I really appreciate the opportunity here to discuss our diverging opinions on this. I'm a big fan of your work and think the dialogue illustrates that social media platforms have the bandwidth to accommodate many different viewpoints. The reason many of us are on Substack is because we have witnessed an incredible uptick in censorship by legacy media and on other social media platforms. We value free expression and Substack has promised to be that champion. I imagine if you asked Jonathan Katz, he'd agree with that last statement.
Media platforms are the town squares of our day despite being private companies and have been granted unique 230 status under the law providing immunity from liability based on third party content. They also have the ability to moderate certain illegal content (ie porn, sex trafficking) intending to protect harm to children primarily. Some proponents of censorship in government have recently pushed to get rid of the 230 status, leaving social media platforms open to litigation and government regulation. In my opinion, this is a dangerous idea.
I can also point to recent revelations uncovered by Matt Taibi and Michael Shellenburger and presented to congress that showed social media changing it's terms of service under government pressure to accommodate the censoring of domestic enemies of the state. Platforms used as shields basically. I'm going to take it on good faith that this has not happened to Substack ...yet this is kinda what Katz wants to have happen.
The intent of the letter you signed is to persuade Substack to censor speech that is objectionable (and yes, objectionable to most people on the site and I would guess to the Substack leadership). You are all within your free speech right to object and protest of course. It will be interesting to hear their response. But I sure hope Substack doesn't fold and remains an arena for everyone regardless of their opinions and ideas. Imagine for a minute if a group of staunch patriots of democracy wrote a letter to Substack saying that Joe Mayall's website is full of unamerican socialist propaganda and they want it removed? I'm exaggerating to make a point but you see where I'm going with this.
Personally, I don't see the rampant Nazi propaganda that Katz has claimed is all over Substack but I'm sure there is some and, to me, none of it is good. But again, free speech applies to all speech, not just speech I find acceptable.
Again, thanks for the permission to discuss this with you on your website and for the chance to express my opinions.
Hi Tina, I too am grateful for your thorough and thoughtful contribution. It's always a pleasure interacting with you, even when we disagree. :)
I'd start by saying I don't want the 230 status laws to be changed, and I don't think it's fair to assume Mr. Katz wants them to be changed either. Of course, I can't read his mind, but I haven't seen anything from him mentioning it. I don't think we should prescribe beliefs to people if they haven't articulated them.
Second, I think this sentence is the crux of our differences: "But I sure hope Substack doesn't fold and remains an arena for everyone regardless of their opinions and ideas."
I actually don't think society needs to remain open to every idea. Of course, I don't want the government to step in and censor speech, but that is different from what private individuals should accept. (I don't want the government to make it illegal to cheat on your spouse, but I still don't want to be friends with scumbags who frequently cheat on their wives.)
For example, if you hosted a dinner party, the dinner table discussion would likely be wide-ranging, and guests would likely say things you disagree with. BUT, if someone started showing porn or talking about how Hitler was right, you would probably ask them to leave, because that's outside the norms of acceptable society. But again, you would likely not call the cops on them to arrest them, as they broke no law.
I think we'll disagree here, but thank you for your well-intentioned discussion and contribution.
(This is reminding me that it's probably a good time to write an article on my thoughts on speech, the 1st Amendment, and more.)
I respectfully disagree with you here, Joe. The first amendment protects all speech even speech with which the consensus may abhor. That is the point of the protection. The protections also give people who the right to counter abhorant speech. I can point to he ACLU and Skokie Supreme Court case as one example.
You are a purveyor of history, you know well that our society has evolved over the years to reject certain speech that was once accepted. If not for the protections, the black civil rights movement, the feminist movement, the gay liberation movements which were unpopular (even illegal) ideas at the time may never have happened. Change happens as the movements grow and society's attitudes decide to embrace the new norms, not because speech or behavior is mandated.
Regulating speech presents a further complication when you consider who gets to decide what speech is okay and which is not. Let's look at the last 3 years. Anyone who questioned the COVID narrative was not only called out by the government and their paid mouthpiece, the legacy media, as conspiracy kooks which indeed they are free to do but they crossed they line and went much further than what the first amendment allows. They regulated, censored and punished individuals for their differing point of view or even for questioning the established narrative, most of which we now know was incorrect.
So while I know you and most reasonable people (the majority) are reacting to the vile speech and ideas of Nazism. The answer is not shutting it down, regulating speech thereby setting a precedent of weakening the first amendment, and forcing hate groups underground (which is what happens) but to speak out, protest and hopefully in the end turn the tide of hate into love.
Hey Tina, I appreciate your thoughtfulness here, but I need to clarify one thing:
The above letter does not pertain to the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment prevents the government from censoring speech. If the government were telling Substack what can and cannot be published on it's platform, you and I would aligned on stopping that, for many of the reasons you mentioned.
BUT, this is not what the letter is calling for. The letter is calling for Substack leadership, who are proprietors of a private company, to clarify if they are comfortable with the Nazi messaging on their platform. As Substack is a company and not a government entity, the 1st Amendment is uninvolved.
The letter isn't calling for government censorship of any speech. In fact, it's not calling on the government to do anything. It's calling for private individuals to clarify if they will continue to allow Nazi messaging on their site.
In a Note on Jan 10, you asked me "Do you think Nazism is Socialism?"
Thank you for your patience. Here is your answer:
Yes, National Socialism is a form of Socialism, but not the only form.
Given that you seem to be on a campaign to ban Nazis, you should at least understand what they stood for.
If you disagree, please respond in the comment section of this article. I am happy to debate the evidence, as long as you agree to the commenting rules.
I really appreciate the opportunity here to discuss our diverging opinions on this. I'm a big fan of your work and think the dialogue illustrates that social media platforms have the bandwidth to accommodate many different viewpoints. The reason many of us are on Substack is because we have witnessed an incredible uptick in censorship by legacy media and on other social media platforms. We value free expression and Substack has promised to be that champion. I imagine if you asked Jonathan Katz, he'd agree with that last statement.
Media platforms are the town squares of our day despite being private companies and have been granted unique 230 status under the law providing immunity from liability based on third party content. They also have the ability to moderate certain illegal content (ie porn, sex trafficking) intending to protect harm to children primarily. Some proponents of censorship in government have recently pushed to get rid of the 230 status, leaving social media platforms open to litigation and government regulation. In my opinion, this is a dangerous idea.
I can also point to recent revelations uncovered by Matt Taibi and Michael Shellenburger and presented to congress that showed social media changing it's terms of service under government pressure to accommodate the censoring of domestic enemies of the state. Platforms used as shields basically. I'm going to take it on good faith that this has not happened to Substack ...yet this is kinda what Katz wants to have happen.
The intent of the letter you signed is to persuade Substack to censor speech that is objectionable (and yes, objectionable to most people on the site and I would guess to the Substack leadership). You are all within your free speech right to object and protest of course. It will be interesting to hear their response. But I sure hope Substack doesn't fold and remains an arena for everyone regardless of their opinions and ideas. Imagine for a minute if a group of staunch patriots of democracy wrote a letter to Substack saying that Joe Mayall's website is full of unamerican socialist propaganda and they want it removed? I'm exaggerating to make a point but you see where I'm going with this.
Personally, I don't see the rampant Nazi propaganda that Katz has claimed is all over Substack but I'm sure there is some and, to me, none of it is good. But again, free speech applies to all speech, not just speech I find acceptable.
Again, thanks for the permission to discuss this with you on your website and for the chance to express my opinions.
Hi Tina, I too am grateful for your thorough and thoughtful contribution. It's always a pleasure interacting with you, even when we disagree. :)
I'd start by saying I don't want the 230 status laws to be changed, and I don't think it's fair to assume Mr. Katz wants them to be changed either. Of course, I can't read his mind, but I haven't seen anything from him mentioning it. I don't think we should prescribe beliefs to people if they haven't articulated them.
Second, I think this sentence is the crux of our differences: "But I sure hope Substack doesn't fold and remains an arena for everyone regardless of their opinions and ideas."
I actually don't think society needs to remain open to every idea. Of course, I don't want the government to step in and censor speech, but that is different from what private individuals should accept. (I don't want the government to make it illegal to cheat on your spouse, but I still don't want to be friends with scumbags who frequently cheat on their wives.)
For example, if you hosted a dinner party, the dinner table discussion would likely be wide-ranging, and guests would likely say things you disagree with. BUT, if someone started showing porn or talking about how Hitler was right, you would probably ask them to leave, because that's outside the norms of acceptable society. But again, you would likely not call the cops on them to arrest them, as they broke no law.
I think we'll disagree here, but thank you for your well-intentioned discussion and contribution.
(This is reminding me that it's probably a good time to write an article on my thoughts on speech, the 1st Amendment, and more.)
Thanks, Joe. Just one correction, I said " some proponents of censorship in government"
want to disband section 230 and did not assume or connect Katz to this statement in any way. We agree on a lot more than we disagree for sure.
Ah, I apologize for misreading your words.
I respectfully disagree with you here, Joe. The first amendment protects all speech even speech with which the consensus may abhor. That is the point of the protection. The protections also give people who the right to counter abhorant speech. I can point to he ACLU and Skokie Supreme Court case as one example.
You are a purveyor of history, you know well that our society has evolved over the years to reject certain speech that was once accepted. If not for the protections, the black civil rights movement, the feminist movement, the gay liberation movements which were unpopular (even illegal) ideas at the time may never have happened. Change happens as the movements grow and society's attitudes decide to embrace the new norms, not because speech or behavior is mandated.
Regulating speech presents a further complication when you consider who gets to decide what speech is okay and which is not. Let's look at the last 3 years. Anyone who questioned the COVID narrative was not only called out by the government and their paid mouthpiece, the legacy media, as conspiracy kooks which indeed they are free to do but they crossed they line and went much further than what the first amendment allows. They regulated, censored and punished individuals for their differing point of view or even for questioning the established narrative, most of which we now know was incorrect.
So while I know you and most reasonable people (the majority) are reacting to the vile speech and ideas of Nazism. The answer is not shutting it down, regulating speech thereby setting a precedent of weakening the first amendment, and forcing hate groups underground (which is what happens) but to speak out, protest and hopefully in the end turn the tide of hate into love.
Hey Tina, I appreciate your thoughtfulness here, but I need to clarify one thing:
The above letter does not pertain to the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment prevents the government from censoring speech. If the government were telling Substack what can and cannot be published on it's platform, you and I would aligned on stopping that, for many of the reasons you mentioned.
BUT, this is not what the letter is calling for. The letter is calling for Substack leadership, who are proprietors of a private company, to clarify if they are comfortable with the Nazi messaging on their platform. As Substack is a company and not a government entity, the 1st Amendment is uninvolved.
The letter isn't calling for government censorship of any speech. In fact, it's not calling on the government to do anything. It's calling for private individuals to clarify if they will continue to allow Nazi messaging on their site.
I hope that clarifies my position.
In a Note on Jan 10, you asked me "Do you think Nazism is Socialism?"
Thank you for your patience. Here is your answer:
Yes, National Socialism is a form of Socialism, but not the only form.
Given that you seem to be on a campaign to ban Nazis, you should at least understand what they stood for.
If you disagree, please respond in the comment section of this article. I am happy to debate the evidence, as long as you agree to the commenting rules.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/was-hitler-a-precursor-of-anti-semitic