Great essay. I hadn't though about your observation - "The real targets of censorship are not the censored, but their audience."
Have you sent your recommendations about doing censorship right to Substack.? It would be good if their Terms and Conditions included a statement that hey will never censor posts but will allow readers to block them. (Maybe exceptions for inciting violence, or redacting such comments.)
Would your suggestions deal with the Woke crowd. Maye if enough user "Dislike" a post. it could be preceded by a rating of some sort.
BTW, I tried to find "Tea Party of One" on Amazon yesterday and it gave me a dozen titles with :Tea Party" in the title,. but not Jean Serge's book.
On the first question: YES, that was the point of writing it. Apparently, the company is under some pressure to implement some sort of "community standards' policy. My post was intended to be a contribution to this discussion.
On the second, point, I have Jean-Serge's book (signed :) ). Its fate on Amazon is much the same as other self-published books.
For myself, I focus on the principle that Free Speech is a moral imperative. That without Free Speech we cannot have a Free Society and we can never be a Free People.
It follows naturally that censorship -- the antithesis of Free Speech -- must be a moral outrage.
Hello Zork, Thank you for your essay. As a substack writer, I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of the issue of ownership, censorship and free speech. on Substack, and other group platforms, there are at least two tiers of "users." One is those persons who write a tweet, or a substack column (as examples). The second level of "user" are those who comment on the tweet or the substack column.
And these need to be differentiated. Because it is possible and it does happen that some commenters with a burning desire to get their point across, or to forcefully influence readers of the columnist, or to distract from the main discussion of that column topic, or to just troll and disrupt, will come into the comments section.
Substack writers should not be censored in their own columns.
Substack writers should and do have a right to manage the comments sections of their columns. As SageHana once said 'my wall, my rules.' (paraphrased). Some substack writers allow paid-only subscribers to comment--but may still block a commenter should they then disagree in the comments.
Many substack writers also publish some or all articles for paid members only.
And many more of us publish all written material for all subscribers (or visitors). Then sometimes we are in a position as 'owner' of the column to need to block someone if they become overly disruptive or distracting from the topic. Otherwise substack writers are vulnerable to trolls and hijackers who seize on the venue to distract, disrupt, or steal the attention of the other participants.
As you said at the beginning of your essay: "The real targets of censorship are not the censored, but their audience." It is the owner of that substack column who gathered their readership and who should manage the comments.
...and I do it that way. I believe in free speech, so when I got a truly disgusting comment, I was ready to delete it. Then I chose to put the guy into his place, telling him that I found his antisemitic comment unacceptable. I handled it and left it there for all to see.
I have absolutely no problem with public shaming and shunning.
I actually miss a 'dislike' button that I would choose to use on all my posts. I would want to know if someone dislikes what I write.
Interesting essay, but even your proposal wouldn't work. Most people want censorship of ideas they disagree with. So any large group of individual people will pressure platforms toward censorship. As most people in the English-speaking world acknowledge no higher morality than the whims of the self, they see themselves as moral for seeking censorship of ideas they disagree with. It's a byproduct of a materialist mindset. A moral strong-man (read Elon Musk as an example) can force a platform into a state of neutrality, but under most crowd-conditions a system of censure will emerge.
Your proposal is an honest attempt to make something better, and I respect that... but you just recommended creating reddit again, but without the 'report' button. It will generally lead to 2 behaviors on the platform.
1] bots will be used to artificially inflate like/dislike ratios to remove people that censors want gone or people with spicy ideas. The social pressure created by getting ratio'd on every post will turn a lot of people off.
2] A culture of conformity will emerge as it has on reddit. Where people compete over updoots more than they actually have an opinion. That type of hive-mind basically produces nothing creative, but has gotten very good at agreeing with the herd.
3] most people on the platform will use block-lists. That's where they block a large swath of users as curated by other users. A large block-list will give the power of censure to the ones creating the list, there was a whole thing on twitter about this a number of years back.
The censorship problem is a real hard issue. I can't see an easy solution to it as social standards will emerge and providing a like/dislike button will definitionally make it worse. I think the 4chan model is pretty good (no like/dislike, just engagement) which tends to lead to highly creative ideas reaching the front page quickly.
A better model might be a real-time engagement tracker. Keep a running conversation beneath each post. Each response will last for a set period of time, and then everything gets deleted. Instead of posts lasting forever, it'll last a few days or weeks at most, and the responses to it are in real time. In that context what drives engagement, and drives interaction is interaction rather than nebulous updoots or downdoots. That system can be gamed, but it's trickier, and has historically lead to an anti-censorship mentality and the spread of ideas that our [elites] would rather people not interact with.
Thank you for your comment. I think that the line is very simple. We cannot force our will on society and neither can we escape the judgement of the collective. There is a difference between censorship and shunning. The first is done by entities, the second by groups of individual actors. What I am arguing for is an absolute no on the first and grudging acceptance of the second. It can be manipulated and abused; it can be very unpleasant, but it is the price of social existence. There will always be a hostility in the crowd against outliers, rebels and innovators. There will always be fashion and fads. I may not like it, but I learned to live with that. Here is an example: I find that the posts I consider my best systematically get less traction than the rest, giving me the dilemma: should I cater to what people like, or be myself? I always choose the later, but I always ask the question. I am terribly dismayed about how little traction my last post got, even as I consider it one of my best and one of my most important ones.
Great essay. I hadn't though about your observation - "The real targets of censorship are not the censored, but their audience."
Have you sent your recommendations about doing censorship right to Substack.? It would be good if their Terms and Conditions included a statement that hey will never censor posts but will allow readers to block them. (Maybe exceptions for inciting violence, or redacting such comments.)
Would your suggestions deal with the Woke crowd. Maye if enough user "Dislike" a post. it could be preceded by a rating of some sort.
BTW, I tried to find "Tea Party of One" on Amazon yesterday and it gave me a dozen titles with :Tea Party" in the title,. but not Jean Serge's book.
On the first question: YES, that was the point of writing it. Apparently, the company is under some pressure to implement some sort of "community standards' policy. My post was intended to be a contribution to this discussion.
On the second, point, I have Jean-Serge's book (signed :) ). Its fate on Amazon is much the same as other self-published books.
For myself, I focus on the principle that Free Speech is a moral imperative. That without Free Speech we cannot have a Free Society and we can never be a Free People.
It follows naturally that censorship -- the antithesis of Free Speech -- must be a moral outrage.
https://newsletter.allfactsmatter.us/p/speech-or-silence-freedom-or-fascism
Hello Zork, Thank you for your essay. As a substack writer, I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of the issue of ownership, censorship and free speech. on Substack, and other group platforms, there are at least two tiers of "users." One is those persons who write a tweet, or a substack column (as examples). The second level of "user" are those who comment on the tweet or the substack column.
And these need to be differentiated. Because it is possible and it does happen that some commenters with a burning desire to get their point across, or to forcefully influence readers of the columnist, or to distract from the main discussion of that column topic, or to just troll and disrupt, will come into the comments section.
Substack writers should not be censored in their own columns.
Substack writers should and do have a right to manage the comments sections of their columns. As SageHana once said 'my wall, my rules.' (paraphrased). Some substack writers allow paid-only subscribers to comment--but may still block a commenter should they then disagree in the comments.
Many substack writers also publish some or all articles for paid members only.
And many more of us publish all written material for all subscribers (or visitors). Then sometimes we are in a position as 'owner' of the column to need to block someone if they become overly disruptive or distracting from the topic. Otherwise substack writers are vulnerable to trolls and hijackers who seize on the venue to distract, disrupt, or steal the attention of the other participants.
As you said at the beginning of your essay: "The real targets of censorship are not the censored, but their audience." It is the owner of that substack column who gathered their readership and who should manage the comments.
...and I do it that way. I believe in free speech, so when I got a truly disgusting comment, I was ready to delete it. Then I chose to put the guy into his place, telling him that I found his antisemitic comment unacceptable. I handled it and left it there for all to see.
I have absolutely no problem with public shaming and shunning.
I actually miss a 'dislike' button that I would choose to use on all my posts. I would want to know if someone dislikes what I write.
Interesting essay, but even your proposal wouldn't work. Most people want censorship of ideas they disagree with. So any large group of individual people will pressure platforms toward censorship. As most people in the English-speaking world acknowledge no higher morality than the whims of the self, they see themselves as moral for seeking censorship of ideas they disagree with. It's a byproduct of a materialist mindset. A moral strong-man (read Elon Musk as an example) can force a platform into a state of neutrality, but under most crowd-conditions a system of censure will emerge.
Your proposal is an honest attempt to make something better, and I respect that... but you just recommended creating reddit again, but without the 'report' button. It will generally lead to 2 behaviors on the platform.
1] bots will be used to artificially inflate like/dislike ratios to remove people that censors want gone or people with spicy ideas. The social pressure created by getting ratio'd on every post will turn a lot of people off.
2] A culture of conformity will emerge as it has on reddit. Where people compete over updoots more than they actually have an opinion. That type of hive-mind basically produces nothing creative, but has gotten very good at agreeing with the herd.
3] most people on the platform will use block-lists. That's where they block a large swath of users as curated by other users. A large block-list will give the power of censure to the ones creating the list, there was a whole thing on twitter about this a number of years back.
The censorship problem is a real hard issue. I can't see an easy solution to it as social standards will emerge and providing a like/dislike button will definitionally make it worse. I think the 4chan model is pretty good (no like/dislike, just engagement) which tends to lead to highly creative ideas reaching the front page quickly.
A better model might be a real-time engagement tracker. Keep a running conversation beneath each post. Each response will last for a set period of time, and then everything gets deleted. Instead of posts lasting forever, it'll last a few days or weeks at most, and the responses to it are in real time. In that context what drives engagement, and drives interaction is interaction rather than nebulous updoots or downdoots. That system can be gamed, but it's trickier, and has historically lead to an anti-censorship mentality and the spread of ideas that our [elites] would rather people not interact with.
Thank you for your comment. I think that the line is very simple. We cannot force our will on society and neither can we escape the judgement of the collective. There is a difference between censorship and shunning. The first is done by entities, the second by groups of individual actors. What I am arguing for is an absolute no on the first and grudging acceptance of the second. It can be manipulated and abused; it can be very unpleasant, but it is the price of social existence. There will always be a hostility in the crowd against outliers, rebels and innovators. There will always be fashion and fads. I may not like it, but I learned to live with that. Here is an example: I find that the posts I consider my best systematically get less traction than the rest, giving me the dilemma: should I cater to what people like, or be myself? I always choose the later, but I always ask the question. I am terribly dismayed about how little traction my last post got, even as I consider it one of my best and one of my most important ones.
(https://zorkthehun.substack.com/p/responsibility-revisited)
What I want is the freedom from institutional censorship and control.
Whatever the metrics can be, it should be my choice what to display.