PhilipTheBucket

If I were in a conspiratorial frame of mind, I might think that there are people who are trying to push the “Substack = Nazis” narrative, by spreading it around in contexts where the “official” content of their message is actually something different, which is usually a lot more effective at spreading the gestalt you’re trying to spread around than just spamming “Substack = Nazis” everywhere.

The whole framing of the underlying freakout, that if Substack sent you a push notification about somebody’s blog, they’re obviously endorsing it, and it’s “being pushed algorithmically” by Substack, and look, here’s this very visual-picture-friendly juxtaposition of the Nazi logo in a Substack notification, even if the actual accusation is being walked by to “I think they should ban Nazis and this shouldn’t even be an issue” (which would be a fair thing to say) and “I’m alarmed that they took VC money from some pretty suspect people at different points in their history” (which would be a fair thing to say).

But, that’s not what they lead with. What they lead with is “don’t take any action” (they did take action), “‘oops, all nazis’ notifications issue” (not even sure what that means, but Substack is overwhelmingly leftist obviously, not “oops all nazis”)… you get the idea. There’s some other innuendo stuff in there, implying that “free speech” is just a cover because Substack loves Nazis so much that they’re hosting a ton of solid left-wing journalists and providing them funding, just so they can have a handy excuse to host this one Nazi blog with 768 followers, which is the real goal.

Ask me if I’m salty about this whole conversation lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy (I just learned about this one and since then I’ve been seeing it everywhere; Lemmy people love to do it it seems like)

from content on their site, that they full control

They don’t. Or, rather, to exactly the degree that Google “controls” the mail servers that forwarded the spam email to you.

Anyway, you seem to be grasping the point I was making now, so great. Anyway, to me, the bottom line is: It’s better to let people talk. I federated with Hexbear and lemmy.ml, too (or did, back when I had a server of my own, sniff), for exactly the same reason. It’s not Substack’s fault that there are Nazis in the world, and in this particular case and framing, I don’t think moving them to some other segregated platform does anyone any good. I actually think it helps the Nazis a lot to separate them from the main flow of information exchange. I realize I’m in the minority in thinking all of this.

The best way to combat that is not having Nazi shit.

Banning Nazi shit, especially if you are now taking a ton of money from standard silicon valley VCs, is the first step towards banning all “antisemitic” shit. It’s just a hop, skip, and a jump away. I think I actually had this exact conversation specifically about Substack with someone, at great length, a few years ago, and they were pointing to Germany as an example of how it should work (banning Nazi shit), and I pointed out that the same laws could easily be used against pro-Palestinians, and they all told me I was crazy.

AND OH, LOOK WHAT HAPPENED IN GERMANY

We’re probably not going to see eye to eye on it. Whatever. Anyway: I’m not in favor of Nazis. I’m in favor of left-wing platforms. I’m noticing that you are not taking the standpoint “We need to get the Nazis off Substack, because it’s a good thing, but the Nazis are horrifying.” That would actually be totally reasonable to me even though it’s not my opinion. You’re taking the standpoint “Fuck Substack all the homies hate Substack,” apparently, which I have a problem with. Or that seems to be your stance. Am I wrong? Maybe so, if so tell me.

I don’t like policing people’s speech, even when literal Nazis are involved. I’m probably in the minority on that. But I just don’t like all the disingenuous ways of attacking Substack that all seem to boil down to some pretty dishonest framings… everything you’re saying now, I think is more or less reasonable, we just don’t agree on it. As long as you’re not saying “SUBSTACK IS PROMOTING NAZI BLOGS ON PURPOSE BECAUSE THEY’RE NAZIS,” as some people seem to be, I think we good.

Are you under the impression that someone at Substack manually reviews every notification that goes out, for every user-generated post / blog? I feel like you failed to grasp the essential point I was making. Yes, comparing it to “Google is sending me push notifications about herbal supplements!” is precisely the analogy I’m intending to make. You are aware that those email notifications are also push notifications, sent to you by Google, based on user-generated content, right?

I have no idea what youre on about with the URL

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Is there a better way I can explain it to you, do you have any questions about the explanation? What part doesn’t make sense?

I have no idea if Substack is planning to take this blog down (actually I kind of doubt it, now looking into it more). But it seems like you’re failing to grasp really incredibly simple things that I’m saying, which makes me kind of not trust your overall judgement about what the far more complex issue of what the right overall judgement and opinion to hold towards Substack is.

Are you under the impression that a person at Substack manually reviews every notification about every newsletter that gets sent out? It would be surprising to me if that was how it worked.

The URL has a “1” at the end, which usually means someone lost their account the first time and is now making a new one. I can’t really make sense of how old the “1” version of the account is or if there used to be one without it. The blog hasn’t been deleted yet, which sure isn’t great, but I’m fairly sure that the people at Substack didn’t make this blog or deliberately take pains to make sure it exists in any way.

I mean, you do understand that when I get a gmail notification about herbal Viagra, that doesn’t mean Google has gone into the herbal supplements business, right? And in general how platforms generally work? As I understand it (and tell me if I’m wrong), their currently policy is to ban Nazis and this one should be gone soon. Maybe I’m wrong, I’ll check back in a couple days and see what happened with it.

Honestly, it makes infinitely more sense to think that this is a fuck-up that is being spun to sound like a deliberate decision by internet trolls, than to think that Substack has decided to start sending literal Nazi propaganda to their users on purpose.

Also, they just took more funding from Marc Andeerssen in their most recent $100 million funding round 13 days ago, so your TL;DR is also all fucked up.

I mean, not from him personally, any more than they did from Kim Kardashian or Skims, the apparel company. I do agree that lots of VC money flooding in is a significant problem, just because it’s usually (almost always) a corrupting influence in the long run. That doesn’t mean that “Substack has a Nazi problem” all of a sudden becomes validated.

seeing more nuance than “A16Z investment is a necessary, end of story! No discussion allowed!” does not make one a purity obsessed leftists

Aw, jeez, you’re right. I hate discussion and I hate nuance. You got me. That’s exactly a really good summary of what I was saying.

The piece about Substack making nazi blogs to stir up drama was not meant to be taken seriously

Ah, yes, Schroedinger’s leftist. “I was just joking! Unless…? Also, BTW, Substack’s got a Nazi problem.”

I am not American

Great, congratulations.

it is reasonable to be sceptical of Substack’s claims

What “claims”?

People in other countries get severally beaten up (or even killed) in an attempt to do real journalism

IDK if you’ve been paying attention, but they’ve been putting journalists here in ICE detention for doing real journalism. IDK why you are trying to frame pro-journalism as a thing that is somehow unique to non-America, or in any way related to Substack. That framing just makes literally 0 sense.

Journalists good. Beating up journalists bad. Hopefully we can agree on that.

Also, hosting journalists good. Hopefully we can agree on that. No? Or does the first thing mean the second one is bad somehow? This is the type of weird circuitous framing I always see when people are bringing in some kind of bullshit narrative. “Substack hosts Nazis, I don’t like that” makes perfect sense, I can dig it, we can talk about it. This is just some weird circuitous nonsense.

Where did I make any claims about how the A16Z money was used?

I mean, you sure brought it up as a bad thing. Which, yes, it’s pretty suspect. I would actually describe the centralization of Substack (which means it’s vulnerable to a single legal action or something torpedoing the whole thing or putting them in a position where they actually do have to skew their journalism in some sort of pro-fascist direction) as the biggest problem, but you didn’t touch on that, because it can’t be summed up in a bite-sized “What about the A16Z money!” nugget.

Sure, it likely was used to fund journalists on the platform, including people who do good work. It is a good thing that they are getting paid.

Great! Glad we finally agree on something. Yes, it is, and it’s why the centralization and VC money was maybe a necessary evil to some extent where something like Ghost will have a harder time sending bunches of money to journalists, which is why all these good left-wing journalists are on Substack right now. Which is a good thing. I mean, at least we’re getting somewhere on that part lol.

I just don’t buy the colourful story about “commitment to free speech”

Honestly, why not? If a platform is 80% left wing voices and raised money specifically to give to those left wing voices, and then also hosts a tiny minority (much less than 20%, just kind of the ones who show up who don’t cross certain objective lines, like being Nazis) of right-wing voices, why would “free speech” not be the most logical explanation for why they’re doing that?

I am aware that “free speech” is often used as a code-word to excuse Nazi platforms, but those ones are usually pretty easy to identify because they host majority Nazi voices, they kick the left-wing ones off instead of raising funding for them, and so on and so on. I get the instant suspicion of “free speech” at this point in the American media landscape, but I don’t get why someone who took more than a cursory look at what Substack’s doing would come to any other conclusion about why they’re doing it.

and the uncritical view of the A16Z investment.

Sounds good! If I find anyone taking an uncritical view of the A16Z investment, I’ll let you know, and you and they can hash it out.

There’s a good bit of fake voting on Lemmy, but after a quick glance at the votes I don’t think this is that, I think it’s just people legitimately believing the narrative that “Substack = Nazis” and upvoting it because they believe in it.

(it would be funny if they created the Nazis blog themselves to stir things up).

Jesus Christ, see this is what I was talking about. You’re making up nonsense. What they actually did was invested a bunch of money in paying actual journalism people to do actual journalism things, and then create a new way of doing things that invited a ton of qualified mostly leftist journalists to do real journalism on a platform that’s a little closer to how people actually consume media now, and get paid for it, and in a sustainable fashion now that all the previous media empires are either crashing down or getting replaced with explicit propaganda.

That’s where some of that A16Z money went: To journalists (some of it literally and directly, to get the ball rolling). That’s why there are all these people like Robert Reich and Tim Snyder on Substack right now, doing journalism and getting paid for it. It’s a good thing.

Of course, it’s super easy to pretend they created a bunch of Nazi blogs instead. They didn’t do that, but “it would be funny” is easy to say. Man, get lost.

!fediverse@lemmy.world hasn’t yet succumbed to the international shittymod conspiracy. Give it time, I’m sure once they secure their hold over dbzer0, they’ll get to work on some of the medium-sized LW communities, and start booting out defenses of Substack because of “trolling” or something.

(I am joking. I think. Maybe not.)

This is of a piece with “Mamdani isn’t left wing enough for me” / “AOC supports genocide” / “Bernie is a Zionist” kind of glib one-liner reasons why left-wing people need to stop supporting left-wing things, because they’re not really virtuous enough, and so we need to abandon them in pursuit of some kind of imaginary virtue solution instead of just having unity.

TL;DR: They took some funding from Marc Andreessen long ago, they were willing to give blogs to everyone including Nazis (bc free speech) and the whole internet yelled at them, so they caved and removed the Nazis. IDK how this particular push notification happened, but I would bet that the blog will be removed. They are not wholly ideologically pure, I think Richard Spenser is the worst person they willingly host and he’s pretty bad, but they don’t allow Nazis anymore specifically because of the hue and cry it raised up the first time.

More conversation about it here, I don’t have the patience right now to write up a full explanation. TL;DR someone who’s panicked at you about the Substack Nazi problem is listening to something that’s mostly designed to hurt a mostly left-wing platform.

Well, but we’re talking about how to prepare for the future where it does need to be fed proof. At some point, I think pretty soon from now in some places, it’s going to become necessary to either break the rules of the internet in ways that can actually get you in trouble, or accept that you have to do things like upload your ID to all these places, agree not to access certain types of content the government doesn’t want you looking at, not say certain political things on social media or else you’re going on a list, things like that.

I think option A is probably better and it probably makes sense to start to think about, how are we going to do that and not have the expanded-and-mission-creeped version of ICE showing up at your door for it to give you a citation or worse, a year from now.

Right now, yes, a VPN is fine. But that’s only true for as long as the government doesn’t strongly dislike anything that you are doing.

Or do we just have some bad actors trying to stir the pot?

Yes.

People are hostile idiots sometimes, also, so that doesn’t help. But yes, people are definitely trying to stir up deliberate ballache for whatever weird reasons of their own.

I’ve literally never in my life heard of “this person was doing (whatever), but they were behind a VPN, so we had to do (whatever elaborate sting operation) instead of compromising the VPN.” I’ve heard that many times about Tor.

It’s possible that no one’s ever done something significant enough to make the feds interested from behind a VPN, just always used Tor, but I feel like it is unlikely. I feel like it’s more likely that they either have the ability to force the VPN companies to comply with some legal structures that give them the info they need, or else just wiretap the pipes going in and out of the VPN servers and can sort things out pretty straightforwardly if they really start to care about it.

VPNs are certainly useful; they make it a lot more difficult for non-law-enforcement people to know what you’re up to, which is a significant gain, and they are faster and generally more convenient than using Tor. But if you’re actually concerned about the government, I would use Tor 100% of the time over a VPN.

Yeah. As far as I know, there are some theoretical state-actor attacks, but nothing that anyone’s ever been able to make work in practice. Compromising something else is just always easier.

It was literally designed by professional spies to be resistant against state intelligence agencies. It was originally made by US intelligence for secret communication with their assets, and only released to the public when they realized they needed a bunch of additional traffic on the network that the US intelligence traffic can blend in with. At least as of the Snowden leaks (which showed NSA compromise of huge amounts of the internet including most HTTPS traffic), they hadn’t figured out a way to undo it for their own spying purposes, either.

Seriously. The reason CSAM merchants and drug dealers use Tor is because it actually protects their privacy successfully. Whereas, if you’re using a VPN or whatever cobbled-together solution, the feds just have a hearty laugh about it, send a subpoena by email or use some automated system that’s even more streamlined, and then come and find you.

Tor is not bulletproof; they regularly run operations where they take down some big illegal thing on the dark web. But they have to do an operation for it, and if there were any solution that was any better, that thing would be even more infested with illegal material than “the dark web” is. That’s just how it works. And listening to the newspapers when they tell you that it’s a sign you need to stay away from those actually-effective solutions because “terrorism!” or whatever is a pretty foolish idea.

Tor is slow and has a reputation of being used by pedophiles and drug traffickers. I2P is scattered in implementation and cannot handle high load.

Physical bluetooth mesh networks or other technology is an example. Maybe even a new version of dial-up.

These are incompatible statements lol

Tor is fine, I’m looking at this on Tor Browser right now. I would say the jank level is about 20%. Quokk.au, actually, for some weird reason has significant problems with it (significant slowness and sometimes refuses to load a page). I actually have no idea what’s going on with that, but it and I think one other site are the only Fedi sites that have any kind of problem at all. The majority (but not all) news sites and things work fine. Some things do not and I have to bounce over to some normal browser. The jank level is definitely not 0, but it’s bearable.

I actually do agree about needing to set up a better architecture overall. Tor is an extremely special-purpose architecture for one thing only (near-bulletproof privacy and firewall traversal even against extremely aggressive government attempts to defeat both), which is honestly a pretty fantastic start, but there’s a lot more that goes into “the internet” than just slapping a slightly janky but super-safe VPN over the front of it.

The main point is: Hey! Don’t badmouth Tor, it’s good (and the jank level of starting from scratch instead will be super high for any forseeable future.)

The UK enacted age verification, the instance said fuck that. So, more or less, the UK’s fault.

https://www.torproject.org/download/

Probably a good idea for things other than Lemmy, too, the way that things are going.

Think of all the stuff they are breathing…