Thoughts on deplatforming
Should content hosts drive malevolent actors underground?
Substack has a fascist problem. Substack also has a disinformation problem. But so does the rest of the Internet. This reflects the human condition as a whole. It is often a very ugly thing. I do not see a benefit to sweeping that ugliness under the rug, or driving it into dark corners where our very worst qualities and tendencies can be ignored and forgotten.
Bans and boycotts don’t change the culture. Shining a spotlight on hate speech and disinformation, and calling out the bad actors who produce those products.
Elle Griffin and others agree with my position. They argue against the platform itself moderating content.
Because we’ve seen that before and it hasn’t worked. Other social media platforms have actively given reach to an enormous amount of divisive content, and moderation has amounted to private companies deciding who to deplatform based on their own agenda. Facebook has struggled with hate speech and misinformation no matter what it has tried with its moderation policies, and Twitter’s moderators have actively suppressed stories that might sway an upcoming election, among other discrepancies.
Do I wish the world was a kinder, gentler place? Yes. Do I see reality and contend with the human condition as it is in 2024? Yes. Do I think abandoning a platform because it hosts people I vehemently disagree with is the right move? No.
Social media is filled with outrage. It is an engine designed to keep our attention spans on itself, and psychologically, outrage and offense serve that purpose. Running away from a problem has never solved that problem. Deplatforming problem children is a form of kicking the can down the road.
The entire purpose of the Substack platform is giving creatives control over their content and audience, not sanitizing reality. I am an anti-theist, finding religious dogma to be highly offensive because of my evangelical inculcation during childhood. I do not campaign to silence dogma peddlers. The correct approach is to point out the cognitive errors and mythical nonsense for what it is. Forcing religious people underground won’t keep people from believing in gods or the supernatural. Education and logic will (for some). Even more important is creating a culture that rejects beliefs rooted in “feelings” rather than evidence. The same applies to fascism and other forms of hate speech. Fascists and authoritarians do not have any data to show that their ideas improve the human condition. Rather, the opposite is true.
Substack isn’t the problem. Broken social systems are the problem. The United States and other places are increasingly tolerant of fascist leadership. Booting fascists off a writing platform will not fix that.
What might have a positive influence on societies that want to get serious about the reduction of hateful and harmful ideas? Mental health screenings to hold public office, for one. It is dangerously ignorant that to be in the armed forces one must be evaluated for mental health issues, but the executive commander of the armed forces has no such requirements.
You can’t deplatform people with tiny, little hands, I mean audiences, while allowing the con man with the biggest audience of all to keep spewing toxic nonsense. At least, you shouldn’t. You know, if you want society to not collapse and eat itself.
We’re doing things bass ackwards, and Substack is the mote in god’s eye. The real problem starts with our broken election system, the dirty, non-functional two-party corrupt monopoly on power, and the fact that we allow oligarchs to control the flow of information, which leads to at least half of us shambling around like zombies all fired up about things that don’t make America great (gods, guns, and drumpf) and all pissed off about things that do (masks, gun laws, vaccines). This is not sustainable.
Cut off the disinformation at the knees, sure. That starts with the billionaires, not the unknown snake oilers on this platform.
I appreciate your position, though I disagree with several points.
Substack is not a neutral platform, hosting a wide variety of voices. The founders derive direct revenue (10%) from newsletters that spew actual Nazi propaganda (not to mention vaccine disinformation, election lies, racism, etc).
Substack makes bank on newsletters that are aiding in the further erosion of democracy.
In addition to monetization, Substack actively furthers these newsletters via recommendations, interviews, and Notes' algorithms.
As to your larger points, I agree. Substack is a minor player in an asymmetrical battle.
Well written Pen. I agree with so much of what you've well-articulated. Roughly 98%, if I had to put a number on it. Putting beliefs in religious dogma and a belief in the supernatural in the same basket, suggests to me that there's no room or place for personal experiences that so many of us have had that defy CURRENT explanation. The temptation is that if we've never had such an out of this world type experience ourselves, then the people who have must be dull or naive.
For me to ignore my own experience would be akin to me being present on the Capitol steps Jan 6th 2021 and denying that there was anything beyond some rowdy tourists. We each have to deal with our own realities but that in no way suggests that we should not use insight to analyze what we make of it.
I'm not sure if you got to read my - "The Christmas Story, Facts like Hen's Teeth." I'd venture to say you'd be unlikely to disagree with more than 2 or 3 %. As I said, I think you wrote an excellent piece.