Discussion about this post

User's avatar
steb's avatar

I think it's a completely solid statement that "giving up over and over is just that", and at some point you have to draw a line and write what you do in the place that you are.

The 'hard to have moral high ground on the internet' reminds me of something The Good Place pointed out: the entire world is far too complicated for any decision to not be negative in some light.

If you buy the wrong fish at the supermarket, you're killing the planet for supporting unsustainable dishing practices. Buy the wrong coffee with the wrong fair trade agreement and you're still supporting the oppression of small farm communities by Big Bean. If you buy nuts, you may be supporting drought in California... etc etc

The point is that continuing to write on Stubstack cannot be reduced to just blanket supporting of Nazi rhetoric because the leadership said something and traffic might go to Nazis now. It is both much more complicated and much less so.

Money and tribalism have done great damage to society. But they can be forces for good.

All of this is to say: I love your writing, and I'd follow you away or I'd read you here. The point isnt the platform, its the person. Make the choice based on what enables you the most.

Expand full comment
Bears Gonna Trundle's avatar

I'm from Canadaland, so I always find it... odd? Interesting? Definitely a slap in the face, when this comes up, and I really should know better by now.

We have hate speech laws, and this would be open and shut banhammer until the hammer breaks or people get bored and stop making overt hate sites (then they'll go covert, but still, the less noise they can make, the fewer people who will think this is generally acceptable and look into them).

Seeing the Internet ruled by US laws/ideals as the agreed default is weird and unsettling for me. I'm not saying I want Canadian laws to be how things are run, but the sheer amount of smug rolling off the owners makes me feel like "freeze peach" is not anything they actually care about. But other people reading that article will.

Maybe I just don't have the background to understand. I'm not saying this way is better -- gods know I work every day against what feels like impossible rising numbers and maybe an extinction burst. I just don't understand why, online, creators of a site choose US rules. Or maybe just that one. I thought most sites came to the consensus that active moderation is required in a community space, or it will eventually devolve entirely into everything-hating people who would very much like us to all spontaneously combust.

Maybe that was just video game developer sites?

Hate speech laws don't help when you can't tell the neo-Nazis from the police because they're all there on the same side shaking hands and buddy-buddy. But they seem like a really big step away from where the US is, and I don't see it getting any closer.

I mean, we have hate speech laws because we have a lot of hate speech. But they've really made a difference in my life and in the lives of pretty much all of my friends and family. It's nice to know the government officially has my back and says I have a right to not just exist but thrive as myself... even if actually connecting that official talk and policies to reality is more than a bit of a challenge.

I don't know. I read several sites owned just by one author and I'd do that with you. I miss Livejournal, kind of. Maybe not. I miss the communities though. I still have some, but they're tucked away and, yeah, strongly moderated with clear rules. Is that just putting myself in bubble wrap?

Expand full comment
76 more comments...

No posts