I have never seen the point of twitter. You can't compose a coherent thought in 128 characters. People have gotten around that by stringing tweets together but it is a poor workaround at best. Substack is much better. AND I don't get a lot of garbage in my email or on my phone.
Totally agree for all the reasons you've given. I don't like having my eyeballs burned with surprise vitriol. When I want it I'll hunt it up. I prefer a syncopated view of the world that I curate for civil dissent, art, creativity, or deep thoughts and researched info. IMHO
Dec 13, 2023·edited Dec 13, 2023Liked by Elle Griffin
When Notes launched, I read a couple of politically-obsessed extremists posts (both the right and left.) I simply blocked the posters. I haven't had a problem with it since. Some may accuse me of burying my head in the sand, but I feel no compulsion to endure their nonsense and hatred. Any more than I would let someone punch me repeatedly in the face. Their viewpoints won't make me a better person, just depressed at how awful people and politics can be.
I get it. No one wants to be hated or oppressed. And hatred is a serious problem in this country. The only real answer is changed hearts. But new laws (or censorship) or politicians rarely accomplish that. I don't envy Substack trying to deal with it.
Citizens here are free to rant and be miserable. So am I, if I choose to. But I don't want to, or have to, listen. I choose not to. Long live kindness and love. Long live the mute and block!
The fact that I saw some names on that list that I've seethed at on other networks and who I didn't even know had Substack speaks volumes to how civilized and pleasant and spacious for all views it is in the current form. Everyone says that Substack will eventually screw it up in search for growth, and I guess they will. But for now, it's really one of my favorite places on the internet.
Well, it looks like you turned your paywall off. Thank you. But my comment elsewhere still stands. I agree that Substack shouldn't control what we read, but paywalls essentially do the same thing. I also know that pay walls are a way for posters to earn money. There are two things in tension. Maybe posters can choose to take down their pay walls for important posts .
I like reading alternative voices, like from books in a library, papers I can check out of journals... I go searching for these things because I want to be informed about what others are saying, especially dangerous people. But digital networks disrupted all that. Digital networks are *fast* Speed of light fast.
I’m not sure how many writers on here have ever spent any time watching server logs or worse, trying to stop a DDoS attack on a server. It’s frightening... and overwhelming within seconds, like watching a tidal wave retreat from the shores and then come back to land... there’s just no way to get out of the way. That’s pretty much the way the internet has been built, with very little motivation to change it.
That’s the issue. The fact that all of us are just sitting ducks for anyone who wants to launch an attack on any of us. If you don’t think this is true, you likely have never been a target of one of these truly horrible, vicious sociopaths. (My condolences if you have been... it’s not anything I would wish on anyone!)
They want you to think they are just discussing ideas. They want to appear normal and engage with you. They want you to defend their right to say anything. Until they don’t. Until they are inside the walls. Until they have taken over your threshold, their foot firmly jammed against the jamb.
Hey everyone! I've enjoyed reading some of the comments. I am a fellow signer of the free speech letter. I've been dismayed at the level of pushback in the form of "Nazis are bad." Of course Nazis are bad; they're reprobate idiots. That doesn't have anything to do, in my view, with the democratic principle of free speech. If we're going to let some (too many) young Leftist progressives write "from the river to the sea," and name their pro-Hamas demonstrations after The Flood, then I think it's fair to allow the tiny percentage of actual racist Nazis on Substack or anywhere else have their say. I have encountered perhaps one Nazi wingnut; I blocked and reported him because he was crazy and I didn't want him tainting my thread.
Clearly, personal content moderation by individual writers is more free, safer and more liberal/democratic than Substack moderating for us. We've seen how that goes on other social media channels. It doesn't work.
What this ignores is that white supremacists are recruiting off-line, and Substack is allowing them to create safe echo chambers without any moderation or oversight. People can literally be planning mass murder on this site, without any checks. Substack is saying to people like the Christchurch shooter and the Buffalo shooter and the Tree of Life shooter, and every January 6 insurrectionist - "come here! Make us money! We don't care what you say! We don't care who you incite!"
This is not a free speech issue. This is a hate speech issue. At least on Facebook (or Threads), I am reasonably assured that if I start putting in Neo-Nazi tags, I will be fed Neo-Nazi links, and I can keep tabs on what's happening in that sphere. The fact that Substack is so isolated means that the white supremacists can do just about anything without being noticed. This is scary.
Love this article on Substack moderation. The idea is analogous to Wikipedia, which uses the community to moderate each topic. While it's not perfect, it's been shown to be WAY more accurate than single-sourced, commercial moderation systems (in their case, publishers of encyclopedias), and, in terms of the complicated job of moderating hate and appropriate speech, they have a very sophisticated approach.
A "part 2" of this post might be helpful with some concrete suggestions for HOW to make this easier for Substack authors. Wikipedia has a multi-layered system to help authors discover and address harmful speech. It relies on authors and complements them with automated tools. A Harvard study found that Wikipedia's system is largely successful at identifying and quickly removing harmful content.
And, unlike some social media platforms, Wikipedia has no concise summary of what is acceptable and what's not. They federate that responsibility to authors and the community.
Wonderful essay!
I have never seen the point of twitter. You can't compose a coherent thought in 128 characters. People have gotten around that by stringing tweets together but it is a poor workaround at best. Substack is much better. AND I don't get a lot of garbage in my email or on my phone.
Totally agree for all the reasons you've given. I don't like having my eyeballs burned with surprise vitriol. When I want it I'll hunt it up. I prefer a syncopated view of the world that I curate for civil dissent, art, creativity, or deep thoughts and researched info. IMHO
When Notes launched, I read a couple of politically-obsessed extremists posts (both the right and left.) I simply blocked the posters. I haven't had a problem with it since. Some may accuse me of burying my head in the sand, but I feel no compulsion to endure their nonsense and hatred. Any more than I would let someone punch me repeatedly in the face. Their viewpoints won't make me a better person, just depressed at how awful people and politics can be.
I get it. No one wants to be hated or oppressed. And hatred is a serious problem in this country. The only real answer is changed hearts. But new laws (or censorship) or politicians rarely accomplish that. I don't envy Substack trying to deal with it.
Citizens here are free to rant and be miserable. So am I, if I choose to. But I don't want to, or have to, listen. I choose not to. Long live kindness and love. Long live the mute and block!
This is so important right now. Great job getting together all these important leading voices too. I’m all in.
The fact that I saw some names on that list that I've seethed at on other networks and who I didn't even know had Substack speaks volumes to how civilized and pleasant and spacious for all views it is in the current form. Everyone says that Substack will eventually screw it up in search for growth, and I guess they will. But for now, it's really one of my favorite places on the internet.
Amen, agree 100%. 👏
Very well said. Your spatial metaphors (parks, public squares) work for me!
Wait I wanna sign this too! Great stuff ✨
Well, it looks like you turned your paywall off. Thank you. But my comment elsewhere still stands. I agree that Substack shouldn't control what we read, but paywalls essentially do the same thing. I also know that pay walls are a way for posters to earn money. There are two things in tension. Maybe posters can choose to take down their pay walls for important posts .
I like reading alternative voices, like from books in a library, papers I can check out of journals... I go searching for these things because I want to be informed about what others are saying, especially dangerous people. But digital networks disrupted all that. Digital networks are *fast* Speed of light fast.
I’m not sure how many writers on here have ever spent any time watching server logs or worse, trying to stop a DDoS attack on a server. It’s frightening... and overwhelming within seconds, like watching a tidal wave retreat from the shores and then come back to land... there’s just no way to get out of the way. That’s pretty much the way the internet has been built, with very little motivation to change it.
That’s the issue. The fact that all of us are just sitting ducks for anyone who wants to launch an attack on any of us. If you don’t think this is true, you likely have never been a target of one of these truly horrible, vicious sociopaths. (My condolences if you have been... it’s not anything I would wish on anyone!)
They want you to think they are just discussing ideas. They want to appear normal and engage with you. They want you to defend their right to say anything. Until they don’t. Until they are inside the walls. Until they have taken over your threshold, their foot firmly jammed against the jamb.
That’s the plan.
It just hasn’t bloomed yet on Substack.
But it will. It will.
Well said. Could not agree more. (I signed too)
Hey everyone! I've enjoyed reading some of the comments. I am a fellow signer of the free speech letter. I've been dismayed at the level of pushback in the form of "Nazis are bad." Of course Nazis are bad; they're reprobate idiots. That doesn't have anything to do, in my view, with the democratic principle of free speech. If we're going to let some (too many) young Leftist progressives write "from the river to the sea," and name their pro-Hamas demonstrations after The Flood, then I think it's fair to allow the tiny percentage of actual racist Nazis on Substack or anywhere else have their say. I have encountered perhaps one Nazi wingnut; I blocked and reported him because he was crazy and I didn't want him tainting my thread.
Clearly, personal content moderation by individual writers is more free, safer and more liberal/democratic than Substack moderating for us. We've seen how that goes on other social media channels. It doesn't work.
I wrote an essay on why I signed the letter: https://michaelmohr.substack.com/p/why-i-signed-the-pro-free-speech
Michael Mohr
"Sincere American Writing"
https://michaelmohr.substack.com/
What this ignores is that white supremacists are recruiting off-line, and Substack is allowing them to create safe echo chambers without any moderation or oversight. People can literally be planning mass murder on this site, without any checks. Substack is saying to people like the Christchurch shooter and the Buffalo shooter and the Tree of Life shooter, and every January 6 insurrectionist - "come here! Make us money! We don't care what you say! We don't care who you incite!"
This is not a free speech issue. This is a hate speech issue. At least on Facebook (or Threads), I am reasonably assured that if I start putting in Neo-Nazi tags, I will be fed Neo-Nazi links, and I can keep tabs on what's happening in that sphere. The fact that Substack is so isolated means that the white supremacists can do just about anything without being noticed. This is scary.
I saw Jonathan Katz made this point above, but this is not about “just don’t read what you don’t like.” This is about Substack actually promoting white supremacy. I expanded on this here https://open.substack.com/pub/carriekaufman/p/hate-speech-as-laissez-faire-economics?r=3lwct&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Love this article on Substack moderation. The idea is analogous to Wikipedia, which uses the community to moderate each topic. While it's not perfect, it's been shown to be WAY more accurate than single-sourced, commercial moderation systems (in their case, publishers of encyclopedias), and, in terms of the complicated job of moderating hate and appropriate speech, they have a very sophisticated approach.
A "part 2" of this post might be helpful with some concrete suggestions for HOW to make this easier for Substack authors. Wikipedia has a multi-layered system to help authors discover and address harmful speech. It relies on authors and complements them with automated tools. A Harvard study found that Wikipedia's system is largely successful at identifying and quickly removing harmful content.
And, unlike some social media platforms, Wikipedia has no concise summary of what is acceptable and what's not. They federate that responsibility to authors and the community.
Please add me to the list in support!