149 points

It is true that removing and demonetising Nazi content wouldn’t make the problem of Nazis go away. It would just be moved to dark corners of the internet where the majority of people would never find it, and its presence on dodgy-looking websites combined with its absence on major platforms would contribute to a general sense that being a Nazi isn’t something that’s accepted in wider society. Even without entirely making the problem go away, the problem is substantially reduced when it isn’t normalised.

permalink
report
reply
92 points
*

the weirdest thing to me is these guys always ignore that banning the freaks worked on Reddit–which is stereotypically the most cringe techno-libertarian platform of the lot–without ruining the right to say goofy shit on the platform. they banned a bunch of the reactionary subs and, spoiler, issues with those communities have been much lessened since that happened while still allowing for people to say patently wild, unpopular shit

permalink
report
parent
reply
42 points

Yep! Reddit is still pretty awful in many respects (and I only even bother with it for specific communities for which I haven’t found a suitable active equivalent on Lemmy - more frogs and bugs on Lemmy please), but it did get notably less unpleasant when the majority of the truly terrible subs were banned. So it does make a difference.

I feel like “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good” is apt when it comes to reactionaries and fascists. Completely eliminating hateful ideologies would be perfect, but limiting their reach is still good, and saying “removing their content doesn’t make the problem go away” makes it sound like any effort to limit the harm they do is rendered meaningless because the outcome is merely good rather than perfect.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

They took way too long unfortunately , but totally agree. thedonald, femaledatingstrategy and fatpeoplehate should have been banned a lot quicker

It feels like they’ve let it degrade again too now. Last I was on it, lots of subs had gone really toxic and weird

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

I’d argue that it still broke Reddit.

Back in the day, I might say something out of tone in some subreddit, get the comment flagged, discuss it with a mod, and either agree to edit it or get it removed. No problem.

Then Reddit started banning reactionary subs, subs started using bots to ban people for even commenting on other blacklisted subs, subs started abusing automod to ban people left and right, even quoting someone to criticize them started counting as using the same “forbidden words”, conversations with mods to clear stuff up pretty much disappeared, application of modern ToS retroactively to 10 year old content became a thing… until I got permabanned from the whole site after trying to recur a ban, with zero human interaction. Some months later, while already banned sitewide, they also banned me from some more subs.

Recently Reddit revealed a “hidden karma” feature to let automod pre-moderate potentially disruptive users.

Issues with the communities may have lessened, but there is definitely no longer the ability to say goofy, wild, or unpopular stuff… or in some cases, even to criticize them. There also have been an unknown number of “collateral damage” bans, that Reddit doesn’t care about anymore.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

imo if reddit couldn’t survive “purging literally its worst elements, which included some of the most vehement bigotry and abhorrent content outside of 4chan” it probably doesn’t deserve to survive

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

@jarfil @alyaza i have said plenty of wild stuff and haven’t been banned from any subs? None of it has been bigoted tho

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

You’re literally on a platform that was created to harbor extremist groups. Look at who Dessalines is, (aka u/parentis-shotgun) and their self-proclaimed motivation for writing LemmyNet. When you ban people from a website, they just move to another place, they are not stupid it’s pretty easy to create websites. It’s purely optical, you’re not saving civilisation from harmful ideas, just preventing yourself from seeing it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
35 points
*

When you ban people from a website, they just move to another place, they are not stupid it’s pretty easy to create websites. It’s purely optical,

you are literally describing an event that induces the sort of entropy we’re talking about here–necessarily when you ban a community of Nazis or something and they have to go somewhere else, not everybody moves to the next place (and those people diffuse back into the general population), which has a deradicalizing effect on them overall because they’re not just stewing in a cauldron of other people who reinforce their beliefs

permalink
report
parent
reply
93 points

I really struggle to take seriously what these tech people say about ‘not wanting to censor’. They made a business calculation, and maybe an ideological one, and decided “we want that nazi money, it’s worth it to us.” which really tells you everything about a company and how it is likely to approach other issues, too.

permalink
report
reply
43 points

It’s also disingenuous because they already decline to host sex workers newsletters. So if the censorship angle was true, they’re already censoring.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

RIGHT. Thank you for pointing this out.


:::

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Right, and if the profit motive angle were true, they’re already violating that by censoring the sex workers you just mentioned.

So that eliminates profit as the reason for their actions here

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Yes! I love this simplification!

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

I feel like they always try to make it sound more complicated and high minded. I really don’t believe it is!

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

What do you call a company that puts profits above all? A company.

Last time I asked for advice about registering a nonprofit, I was told “but you don’t yet have enough profits to use a nonprofit for tax evasion” 😒

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I’m not sure I understand your point here. Everyone from a sole proprietor to a mega corporation is in it for profit. Just because the upper one percent is dodgy as hell and plays fast and loose with the tax code doesn’t mean every single company in existence is terrible or out to do sketchy business. I’m pretty happy with mine. I wouldn’t be there if I wasn’t working with honest people.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

My point is that it’s nothing to be surprised about when a company makes a decision to increase its profit.

As for the rest, getting a profit from your work, is called “a job”. Companies are created to get a profit in excess of whatever job the owners are doing, otherwise it’s called a “non-profit”… for the owners in excess of their job at the company, which they still get paid for.

I don’t know the company you’re working for, but if it has any profits that don’t revert to the people doing the job, or the amortization of the initial investment, then the owners are “skimming off the top” from everyone.

The people I asked for advice, from the corporate world, were so entrenched in that same “profit first” mentality, that they couldn’t even grasp the idea of only getting paid for your actual work, and only saw non-profits as a tool for tax evasion.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

What on earth can you be smoking to think it’s profitable move to publicly announce that Nazis are welcome on your platform? There is zero profit incentive in that. Nazi money is not much money.

permalink
report
parent
reply
72 points

Not gonna lie. I’ve never heard of Substack but I appreciate their stance of publicly announcing why I would continue to avoid them.

permalink
report
reply
8 points

My only interaction with Substack is that one podcast moved there for premium content. I thought it was mostly for written newsletters, which I always wondered how much of a market there actually is for paying for one newsletter, but then again I guess it’s just the written version of podcasts so I guess there is a market. Though promoting Nazi content gives me a lot of pause.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

What specific Nazi content was promoted? Is there any possibility it was non-Nazi stuff that got labeled as Nazi stuff?

permalink
report
parent
reply
64 points

techno-libertarianism strikes again! it’s every few years with these guys where they have to learn the same lesson over again that letting the worst scum in politics make use of your website will just ensure all the cool people evaporate off your website–and Substack really does not have that many cool people or that good of a reputation to begin with.

permalink
report
reply
18 points

They just really, really love running Nazi bars. They just don’t like it when the normies realizes that the neighbourhood bar is a Nazi bar.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

i go back and forth on how much i think this tendency’s willingness to host content like this and/or go to the mat for it is agreement and how much of it is just stupidity or ill-conceived ideology. a lot of these guys seem like they agree with elements of fascism, but a lot of them are also… just not smart.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

The Nazi bar analogy says nothing about agreement. Just that failing to remove Nazis from your bar is a great way to flood your bar with Nazis, because once they know its safe for them to Nazi it up in your establishment, they’ll tell their friends about you.

If you don’t proactively remove the Nazis, you’re creating a Nazi safe space, whether you agree with them or not.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I think you have to look at the money here. The most charitable view for substack is their payment provider doesn’t ban Nazis, and their VC funders don’t want them to ban Nazis, and so they don’t really have a choice.

I think substack is well up for being a nazi bar based on what they’ve said so I’m happy to give them some blame but I won’t be letting the other two off the hook either.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Joyce Carol Oates is there; She counts for hundreds of cool people; I think some other writers make use of it too. I hope they voice their discontent.

Nazis find a way to ruin every fucking thing. I really believe certain groups of people should not have right to free speech. In 2024, we should be well-aware that tolerating intolerance does not work. Just fucking look around and take a look at what these people are doing with their free speech. I am not the gatekeeper or good morals and the bastion of good values. Some ideologies are objectively bad, though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
49 points
*

Translation: “We support Nazis and would like to offer them passive protection. If you have a problem with them, we will ban you”

permalink
report
reply

Technology

!technology@beehaw.org

Create post

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

Community stats

  • 2.8K

    Monthly active users

  • 3.5K

    Posts

  • 82K

    Comments