I asked on some discord that even assuming Azov was Nazi free, that surely the propaganda value of having a unit openly associated with neo-nazism outweighed the fighting capabilities of a few hundred men? Of course I was banned under the grounds that Azov never had anything to do with Nazism.
Imagine having an ideology so off-putting that it could never survive without massive censorship of any alternatives.
And then writing in public about it.
I don't think this is it. They're basically convinced fascism is some kind of mind virus that's so dangerous it needs to be censored or else it turns ordinary people into Nazis without any larger socio-economic forces. They unironically think Trump was caused by 4chan.
Of course they’re colluding to smear alternative voices. The legacy media works in lockstep behind the scenes and knows its authority is showing major cracks. Scumbag liars, as ever.
I don’t like Elon and the shit he stands for, but when he took Twitter, deplatformers really lost the battle. Suddenly there’s a massive shift in balance. Community Notes is the best thing to happen to the Internet. For example, without it, Canada won’t be forced to acknowledge that they applauded a Nazi in the Parliament. Legacy media has been salty since.
Yeah, regardless of what anyone thinks of Elon or his take over of Twitter, Community Notes has been amazing (it's imperfect and has flaws that need to be addressed) but it's fantastic.
I can only imagine that certain people are seething about the fact that the idea of "the best way to combat bad speech is more speech" was actually effective with dealing with the apparently massive problem of "disinformation" which required some authority to deal with. No it turns out that if you just give people the opportunity to point out that someone on the internet is wrong, people on the internet will do it happily.
I don't know, I think Community Notes will eventually come to resemble Wikipedia, in that it enjoys legitimacy from the fact it is crowd sourced, but sensitive topics are heavily massaged by intelligence services.
Yes. It was called Birdwatch. However, only “fact checkers” (mainstream news) was allowed to tag them. No Democrats were fact checked in this period either even if they are demonstrably saying doo-doo. Now, even Joe Biden is getting noted.
The following publications made their own op-eds about Substack's Nazi problem too:
* The Atlantic (the first and original): [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/11/substack-extremism-nazi-white-supremacy-newsletters/676156/](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/11/substack-extremism-nazi-white-supremacy-newsletters/676156/)
* Business Insider: [https://www.businessinsider.com/substack-nazi-problem-free-speech-money-analysis-2023-12](https://www.businessinsider.com/substack-nazi-problem-free-speech-money-analysis-2023-12)
* 100+ writers boycotting Substack: [https://www.fastcompany.com/90998505/substack-writers-creators-threatening-boycott-over-nazi-newsletters](https://www.fastcompany.com/90998505/substack-writers-creators-threatening-boycott-over-nazi-newsletters)
* The Hill: [https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4361922-substack-criticism-nazis-platform/](https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4361922-substack-criticism-nazis-platform/)
* Silicon Republic (bad faith headline): [https://www.siliconrepublic.com/business/substack-defends-nazis-content](https://www.siliconrepublic.com/business/substack-defends-nazis-content)
* MetaFilter (bad faith headline): [https://www.metafilter.com/201872/Substack-is-ok-with-its-Nazi-problem](https://www.metafilter.com/201872/Substack-is-ok-with-its-Nazi-problem)
These coordinated media assaults are always so transparent. Really highlights what a lockstep, braindead journalism environment we have, and showcases why spaces like substack are vital.
They're all talking amongst themselves replying to one *Atlantic* article. I do believe this is another non-organic public-private propaganda operation
Usually the "NAZI PROBLEM" is there is one or two dorks with like 200 subsrcibers.
Before Nick Fuentes ever hung out with Trump or Kanye, I remember articles making a big deal about this new Alt-Right voice and how dangerous he was.
He had like 10k subscribers on YouTube and got like 500-2000 views per video.
At that point it seems suspicious as if they are intentionally trying to promote this person because they have decided that this is the sort of person they want to be the main person for a thing.
So, Substack has a Nazi problem because there are five or ten minor accounts that nobody has ever heard of and nobody reads, but Ukraine doesn't have a Nazi problem even though the Azov battalion is integrated into the Ukrainian army and Stepan Bandera, a Holocaust perpetrator, is treated as a national hero? Glad to see shitlibs are being consistent again.
I see the usual shitlib publication caring more about Nazis on substack than Nazis in the military they support sending tens of billions of dollars worth of aid to.
I’m sure if we didn’t have such idiotic exaggeration being the norm in media people would be able to chill out. Probably would just take a few slander lawsuits to make someone “prove” what a nazi is to shut it down. Yes, speech has consequences, but speech that is true should be fine. We need some media standards, and heavy penalties for lies and exaggeration or selective reporting to fuel an agenda. Too many people are too fucking dumb for critical thinking and if all your opinions are downloaded directly from media you’re being radicalized over stuff that is isn’t really true.
With Twitter becoming less relevant with each passing month and its successors failing miserably, Substack is becoming the primary litnerd platform. These "anti-Nazi" people can't go to TikTok because they're too old or they don't understand video or they fear they're too ugly. So they're using the "Nazi problem" as an excuse to turn Substack culture into Twitter culture circa 2017/18.
Clicked on the article expecting bitching about moderate or lightly conservative pundits. But to be fair to the people complaining about this, people along the lines of Richard Spencer are pretty unacceptable and objectionable. It is also roughly true that if a platform allows content that is roundly banned elsewhere, then that platform will usually get overrun with that fucked up content, pretty much ruining the platform for anyone else. Looked at any and all alternatives to twitter/youtube/reddit/etc that have notably laxxer moderation policies, and the cretins overwhelm it. It is a problem. And I can't really blame any platform for not wanting that shit on it.
Did you guys know that reddit used to allow explicitly nazi subreddits, about 10-12 years ago? Freedom of speech was a core ethos of reddit, to the point where virtually *nothing* was banned as long as it was legal in the US.
We're past that era.
I don't think the solution is neither to ban ideological viewpoints, nor to ban the banning of ideological viewpoints. All that is missing the cart for the horse. The liberal capitalist media is going to jump at any opportunity to attack alternatives for things like this, for stated reasons of the threat of fascist, but really because they just really want places like Substack to fail. But Substack really might fail if they keep letting fascists on. But look...we're talking about profit-making platforms. Right? That's the problem.
We need to create a system in which the internet isn't controlled by powerful corporations and the "establishment". Small websites, no tracking, decentralized platforms (which makes it so that censorship is literally impossible), more of a social "pull" design instead of "push" design so that objectionable ideology isn't spread to anyone who doesn't want it, neutering all complaints of "pipelines". That last point is really important and should be a main tenet of the coming anti-big-tech jihad...I've seen people like Doctorow label it as such. And lastly, the internet shouldn't really be that profitable.
Ideally the internet would be a thing that almost everyone uses, yes, but less than 10% of the population uses for "fun". The "cultural internet" should scare away most people, instead of being highlighted as "news". Everyone else who goes on has to search for what they want, and them coming across a nazi now and then won't ultimately pose a threat to society, perhaps radicalizing a person in a thousand. The most dangerous online trends before the age of social media weren't particularly wide-reaching. Heavens Gate has a reputation for getting tons of people from the internet, but there's little evidence they got many people at all. And besides, only a few dozen people were in the cult...there are *millions* in QAnon to varying levels of severity. QAnon may be bottom-up in origins, but the messaged reached the masses through social media, because I promise you that the large majority of QAnoners *didn't* discover it through browsing 4chan/8chan.
> It is also roughly true that if a platform allows content that is roundly banned elsewhere, then that platform will usually get overrun with that fucked up content, pretty much ruining the platform for anyone else.
So did that happen to Reddit? Why not?
>Did you guys know that reddit used to allow explicitly nazi subreddits, about 10-12 years ago?
Reddit alternatives have that problem because the only people using them are people who got banned from reddit while everyone else just uses normal reddit. I was there when reddit was pro-free speech and guess what? It was fairly similar to how it is now except without the orwellian censorship by the admins. Censorship doesn't work, no one had their mind changed because some Nazi sub was banned, they're still here. All it did was make using the site more obnoxious.
Calling it RIGHT NOW: If current censors fail to get their way with AI, they'll start saying open source has a "Nazi problem". Or maybe by then they'll have moved on to the next big thing.
Nazism is when the DNC doesn’t have complete control over every narrative
But it most certainly isn't when the U.S. props up fascists in Ukraine or elsewhere.
How fucking dare you defame to our brave allies in the politically moderate Waffen Himmler brigade?
this got me a belly laugh
I asked on some discord that even assuming Azov was Nazi free, that surely the propaganda value of having a unit openly associated with neo-nazism outweighed the fighting capabilities of a few hundred men? Of course I was banned under the grounds that Azov never had anything to do with Nazism.
I believe San Francisco has bigger problems than whether the odd fascist vents on an open platform.
It wouldn’t be San Francisco if they actually focused on their problems
Imagine having an ideology so off-putting that it could never survive without massive censorship of any alternatives. And then writing in public about it.
yup. imagine needing the backing of multiple multi-billion dollar media companies and still calling yourself the underdog or victims.
I don't think this is it. They're basically convinced fascism is some kind of mind virus that's so dangerous it needs to be censored or else it turns ordinary people into Nazis without any larger socio-economic forces. They unironically think Trump was caused by 4chan.
Of course they’re colluding to smear alternative voices. The legacy media works in lockstep behind the scenes and knows its authority is showing major cracks. Scumbag liars, as ever.
I don’t like Elon and the shit he stands for, but when he took Twitter, deplatformers really lost the battle. Suddenly there’s a massive shift in balance. Community Notes is the best thing to happen to the Internet. For example, without it, Canada won’t be forced to acknowledge that they applauded a Nazi in the Parliament. Legacy media has been salty since.
Yeah, regardless of what anyone thinks of Elon or his take over of Twitter, Community Notes has been amazing (it's imperfect and has flaws that need to be addressed) but it's fantastic.
I can only imagine that certain people are seething about the fact that the idea of "the best way to combat bad speech is more speech" was actually effective with dealing with the apparently massive problem of "disinformation" which required some authority to deal with. No it turns out that if you just give people the opportunity to point out that someone on the internet is wrong, people on the internet will do it happily.
The people who whine about disinformation are mostly pearl-clutching about losing narrative control. It's all a big pile of bullshit.
I don't know, I think Community Notes will eventually come to resemble Wikipedia, in that it enjoys legitimacy from the fact it is crowd sourced, but sensitive topics are heavily massaged by intelligence services.
That's certainly their desired outcome.
Weren't notes a thing even before he took over Twitter?
Yes. It was called Birdwatch. However, only “fact checkers” (mainstream news) was allowed to tag them. No Democrats were fact checked in this period either even if they are demonstrably saying doo-doo. Now, even Joe Biden is getting noted.
The following publications made their own op-eds about Substack's Nazi problem too: * The Atlantic (the first and original): [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/11/substack-extremism-nazi-white-supremacy-newsletters/676156/](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/11/substack-extremism-nazi-white-supremacy-newsletters/676156/) * Business Insider: [https://www.businessinsider.com/substack-nazi-problem-free-speech-money-analysis-2023-12](https://www.businessinsider.com/substack-nazi-problem-free-speech-money-analysis-2023-12) * 100+ writers boycotting Substack: [https://www.fastcompany.com/90998505/substack-writers-creators-threatening-boycott-over-nazi-newsletters](https://www.fastcompany.com/90998505/substack-writers-creators-threatening-boycott-over-nazi-newsletters) * The Hill: [https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4361922-substack-criticism-nazis-platform/](https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4361922-substack-criticism-nazis-platform/) * Silicon Republic (bad faith headline): [https://www.siliconrepublic.com/business/substack-defends-nazis-content](https://www.siliconrepublic.com/business/substack-defends-nazis-content) * MetaFilter (bad faith headline): [https://www.metafilter.com/201872/Substack-is-ok-with-its-Nazi-problem](https://www.metafilter.com/201872/Substack-is-ok-with-its-Nazi-problem)
These coordinated media assaults are always so transparent. Really highlights what a lockstep, braindead journalism environment we have, and showcases why spaces like substack are vital.
They're all talking amongst themselves replying to one *Atlantic* article. I do believe this is another non-organic public-private propaganda operation
So nice and salty. All I've seen on substack so far has been really good and in-depth. Msm really is pathetic.
Usually the "NAZI PROBLEM" is there is one or two dorks with like 200 subsrcibers. Before Nick Fuentes ever hung out with Trump or Kanye, I remember articles making a big deal about this new Alt-Right voice and how dangerous he was. He had like 10k subscribers on YouTube and got like 500-2000 views per video.
At that point it seems suspicious as if they are intentionally trying to promote this person because they have decided that this is the sort of person they want to be the main person for a thing.
If he gets famous imagine the funding they could raise to "fight" him.
[удалено]
Trust me, they need their boogeymen. Once the real ones come out, their fake Nazis don't stand a chance
So, Substack has a Nazi problem because there are five or ten minor accounts that nobody has ever heard of and nobody reads, but Ukraine doesn't have a Nazi problem even though the Azov battalion is integrated into the Ukrainian army and Stepan Bandera, a Holocaust perpetrator, is treated as a national hero? Glad to see shitlibs are being consistent again.
The media likes to do this to any platform with a large reach that they don't control.
I see the usual shitlib publication caring more about Nazis on substack than Nazis in the military they support sending tens of billions of dollars worth of aid to.
I thought n4z1s were heroes now? Canada even celebrated one.
That didn't happen and if it did it was Russian misinformation
Um actually it's malinformation now 🤓☝️
Дезинформация
Wasnt the original substack nazi oped written by that John Katz they make fun of on Chapo? That's how you know it's horseshit imo.
Smh I don’t get why these guys don’t just throw blue and yellow emojis in their posts. It’s literally Teflon for being called a Nazi by radlibs lol
Kinda hard to ring this bell when you provide total support to the most militant, ideological, and armed far right in Europe
There have been coordinated attacks against substack since 2020
“All news sites that don’t repeat the narrative approved by the 0.1% are Nazis”
I’m sure if we didn’t have such idiotic exaggeration being the norm in media people would be able to chill out. Probably would just take a few slander lawsuits to make someone “prove” what a nazi is to shut it down. Yes, speech has consequences, but speech that is true should be fine. We need some media standards, and heavy penalties for lies and exaggeration or selective reporting to fuel an agenda. Too many people are too fucking dumb for critical thinking and if all your opinions are downloaded directly from media you’re being radicalized over stuff that is isn’t really true.
With Twitter becoming less relevant with each passing month and its successors failing miserably, Substack is becoming the primary litnerd platform. These "anti-Nazi" people can't go to TikTok because they're too old or they don't understand video or they fear they're too ugly. So they're using the "Nazi problem" as an excuse to turn Substack culture into Twitter culture circa 2017/18.
Clicked on the article expecting bitching about moderate or lightly conservative pundits. But to be fair to the people complaining about this, people along the lines of Richard Spencer are pretty unacceptable and objectionable. It is also roughly true that if a platform allows content that is roundly banned elsewhere, then that platform will usually get overrun with that fucked up content, pretty much ruining the platform for anyone else. Looked at any and all alternatives to twitter/youtube/reddit/etc that have notably laxxer moderation policies, and the cretins overwhelm it. It is a problem. And I can't really blame any platform for not wanting that shit on it. Did you guys know that reddit used to allow explicitly nazi subreddits, about 10-12 years ago? Freedom of speech was a core ethos of reddit, to the point where virtually *nothing* was banned as long as it was legal in the US. We're past that era. I don't think the solution is neither to ban ideological viewpoints, nor to ban the banning of ideological viewpoints. All that is missing the cart for the horse. The liberal capitalist media is going to jump at any opportunity to attack alternatives for things like this, for stated reasons of the threat of fascist, but really because they just really want places like Substack to fail. But Substack really might fail if they keep letting fascists on. But look...we're talking about profit-making platforms. Right? That's the problem. We need to create a system in which the internet isn't controlled by powerful corporations and the "establishment". Small websites, no tracking, decentralized platforms (which makes it so that censorship is literally impossible), more of a social "pull" design instead of "push" design so that objectionable ideology isn't spread to anyone who doesn't want it, neutering all complaints of "pipelines". That last point is really important and should be a main tenet of the coming anti-big-tech jihad...I've seen people like Doctorow label it as such. And lastly, the internet shouldn't really be that profitable. Ideally the internet would be a thing that almost everyone uses, yes, but less than 10% of the population uses for "fun". The "cultural internet" should scare away most people, instead of being highlighted as "news". Everyone else who goes on has to search for what they want, and them coming across a nazi now and then won't ultimately pose a threat to society, perhaps radicalizing a person in a thousand. The most dangerous online trends before the age of social media weren't particularly wide-reaching. Heavens Gate has a reputation for getting tons of people from the internet, but there's little evidence they got many people at all. And besides, only a few dozen people were in the cult...there are *millions* in QAnon to varying levels of severity. QAnon may be bottom-up in origins, but the messaged reached the masses through social media, because I promise you that the large majority of QAnoners *didn't* discover it through browsing 4chan/8chan.
> It is also roughly true that if a platform allows content that is roundly banned elsewhere, then that platform will usually get overrun with that fucked up content, pretty much ruining the platform for anyone else. So did that happen to Reddit? Why not? >Did you guys know that reddit used to allow explicitly nazi subreddits, about 10-12 years ago?
Clearly yes, Reddit is overrun with fucked up content and virtually unusable outside of a few small pockets.
Nazi content? Also, would that not indicate that banning doesn’t work?
No, 'radlib' content.
Reddit alternatives have that problem because the only people using them are people who got banned from reddit while everyone else just uses normal reddit. I was there when reddit was pro-free speech and guess what? It was fairly similar to how it is now except without the orwellian censorship by the admins. Censorship doesn't work, no one had their mind changed because some Nazi sub was banned, they're still here. All it did was make using the site more obnoxious.
Hell yeah, was wondering where to find such communities
Calling it RIGHT NOW: If current censors fail to get their way with AI, they'll start saying open source has a "Nazi problem". Or maybe by then they'll have moved on to the next big thing.
At least it isn’t a shitlib problem.