No, Casie Newton initially identified and verified 6 accounts as examples. Nowhere except in Nazi apologists minds is any statement whatever that there are ONLY 6 accounts. Do better.
I don't know. Casey only found 6, despite analysing "dozens" of accounts. The Atlantic article cited 16, of which six could be the same. I'm not arguing that it's good that 16 have found a home on Substack, but 16 is not a systemic problem. And Substack's policy (it draws the line at inciting violence) is good enough in my opinion, and when ANY pub crosses that line, Nazi or not, I'd expect Substack to take action.
The entire Nazi ethos *is* violence. No further evidence is needed.
Do you have a *number* for how many Nazi accounts would disturb you? Or will you conveniently always need more?
A private platform's policy on Nazi accounts is utterly unrelated to "free speech". You are guaranteed a right to speak what you want - but there are no guarantees as to *where* you may do so, nor that anyone hear/read you. "Free Speech" does not give you the right to come into my living room.
The point I was hoping to make is that in the end, we as users should take more control over our digital moderation. Platforms can’t moderate well enough, and get tied in knots trying to keep everyone happy.
To use your living room example, if something appeared on your TV you didn’t like, you’d change the channel, not report the TV for showing it. I feel we should all just accept that shitty people are out there, they use the same platforms we do, and platform moderation is a losing battle.
Maybe its just me, but if I turned on a streaming service that I typically enjoy and saw a hour long show praising Hitler and Nazism, then yeah, I'd probably complain to the streaming service, give them a chance to fix the situation, and if they don't, I'd unsubscribe.
Look, if you're going to make the case that free speech requires allowing a debunked and defeated ideology like Nazism on a platform then at least defend the ideology as being worthwhile of anybody's time. After all, if the value of "free speech" is allowing unorthodox ideas to flow, then those ideas should be novel and defensible. If they aren't, then what's lost by simply exercising your 1A rights and saying something like "Nazism is a dead end, there's absolutely nothing more to be learned from it than what history already teaches us, so we don't allow discussions of it here."
The retort to this thinking is almost always "it's a slippery slope" but that's a lazy argument. And its illogical too. If banning Nazism was such a "slippery slope" towards some totalitarian control of human thought, then how is it that after being absolutely routed on the battlefield (albeit after wreaking carnage) nearly 80 years ago, we *still* regularly find small groups of losers expressing their adherence to this utter loser of an ideology? If anything, its free speech that's allowing these zombie ideas to continue to routinely sprout up amongst much more worthwhile forums of debate and exchange of ideas. Banning these dead-end ideas is nothing more than weeding the garden.
Nope. If someone shows up on a channel I care about, such as public access, I would (and have) make political noise. Likewise, I would (and have) not only changed the channel, but let the network know, and let others know to protest as well
One Nazi in a bar, no matter how "polite", makes it a Nazi bar.
No, Casie Newton initially identified and verified 6 accounts as examples. Nowhere except in Nazi apologists minds is any statement whatever that there are ONLY 6 accounts. Do better.
I don't know. Casey only found 6, despite analysing "dozens" of accounts. The Atlantic article cited 16, of which six could be the same. I'm not arguing that it's good that 16 have found a home on Substack, but 16 is not a systemic problem. And Substack's policy (it draws the line at inciting violence) is good enough in my opinion, and when ANY pub crosses that line, Nazi or not, I'd expect Substack to take action.
The entire Nazi ethos *is* violence. No further evidence is needed.
Do you have a *number* for how many Nazi accounts would disturb you? Or will you conveniently always need more?
A private platform's policy on Nazi accounts is utterly unrelated to "free speech". You are guaranteed a right to speak what you want - but there are no guarantees as to *where* you may do so, nor that anyone hear/read you. "Free Speech" does not give you the right to come into my living room.
The point I was hoping to make is that in the end, we as users should take more control over our digital moderation. Platforms can’t moderate well enough, and get tied in knots trying to keep everyone happy.
To use your living room example, if something appeared on your TV you didn’t like, you’d change the channel, not report the TV for showing it. I feel we should all just accept that shitty people are out there, they use the same platforms we do, and platform moderation is a losing battle.
Maybe its just me, but if I turned on a streaming service that I typically enjoy and saw a hour long show praising Hitler and Nazism, then yeah, I'd probably complain to the streaming service, give them a chance to fix the situation, and if they don't, I'd unsubscribe.
Look, if you're going to make the case that free speech requires allowing a debunked and defeated ideology like Nazism on a platform then at least defend the ideology as being worthwhile of anybody's time. After all, if the value of "free speech" is allowing unorthodox ideas to flow, then those ideas should be novel and defensible. If they aren't, then what's lost by simply exercising your 1A rights and saying something like "Nazism is a dead end, there's absolutely nothing more to be learned from it than what history already teaches us, so we don't allow discussions of it here."
The retort to this thinking is almost always "it's a slippery slope" but that's a lazy argument. And its illogical too. If banning Nazism was such a "slippery slope" towards some totalitarian control of human thought, then how is it that after being absolutely routed on the battlefield (albeit after wreaking carnage) nearly 80 years ago, we *still* regularly find small groups of losers expressing their adherence to this utter loser of an ideology? If anything, its free speech that's allowing these zombie ideas to continue to routinely sprout up amongst much more worthwhile forums of debate and exchange of ideas. Banning these dead-end ideas is nothing more than weeding the garden.
Nope. If someone shows up on a channel I care about, such as public access, I would (and have) make political noise. Likewise, I would (and have) not only changed the channel, but let the network know, and let others know to protest as well
One Nazi in a bar, no matter how "polite", makes it a Nazi bar.