs. He still managed to visit disabled WWI vets all his life, but didn't give out a whole lot of blessings. (He left the Church because the Pope wouldn't bless Ireland's war against England as a holy war.) He did sometimes growl, " MĆ ithis, nar chacair!" or "May you eat, but not be able to sh-t." I miss him.
Thanks for sharing, I'm going to remember this.
He still won't sleep with you.
ššā¤ļøš Best article I've read - because of the receipts & backgrounders you have convinced me! I was on the "I don't SEE the Nazis because only people who CHOOSE to get to read their vile poison" , so the PAYPAL/Charlotteville funding angle hadn't occurred to me, plus also the porn" censorship" already showing a form of "content moderation" is not only possible, but already in place.
I really love it here with the contributors I choose to follow, either for free (because I am income limited) or subscribe because I really appreciate the community they have built of thoughtful caring people, or the research & journalism they are doing is critical right now.
However, I don't want to be one of these who have to explain after the fact how NAZIS took over in the USA because not enough people fought back against them š”š„µš¤¬š¤·
So, count me in on the supporters of the pleas to Substack overlords to at least do what you suggest... Monitor these problematic contributors on a case-by-case basis, and de-monitise those who transgress. I already know GOOD PEOPLE who have left Substack... Are they REALLY making more from the BAD GUYS than the pool of sane rational empathetic people, who spend more time reading anywayš¤āļø
SO glad to hear that this convinced someone! I feel like people are really looking past the facts on this, respect for changing your view and being open about it. šÆ
Thank you for this thorough and well cited post. I personally think it is very clear that they know exactly what they're doing and have zero plans to stop, and all we can do is make enough of a racket to hurt them as we leave the platform. I hope you're not brigaded by free speech absolutists soon.
lol same
I think it's beginning, my dude. Hang in there.
Yeah, found a Nazi in here already literally posting excerpts from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. š
That can't be right! Substack is a walled garden and you are fully in control! Any change to the status quo would mean substack decides what we read!
The argument is not serious when people donāt admit the limits on free speech we currently enjoy such as truth in advertising/fraud and defamation protections. Unless you want to buy some sugar pills I made that will cure everything.
Exactly, there are already limits and they act like those don't exist.
> such as truth in advertising/fraud and defamation protections.
And those have also been abused by would be censors.
Limits we enjoy? Limits we tolerate.
I'm amazed: 1.) at the number of "writers" who are OK with even a smidgen of censorship, and 2.) the failure to recognize that one can be 100% opposed to the Nazis and also be 100% in favor of unfettered free speech.
Censorship approaches a problem using the tride and true method of out of sight out of mind - nope, no problem here, nothing to see, move along, we got it. Free speech recognizes the problem, brings it into the light, and through refutation, diminishes the problem.
I wish that every single one of the SAN signatories had the courage to go read just one Nazi piece on Substack and then put the same amount of energy they put into their piece about there concerns about the Nazis of Substack into a refutation of said article. That would go further towards solving Substack's Nazi problem than all of the in depth projects arguing for censorship.
So you think an idea like "kill all Jews" is worthy of debate? I should go to the Nazi pages and debate them about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and why all their slurs are wrong?
I've been reading what they have to say and it's genocidal. Debating these ideas instead of dismissing them legitimizes them. We fought a world war over this and you think a little debate is going to change their minds.
In a word, Yes! You present yourself as a skilled wordsmith and quality researcher. You craft a good argument. For you, this should be a walk in the park. A one off to start the day, get those juices flowing. Nonetheless, there is little likelihood that you are going to change Nazi writers and their devotees minds. Your good, but not that good.
What you can do though is persuade the uncertain, the uninitiated, and the curious that these are foul and vile ideas without merit. You can't cure the cancer, but you can hinder its growth. Allowing the Nazis to stay on Substack keeps them in the light, banning them sends them back into the dark to continue their poisonous acts. I guarantee that in the dark recesses to which they scurry, there are no skilled wordsmiths nor intellectuals that can match what one finds here. So yes, they should be allowed to continue to operate on Substack, because this battlefield should be a hostile and unfavorable place for them.
Absurd. Lies get halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on. Allowing them to spread their propaganda freely and openly helps them recruit more to their cause.
Substack is not hostile or unfavorable to Nazi ideas! It's welcoming them in, to allow their ideas space to fester and flourish. America is already enough of a breeding ground for ideas like "immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country." If you're likening Nazi ideas to cancer, keeping voices like Richard Spencer on Substack is letting them metastasize instead of doing surgery.
I can't believe I just asked you if "kill all Jews" is an idea worth debating and you happily replied "Yes!"
Happily? You write better than you read. Moreover, it is clear that you would rather try and convince me that your preferred course of action is best rather than take your skills and directly confront and refute the Nazi ideals at their source.
Once upon a time, a group dealt with ideas they found subversive or as representing ideologies they opposed in a manner similar to what you propose. We fought a World War to deal with them, and frankly, I find your desire to limit speech to be a much greater threat than the 20 or so Nazi Substacks. Unlike you though, I'm willing to confront the problem I'm concerned about directly.
We clearly differ on how to handle the Nazi "problem," and we clearly differ regarding our views on free speech. You wish for others to solve the problem so you can go on doing your thing without having to think about the unpleasant Nazi next door, even if that means limiting free speech. I'm willing to tolerate the discomfort of having a Nazi next door in order to preserve freedom of speech.
Grow a pair for Christ's sake. Go comment on Spencer's Substack until he bans you. Read his pieces and write a refutation as thorough as the piece you wrote here for every single one of them. Sitting here arguing with me is easy. Go do the hard work yourself. Take your First Ammendment rights and use them for God's sake before your compatriots manage to censor themselves out of business.
As for me, I expect you to block me soon, like you did that other chap. If you do, I get it. Substack's controls will have worked as designed. I think you're wrong about how to solve "Substack's Nazi problem," but I will argue and fight to the death to preserve your right to express your errant beliefs.
So you legitimately believe that me going to Richard Spencer's page and the other Nazis' pages and debating them directly is going to have more impact than appealing to the people who actually have the power to do anything about it. Richard Spencer has already said everything he needs to say for any reasonable person to draw conclusions about him. He is a violent racist who preaches Nazi ideology and wants to establish a white ethno-state in America.
As for blocking you, what I've been doing is asking this question to people who come here to defend the Nazis' right to continue their rhetoric of violence. Most of the free-speechers won't answer so I have to keep repeating myself. You've already been pretty clear what you're willing to tolerate but I'll ask anyway.
So do you think Richard Spencer, the guy who wants a white ethno-state, who has already used Paypal funds to organize the Unite the Right Rally where a neo-Nazi murdered Heather Heyer, should be able to continue getting funds through Substack and a little "Bestseller" badge to promote his image?
Deplatforming works, it just does. I linked my evidence in the piece but you're just talking past it.
Debating Nazi ideas legitimizes them. Me going to Nazi Substacks and debating them is not going to change anyone's mind. You're delusional if you think that's going to help.
PayPal funds = people donated to him through PayPal. It's in the essay, again. PayPal revoked his ability to collect funds after UTR. Substack in the same way is not directly funding him but allowing him to receive funds here.
He wouldn't have a home to easily get funding if Substack didn't allow him to stay. Deplatforming works. It inhibits his ability to get funds and keep the movement going. You know the whole ethno state thing, which doesn't happen peacefully.
Lol you agree he shouldn't be making money here but you disagree we should pull the plug on him. OK. Another free speech warrior thinks we can stop the Nazis if we just out-debate them instead of doing something actually effective.
Well so long! Nice knowing you. I've wasted enough time debating you.
This is excellent! I have been trying to articulate some of these points --especially about the way fascists arenāt speaking to convey ideas but to disrupt reasoning and to lie--and I simply never quite nailed all of them plus some other very important ones about the context of these concerns (which I am glad you care about being fair to) in the whole Twitter files yadda yadda. I completely forgot about that. Thank you, this is so clear and helpful.
Iām not Jewish you dumb Nazi
Thanks for your comment, sorry you had to deal with a Nazi. Slurs + antisemitic conspiracies if anyone was wondering. Banned.
I have avoided this topic til now and i think your's is a good intro.
I'm interested in censorship as i had a couple of short term bans from Twitter for saying that eg Fauci failed at an HIV vaccine, for mentioning MMR and autism in the same sentence and then i was permanently banned for saying that there's no evidence that viruses exist, which there isn't. I wrote to Musk several times when he took over and X finally unsuspended me after a few months.
I'm still really amazed that i can say what i like on here. That i can talk about the scientific evidence for lockdowns and vaccines without being censored. What a concept! And what does it say that i'm still so amazed i can do this?!
I also read Taibbi's Stack until he wrote a post critical of support for Palestine, or rather critical of those against a genocide. He hasn't said much on the most pressing topic of our time since i don't think but certainly Bari Weiss is pro Israel- and therefore pro an ethno state and therefore a Nazi and i'm not surprised they don't want to be banned and lose their income.
The world Nazi is bandied about. The Israelis called Hamas Nazis and the UK government and X is trying to ban saying Free Palestine because they say it means kill all Jews.
So we have to be careful what we are banning and who gets to say who is a Nazi.
I would think it would be better for Substack to refuse to be used as a vehicle for white supremacists to make money.
People argue that pornography is 'free speech'. I don't think it is. Images are different to words. Substack is allowed to veto what goes on their platform, especially as there is very little control of porn elsewhere and violent porn is freely available to minors. Page 3 wasn't banned but we just don't want to subscribe to platforms with that shit.
Same with white supremacy and fascism. Don't ban them from speaking, let them say their hate speech, debate the hell out of them and make them look stupid. But Substack is allowed to chose not to monetise, promote nor have them on their site.
I just remembered that Douglas Murray, a director of the Free Speech Union, has also revealed himself as a total Zionazi.
Michael Shellenburger (another co signatory) also tired to control what some free speech organisation fellow committee member CJ Hopkins said! I can't link to the piece as CJ Hopkins has banned me!
Interesting too that a lot of these free speech signatories, along with being Zionazis, are also forefront of pushing the Sinophobic lab leak theory. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/xi-and-li-and-the-great-hoax
Eat shit, Nazi scum
Vaccine disinformation is another difficult topic to moderate, but you'd likely run into fewer issues if you didn't use headlines like "There is no covid" and cited sources.
Interesting. Who gets to decide what is 'disinformation' I wonder James? Companies such as Google and Facebook who are heavily invested in vaccine technology? Or government officials who are share holders in big pharma?
Scientific debate should not be moderated in anyway.
The sources i was referring to were the Cormen Drosten paper in Eurosurveillence https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045 and the Fan Wu et al paper in Nature https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32015508/ about the detection of a novel Coronavirus. I just assumed that everyone interested in the topic had read them. I've linked them in now for your convenience in case you haven't or need a refresher.
Everyone on the 'left' has swallowed unquestioningly what they have been told. It's not only bad for their health but also very disappointing.
What is covid James? A combination of common detox symptoms and a positive result for a test never scientifically validated?
Ferguson's claims came out before there had been many deaths from the alleged new disease 'covid' which he said was as bad as the 1918 flu and they were unfounded, unevidenced and absurb. In March 2020 he said ' The global impact of COVID-19 has been profound, and the public health threat it represents is the most serious seen in a respiratory virus since the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic". Yet on March 18th 2020 'covid' was downgraded from a HIgh Consequence Infectious disease as everyone knew the low death rate and that most were unaffected by it. Seems like a contradiction to me. Why should i be moderated for pointing this out? Unless because it goes against the narrative that made a shed load of money for pharma and their share holders in government. Why was a vaccine policy continued for a low consequence disease?
Yes some deaths were labelled as 'covid' but 'The 4.25 million global deaths figure over 17 months attributed to COVID-19 (mostly elderly) must also be seen in the context of deaths expected in the global population of 7.9 billion during that time, i.e. around 83.9 million deaths over 17 months
Jo
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#maps_deaths-total
Over a million dead since 2020. I'm going to respectfully ask you to stop sharing links to your material here. I'll let what you've said stand so people can make their own decisions, but I don't believe you.
I despair.
> along with being Zionazis
So "it's not antisemitism if I call the Jews Nazis first". Thanks for your brilliant take.
> also forefront of pushing the Sinophobic lab leak theory.
Wow, that the new bat-based Coronavirus just so happened to show up in the only BSL-4 lab in China that was also studying bat-based Coronaviruses. Must be a complete coincidence.
When you say that Richard Spencer has harmed people, what are you referring to?
Specifically the Unite the Right Rally where Heather Heyer was murdered by a neo-Nazi who rammed his car into a crowd.
After said crowd surrounded his car and threatened to drag him out and beat him.
So you don't think the neo-Nazis did anything wrong?
Do you think Richard Spencer, the guy who wants a white ethno-state, who has already used Paypal funds to organize the 2017 Unite the Right Rally where a neo-Nazi killed Heather Heyer, should be able to continue getting funds through Substack and a little "Bestseller" badge to promote his image?
> So you don't think the neo-Nazis did anything wrong?
First stop calling people "neo-Nazis" just because you disagree with them.
> Do you think Richard Spencer, the guy who wants a white ethno-state,
I mean I suppose you think only non-Whites should be allowed ethnostates.
> where a neo-Nazi killed Heather Heyer,
Well she shouldn't have been part of a mob trying to drag people out of their cars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally#/media/File:Charlottesville_'Unite_the_Right'_Rally_(35780274914)_crop.jpg
That guy with the Nazi flag in the middle? Neo-Nazi. That's who I'm talking about. You didn't quite finish answering the question either, but I'm guessing that's a "yup I'm cool with violent Nazis like Richard Spencer getting paid on Substack."
> That guy with the Nazi flag in the middle?
So someone showed up to a protest with a Nazi flag. So what? He has a right to free speech just like everyone else in this country.
> "yup I'm cool with violent Nazis like Richard Spencer getting paid on Substack."
Where by "violent" you mean, has supporters who don't want to be dragged from their cars and beaten.
You appear to have introduced nuance to this conversation. Thatās going to confuse a lot of people!
Good analysis, really appreciate the time you put into this.
Also, science fiction, you say...?
Dude! You're one of the first people I subscribed to on here, thank you for reading! š
Here's the first part of my sci-fi short story to introduce my universe:
https://jhanlon.substack.com/p/strange-harvest-part-i
> You appear to have introduced nuance to this conversation.
Really? Where are you finding anything resembling nuance in this article?
The most important part: āWhat we all need to understand is that fascists are fundamentally not obligated to take language seriously. They will say ANYTHING.ā
Secondly, itās been remarkable to see how many people screaming BUT FREE SPEECH clearly havenāt read the SAN letter, which is not long or complicated.
> The most important part: āWhat we all need to understand is that fascists are fundamentally not obligated to take language seriously. They will say ANYTHING.ā
Apparently, neither do the self-proclaimed "anti-fascists" only more so.