Strypey
@jotaemei
SubStack bills itself as a general speech platform with a couple of exceptions (eg porn, promotion of violence), which are clearly listed in their policy. Bans for violation of this policy are fine, and ought to cover actual fascists (ie promotion of violence).
Bans for any other reason would make their self-description false advertising. I'm glad they haven't caved to the people who think they are entitled to ban speech they don't like. We live in a democracy so they're not.
(2/2)
Strypey
@jotaemei
> Do you think it’s speech repression to boot a user for TOS conduct violations?
Not if they're being booted for a clear policy violation, not because some people loudly dislike what they say.
It's all about the context. Let's say a platform is set up for cat pictures, and someone gets booted for posting anti-fascist rants. I wouldn't object on free speech grounds, because it's not a speech platform, it's a cat picture platform. Yes, private spaces can be for specific things.
(1/2)
MJ
@strypey And its fallacious to characterize it as suppressing people’s speech on the Internet to remove someone from a private platform for the content they promote. Do you think it’s speech repression to boot a user for TOS conduct violations?
MJ
@strypey if, if, could, could, could, if, if
The Nazis people wanted off of SubStack were explicitly advocating for their supremacist agenda. It’s not comparable to what the Israeli state does and to have some Israeli posters who may or may not agree with the actions of the Israeli government there, particularly when “pro-Israel” can so heavily vary. Israelis are a non-monolithic population. Nazis subscribe to an ideological cause. This is a massive category error.
Strypey
Anyone who argues that it's unfair to speak of "Israeli fascists", or says that it's unfair to suppress the speech of anyone who identifies with the flag of Israel or the Star of David just because their government has been taken over by fascists, is making naive excuses for platforming fascists. By "Nazi bar" logic, the only reasonable response is to tell them why they're wrong, or ignore them.
(4/?)
Strypey
By "Nazi bar" logic, it's not reasonable for SubStack to host publications critical of and supportive of Israel, and let people come to their own conclusions.
In order for SubStack's management to avoid their platform being overrun by fascists, they must ban any publication that defends Israel's actions in Gaza. Further, they must ban any that feature the Israeli flag or the Star of David, in any context other than unambiguous criticism.
(3/?)
Strypey
A strong argument is being made that the Israeli military is engaged in a democide against the civilian population of Gaza. When you combine this with a number of other things, like the Israeli government's attacks on judicial independence, pro-genocide terrorists with government portfolios etc, one could call the government "Israeli fascists".
Which means, by extension, that the Israeli flag, and the Star of David it prominently features, could be characterised as "fascist symbols".
(2/?)
Strypey
For everyone who invokes the "Nazi bar" story in arguments for suppressing certain speech on the internet, here's a thought experiment for you.
Note: it's not necessary to agree with any of the arguments presented here to run the experiment. If you read the posts in context, I think it's pretty clear that despite my defence of Palestinian human rights - including the right to political autonomy - I disagree with most of the arguments presented here.
(1/?)
Strypey
Note to anyone who references the #ParadoxOfTolerance. What Karl Popper said was;
"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant..."
With the exception of a few naive teenage libertarians, nobody is advocating *unlimited* tolerance. We're just arguing against abandoning tolerance to the point of dehumanizing people who hold intolerant views.
So the vast majority of handwaves at the PoT are slaughtering strawmen. The obvious response being to quote Nietzsche...
(1/2)
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.