5 ms·

We definitely care a lot about about freedom of the press, and have written a bunch about it at e.g. https://on.substack.com/p/society-has-a-trust-problem-more

by cjbest 5y ago

We definitely care a lot about about freedom of the press, and have written a bunch about it at e.g. https://on.substack.com/p/society-has-a-trust-problem-more https://on.substack.com/p/society-has-a-trust-problem-more I think the Substack model gives us a bunch of advantages here: readers are choosing to subscribe to writers they trust, and who they then have a direct relationship with. I don't think that Apple is likely to try to police that too heavily, and if they do there is always web and email that exists as a fallback.

Mindwipe 5y ago
- jjulius 5y ago
  This follow-up question is being down voted for the personal attack at the end, and rightly so, but I would still be curious to see a response to the larger point about that kind of content from someone at Substack.
- Meekro 5y ago
  Censorship happens when a writer is de-platformed, and has nowhere to turn to re-platform themselves. People on HN then give snarky, insincere advice about creating your own web hosting company or whatever. On the other hand, there are lots of platforms catering to nudity and sexual content, so I don't think this is going to be a problem there. In a society where the government isn't allowed to censor, the greatest fear is that speech platforms will become few enough, or homogeneous enough, that particular kinds of legal speech have nowhere to go. Substack provides a home for some speakers who had nowhere else to go, and is therefore decreasing the total amount of censorship that happens in the US. Some of your "racists and abusers" may be people that others want to read. If you don't like what they're saying, don't read them. If you're going to try to stop me from reading people I want to read, I'll financially support companies that don't let you do that.
  - NationalPark 5y ago
    You're only saying that censorship isn't a problem for content that you personally judge to be unimportant. Many don't see it that way - they see policies like this as evidence of Substack appeasing Christian moralist values that have "cancelled" the expression of sexuality and sexual identity outside of a set of norms acceptable to them. Worse, these "blanket" policies often only end up enforced against LGBTQ people in practice. I don't know if that's the case with Substack, but they are absolutely censoring content for political reasons when they ban the arbitrarily defined category of "pornography". Likewise, one could trivially dismiss your position by saying that there are plenty of ways to get anti-vaccine messages (or whatever other "forbidden" political knowledge) - they are published all over the web! In the op ed section of every major newspaper, for example. Far more widely with regard to readership than sexual content is published.
    - kodah 5y ago
      > ... but they are absolutely censoring content for political reasons when they ban the arbitrarily defined category of "pornography". Have they said in plaintext that this is politically motivated or motivated by their "values"? A lot of platforms that censor sexual content don't do so out of their own wants or desires. I mean, what user generated content platform wants less users? Instead, they're pressured by VC's who have "morals" of their own or financial institutions who have heavy handed policies that could severely impact a fledgling company. There's also a big difference between "sex workers" and "pornography". Would Substack censor an escort for talking about detailed aspects of escorting? That's very different from censoring someone for posting pornographic images or videos which could potentially fall into the following very harmful, hard to moderate, and litigious categories like age and consent.
      - NationalPark 5y ago
        Sure, but that equally applies to companies following the money when they de-platform somebody over public or internal outrage at being associated with or enriching them. The point is that Substack's market position as "place where you can tell your truth after you get cancelled" is inconsistent with the purported motivation of a higher, abstract ideal or value of free speech. It's consistent with wanting to make money, and it turns out that the stuff that might get you banned on twitter can make a lot of money elsewhere. When the ideal of free speech (can I post porn there?) clashes with the ideal of making money (what if corporate firewalls ban us and our emails go to spam?), the money is preferred. There is no reason to believe the content currently protected there today would remain protected if the financial motivation shifted.
- dang 5y ago
  Please don't do this on HN. Thoughtful critique is welcome, but we're trying to avoid the online callout/shaming culture, and also the cross-examination/flaming style of forum comments. They just tend to have a dumbing-down effect on threads. We want curious conversation here and I'm sure you can make your substantive points in that way if you want to. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
klabb3 5y ago
> I don't think that Apple is likely to try to police that too heavily As someone who uses and loves substack precisely because of its censorship resistance, this sounds like wishful thinking at best. Even if substack is primarily web based, introducing a dependency on the ever-changing Apple content policing system is a potential conflict of interest. A cynical take is that smaller platforms compete early by allowing more speech, only to close it down when they become bigger and tied up in corporate relationships. How do you remain independent as you grow?

by cjbest 5y ago

Mindwipe 5y ago

jjulius 5y ago
This follow-up question is being down voted for the personal attack at the end, and rightly so, but I would still be curious to see a response to the larger point about that kind of content from someone at Substack.
Meekro 5y ago
Censorship happens when a writer is de-platformed, and has nowhere to turn to re-platform themselves. People on HN then give snarky, insincere advice about creating your own web hosting company or whatever. On the other hand, there are lots of platforms catering to nudity and sexual content, so I don't think this is going to be a problem there. In a society where the government isn't allowed to censor, the greatest fear is that speech platforms will become few enough, or homogeneous enough, that particular kinds of legal speech have nowhere to go. Substack provides a home for some speakers who had nowhere else to go, and is therefore decreasing the total amount of censorship that happens in the US. Some of your "racists and abusers" may be people that others want to read. If you don't like what they're saying, don't read them. If you're going to try to stop me from reading people I want to read, I'll financially support companies that don't let you do that.
- NationalPark 5y ago
  You're only saying that censorship isn't a problem for content that you personally judge to be unimportant. Many don't see it that way - they see policies like this as evidence of Substack appeasing Christian moralist values that have "cancelled" the expression of sexuality and sexual identity outside of a set of norms acceptable to them. Worse, these "blanket" policies often only end up enforced against LGBTQ people in practice. I don't know if that's the case with Substack, but they are absolutely censoring content for political reasons when they ban the arbitrarily defined category of "pornography". Likewise, one could trivially dismiss your position by saying that there are plenty of ways to get anti-vaccine messages (or whatever other "forbidden" political knowledge) - they are published all over the web! In the op ed section of every major newspaper, for example. Far more widely with regard to readership than sexual content is published.
  - kodah 5y ago
    > ... but they are absolutely censoring content for political reasons when they ban the arbitrarily defined category of "pornography". Have they said in plaintext that this is politically motivated or motivated by their "values"? A lot of platforms that censor sexual content don't do so out of their own wants or desires. I mean, what user generated content platform wants less users? Instead, they're pressured by VC's who have "morals" of their own or financial institutions who have heavy handed policies that could severely impact a fledgling company. There's also a big difference between "sex workers" and "pornography". Would Substack censor an escort for talking about detailed aspects of escorting? That's very different from censoring someone for posting pornographic images or videos which could potentially fall into the following very harmful, hard to moderate, and litigious categories like age and consent.
    - NationalPark 5y ago
      Sure, but that equally applies to companies following the money when they de-platform somebody over public or internal outrage at being associated with or enriching them. The point is that Substack's market position as "place where you can tell your truth after you get cancelled" is inconsistent with the purported motivation of a higher, abstract ideal or value of free speech. It's consistent with wanting to make money, and it turns out that the stuff that might get you banned on twitter can make a lot of money elsewhere. When the ideal of free speech (can I post porn there?) clashes with the ideal of making money (what if corporate firewalls ban us and our emails go to spam?), the money is preferred. There is no reason to believe the content currently protected there today would remain protected if the financial motivation shifted.
dang 5y ago
Please don't do this on HN. Thoughtful critique is welcome, but we're trying to avoid the online callout/shaming culture, and also the cross-examination/flaming style of forum comments. They just tend to have a dumbing-down effect on threads. We want curious conversation here and I'm sure you can make your substantive points in that way if you want to. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

klabb3 5y ago

> I don't think that Apple is likely to try to police that too heavily As someone who uses and loves substack precisely because of its censorship resistance, this sounds like wishful thinking at best. Even if substack is primarily web based, introducing a dependency on the ever-changing Apple content policing system is a potential conflict of interest. A cynical take is that smaller platforms compete early by allowing more speech, only to close it down when they become bigger and tied up in corporate relationships. How do you remain independent as you grow?