I understand but lament the choice so many thoughtful people have made to publish their newsletters on the odious Substack. Surely they recognize that they are, at least indirectly, helping some of the worst people in the world spread and monetize malignant views.
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:vaba7tf7ylt2kaavf4t2kotp/post/3mjfo4h6u7s2f
I guess this is the Nazi bar analogy, and I sort of get that. But I have a few questions.
First, and I know this is a bit reductio ad absurdum, but bear with me, should we boycott comcast because they let Andrew Tate use their wires? If not, where is the dividing line?
Second, I guess the argument here is that they are platforming an asshole, and using their non-asshole bloggers as leverage. Why doesn't this work in both directions? Can't I plunder Andrew Tate's followers?
A related question is, given that substack actually appears to work better than its competitors, how much does it cost us to not use it, both in terms of ease of use and in terms of reach.
And how much does it cost us to use it, in terms of the damage that their asshole users cause?
Suppose the answer is that the cost of not using it outweighs the cost of using it. Should we still not use it? If so, why?
I ask these questions because I know how easy it is to use substack, and also how easy it is to use alternatives like Ghost. I'm actually trying to decide what to do about this—this isn't an idle set of questions.
Right now, it feels a lot like not using substack is similar to not flying to conferences. Airlines are actively harmful in the world, but we don't really have a viable alternative. Should we silence ourselves by not flying?
A lot of people I admire, e.g. Amanda Litman, Anand Ghiridaradas and Waleed Shahid, use substack. Why are you right and they are wrong?
@abhayakara I always just do the best I can, it's impossible to boycott or move on from everything with shitty people on them or running them.
I don't use any Meta products for example to the point I have a pihole to try and fully block their tracking. I still use Google though they've proven time and time again to do shitty things. I have moved from Chrome and experiment with other search engines, but still heavily use their office suite and Gmail.
We quit Target but still use Walmart who is just as bad but the devil you know I guess.
All that to say, for me when a company hits a breaking point where I no longer feel comfortable, that's when I leave.
It's an imperfect world and we're humans, don't beat yourself up to much about this stuff.
The only quibble I would make with this is that if you are doing what makes sense, you shouldn't beat yourself up about it.
I've been a U.S. citizen my whole life, and my country has engaged in many wars I find reprehensible.
Should I have renounced my citizenship? No. It's my country, no more or less than theirs.
Is there no alternative to Walmart? The alternative they closed for me was mine. I want it back, but meanwhile I have to live. It's not wrong to choose to live.
How this relates to substack is of course still a matter for debate: there _are_ alternatives. But each of the alternatives I've found is (a lot) more work and has less reach, as far as I can tell.
Of the lot of them, Patreon is probably the best, but they seem to be wandering down the enshittification highway, so we'll see.
it's not that complicated
andrew tate is a piece of shit
that substack platforms him is repugnant enough for many people that they just won't use substack
some won't care. well, fuck them
some worry that the air they breathe contains some molecules that were once also breathed by stalin, so they'll stop breathing. yeah these people are a bit much: you follow coherent connections, and apply pressure where it is worth it
it's a balance in life, always
@benroyce @abhayakara @TheStoneDonkey
no perfect answer but imo "connections" is not enough. this is what most of the fedi gets wrong re refusing to federate with servers with users with bad opinions. moderate unwanted tagging harshly like we do spam, but allow chosen connections like we do browsing.
more meaningful concerns are funding and promotion. Substack both has a financial relationship and chooses to spread the ideas of shitty people. avoiding paying taxes for wars would be nice.
@wjmaggos @abhayakara @TheStoneDonkey
william you're responding to an account that purposefully seeks out, mocks, and goads vatniks into saying things i can report them on to get them suspended
nuke all vatnik accounts
and any server that won't nuke them, nuke the server
period
it's not "bad opinions" william
it's malicious assholes vomiting kremlin lies for ethnofascism and imperialism
someone who says "avoiding paying taxes for wars would be nice" should be able to get behind that need
@benroyce @abhayakara @TheStoneDonkey
we strongly disagree re doing this but we both know this. probably not worth debating it again.
@wjmaggos @abhayakara @TheStoneDonkey
indeed i consider your position naive at best
bigots and prideful ignorants have zero place on the fediverse
any server that won't act on them needs to be excised from the fediverse
i cannot fathom why you don't understand that this imperative is the bedrock of the ethos of a community you enjoy being part of, while not understanding what it takes to protect that community
if shitwits want to vomit their hate somewhere, they have twitter. fuck them
@benroyce @abhayakara @TheStoneDonkey
the fedi should be as open as the internet and as protective as email with spam blocking software. this best balances interactions we each decide we want with helping everyone avoid those they don't want. my community includes my family members who have opinions I hate. your prescription is a very small fedi that feeds groupthink. see how Dems and the further left vehemently disagree re Gaza and so many other issues.
@wjmaggos @abhayakara @TheStoneDonkey
if you define excluding bigoty as "groupthink" i am disgusted
and fuck your family member
you want to have fruitless discussions with racist uncle at the dinner table have at it
not here
your "standard" will not apply to the fediverse. your "standard" fucking sucks. it's a gateway for bad faith hateful sadism
that you don't understand that is shameful
we're not having it
you need to make peace with this william: you're not going to win this argument
except "bad people" do change and I have had information shared with me by them that corrected my misunderstandings. doesn't your electoral strategy involve voting in the general for people we may find repugnant but still better than the other person who would otherwise win?
bigots can change but they rarely do
last time we had this discussion you linked to daryl davis as well. i responded as i will now: i admire daryl but daryl is an extreme outlier
we're not here to provide therapy for bigots
people here want to converse without bigotry polluting their timeline
you've decided unilaterally that *your* quixotic goal of curing bigots is what should be here
no
open a twitter account and tilt at windmills there
we're not having it here
that's not my goal. it's a place where we can all talk to whoever we want and avoid who we want. you seem to think you know who should be let in and who shouldn't. haven't I seen many here don't like you supporting voting for Dems cause the party isn't left enough? you'll get voted off the island eventually.
because there are ranges of acceptable behavior
if people have disagreements about politics on the left, this can be great venom and outrage, but it is valid discourse. i can be quite angry with someone, but i have no right to silence them
meanwhile, there is no valid discourse with bigotry. nothing is gained. so silencing their voice is not acceptable, it's preferable
why do you want the fediverse to devolve into pathetic endless useless arguments with hateful morons?
and i know your response already
"there is no valid discourse with bigotry. nothing is gained"
yes, in some rare instances, you can cure a bigot
great!
go do that
twitter is full of these fuckwits
engage some. do your thing. enjoy. i wish you great success
but you will not unilaterally decide against the opinion of the fediverse that this place is going to be polluted with their endless evil stupid bad faith nonsense, whatever noble goal you have
how does them posting here pollute anything if you never get tagged (we should moderate hard for unwanted tagging and block servers that allow their users to do that) or the people you follow never boost it? the magic of no algos. the web is full of hateful websites we'll never see etc.
my family members should be able to be here, seeing the lefty stuff I boost that might change their opinions over time. not stuck in places with algos that reinforce misinfo and hate etc.
i am not sure how to respond to this because you're not accurately depicting what bigots do
bigots do not play nice
they don't sit in their corner and play pattycake with each other, they reply guy to trans people, black people, etc
if you can promise me we can let bigots on the fediverse and they will somehow respect what they don't respect (if they could, they wouldn't be bigots in the first place) then you win this argument
but you lose it, because bigots are bigots
not all the people that you call bigots because of their opinions or posting what you consider misinfo, would intentionally bother people if given the chance. the former should be welcome here, the latter should not be.
it's hard for me to believe everyone doesn't have experience with people like this, who believe stuff that seems crazy/evil but also would never intentionally bother others. who would go out of their way to help a stranger. but they are anti trans etc.
you're describing a subset of bigots who aren't in your face with their bigotry? ok. i'm certain there's such people on the fediverse already. but since they don't speak their bigotry, we'll never know. so... what's the point?
the issue, which you continually dance around, is that bigots reply guy and harass. if you can't agree such accounts need to be nuked from orbit, i don't know what to say to you, because you don't seem to understand a genuine and real problem
if they harass, get rid of them. we agree. but you're saying if you see them say something nice about Putin etc where nobody is tagged (or maybe you goaded them into the conversation), they gotta go too. I disagree with that.
i have a feeling that you don't quite fully grasp what bigotry is
bigotry is disrespect
it's not some difference of opinion that can be argued with. the disrespect of others because they are a woman, or black, or muslim, or trans, or gay, or disabled, etc, is the essence of bigotry
so to say someone with such disrespect, will then somehow magically be respectful on the fediverse, is absurd
you want to assert they can coexist here, and won't do what bigots always do
is it bigoted to advocate for lesser evil candidates?
what the fuck?
william are you turning into an edgelord?
the issue is bigotry
you know what that is
you think you can do some weak posturing with "well what is bigotry, really, hmmm?" and you think this is going to win you this argument?
it's called topic shifting
it's dishonest william. you're telling me you get my point, you just don't want to admit it
no it's not shifting at all. it's trying to address your argument in a way that might force you to recognize how it would impact something you care about.
lots of Dems win primaries even tho they are bad on lots of issues we care about, and in choosing to support them over the GOP, we are said to not care enough about those issues. people tell us they just can't vote for them cause of their position on the issue. that it's hurtful others could overlook that kind of hate.
"no it's not shifting at all"
{proceeds to argue about dems and ignore our topic of bigotry here}
uh huh
Dan Gillmor
Ted Lemon
stonedonkey 🕹️🎮👾
ᴮᵉⁿ ᴿᵒʸᶜᵉVOTE IN THE PRIMARIES
william ⁂ maggos