Yes, but if we institute restrictions, then a lot of innocent free speech gets blocked. While if restrictions are left to the blogger to flag, she can intelligently decide if it ought to get blocked or not.
Problem is that there is no fair way to define what should be restricted or not. Shall we restrict any speech that mentions prophet mohammad? Shall we restrict only the criticism of prophet mohammad? Even if it were algorithmically possible to do so, on what basis is it justified to restrict criticism and insults of this historical figure?
Interesting -- you are unable to provide a counter argument to my remark that your article by Keith Preston is attempting to bizarrely absolve the Left of Wokeism. So instead you seem to have no choice but resort to personal insults, spam, trolling, and harassment. I count about 40 posts of yours made in such bad faith. Sasha should take note of this.
So Jon…if that is your real name…We’re talkin’ “real” dachshunds here right? You know, basic short hair wienerdogs….None of those hippie longhaired dachshund monstrosities or those genetic freaks like chiweenies, dorkies, and Dameranians…those are way out…am I right??
Interesting -- you are unable to provide a counter argument to my remark that your article by Keith Preston is attempting to bizarrely absolve the Left of Wokeism. Instead, you seem to have no choice but resort to personal insults, spam, trolling, and harassment. I count about 40 posts of yours made in such bad faith. Sasha should take note of this.
I dunno, I'm absolutely for free speech, the first amendment, the agon & dialectic that need to be gone through to reach the truth, but with that said, there are ethical standards that govern participation within both family & community and we all know inherently, intuitively, in the gut that we need to respect boundaries and the dignity of every person & that bullying, slurs, mockery, bigotry, & cruelty just have no place. As we know, all of the hardest & most complex things in life can be said without any of that & without impugning another's character. If we each can't hold ourself to the fundamental standard of basic cordiality & decency, we'll maybe we just don't get the floor. That's not denying anyone their rights or freedom. Isn't it just acknowledging that there are some simple basic patterns that pertain to social life & the public space to which we all need to adhere? Isn't this why the study of manners has an ethical dimension? Laws of hospitality, proper patterns of engagement... Thank you, Sasha, for keeping this space cordial.
Also possible that the people doing such things are in some manner or way an attack on you even if seemingly in support of you. You criticize Democrats a lot so their national security state masters could potentially use cyber capabilities to try and undermine critics. Like the cyber form of Ray Epps.
I thought of that too. And I think sometimes it could be a test to see what I do. If someone comes in who is blatantly using hate speech if I let it ride then I could be perhaps banned from Substack. Or discredited or whatever. So if I see that I will ban it. I remember when they just started Gettr and so many trolls from the Left were using the N-word and lots and lots of racist stuff. That was so obviously just to help bring down Gettr. That was my first thought when I saw it.
I too sense a boomerang effect. I know some of it is real, but I also think there are a non ignorable # of trouble makers who are trying to paint dissidents as Nazis.
Understood and agree 100%. Personally, I haven’t seen much on Substack that hasn’t been polite and respectful, which is why it’s such a pleasant place to explore. But if something is bad, it needs to go!
A level of civility is necessary for discussion and debate and to truly be able to listen to all sides of an issue. We as a society would be so much better off and able to find common ground if the values of empathy, kindness and grace were used more often. I know this seems ridiculous and old fashioned to most people, but worth a try.
I think censorship and self-censorship are the greater evil.
You could have a special "corralled" comments section, where you could summarily banish comments that are unacceptable but people could still read them if they made the effort and it would be clear they were not approved of by you.
Yelp does this by placing some reviews in the "Not Recommended" but they're still available.
I like this suggestion; could even call it a “troll section”. I don’t envy Sasha having to balance all this because I agree I don’t want the site to be taken over by a swarm of negative and conspiracy voices.
Sasha, I don't think you have to worry about actual Nazis or actual KKK, etc. There aren't that many in the country. The media exaggerates their numbers and activities. For example. there were no KKK and one small group of Nazis with a flag at the infamous Charlottesville event, but the media made it a conference of Nazis and KKK. Ditto with January 6. You probably know a Federal judge went after one protestor for carrying a Confederate flag through the Capitol and gave him a harsher sentence than he should have for trespassing.
I'm guessing this was spurred by my comment about Dachshunds being the superior canine and that all other breeds might as well be cats.
I can see now how that could be insensitive to both (inferior breed) dog and cat owners, as well as furies.
I'll strive to be better.
Ha! I hate to tell you what it actually was. But it wasn't something I see every day that's for sure. Every once in a while...
Happy Birthday, Sasha -- love your writing style as well as your reporting!
Unrestricted free speech, paradoxically, results in less speech, not more.
Not in civil society. Restricted free speech results in less speech. Obviously.
Then why is she blocking some commenters??
Yes, but if we institute restrictions, then a lot of innocent free speech gets blocked. While if restrictions are left to the blogger to flag, she can intelligently decide if it ought to get blocked or not.
Problem is that there is no fair way to define what should be restricted or not. Shall we restrict any speech that mentions prophet mohammad? Shall we restrict only the criticism of prophet mohammad? Even if it were algorithmically possible to do so, on what basis is it justified to restrict criticism and insults of this historical figure?
I like cats but wasn’t offended.
With friends like you, cats need no enemies!
Interesting -- you are unable to provide a counter argument to my remark that your article by Keith Preston is attempting to bizarrely absolve the Left of Wokeism. So instead you seem to have no choice but resort to personal insults, spam, trolling, and harassment. I count about 40 posts of yours made in such bad faith. Sasha should take note of this.
So Jon…if that is your real name…We’re talkin’ “real” dachshunds here right? You know, basic short hair wienerdogs….None of those hippie longhaired dachshund monstrosities or those genetic freaks like chiweenies, dorkies, and Dameranians…those are way out…am I right??
Hilarious!!
Well, that's silly, Jon, because everyone knows chocolate labs are the superior canine, with pugs being a close second... ;)
Pffft -- Cats are clearly more intelligent, loyal, cuddly, and have greater personalities than dogs. How dare you? (copyright St. Greta)
Interesting -- you are unable to provide a counter argument to my remark that your article by Keith Preston is attempting to bizarrely absolve the Left of Wokeism. Instead, you seem to have no choice but resort to personal insults, spam, trolling, and harassment. I count about 40 posts of yours made in such bad faith. Sasha should take note of this.
Dogs have masters. Cats have staff. Cats rule!
I dunno, I'm absolutely for free speech, the first amendment, the agon & dialectic that need to be gone through to reach the truth, but with that said, there are ethical standards that govern participation within both family & community and we all know inherently, intuitively, in the gut that we need to respect boundaries and the dignity of every person & that bullying, slurs, mockery, bigotry, & cruelty just have no place. As we know, all of the hardest & most complex things in life can be said without any of that & without impugning another's character. If we each can't hold ourself to the fundamental standard of basic cordiality & decency, we'll maybe we just don't get the floor. That's not denying anyone their rights or freedom. Isn't it just acknowledging that there are some simple basic patterns that pertain to social life & the public space to which we all need to adhere? Isn't this why the study of manners has an ethical dimension? Laws of hospitality, proper patterns of engagement... Thank you, Sasha, for keeping this space cordial.
Well said Claudia!
Thank you Sasha. Mean is never cool and this isn’t Twitter.
Also possible that the people doing such things are in some manner or way an attack on you even if seemingly in support of you. You criticize Democrats a lot so their national security state masters could potentially use cyber capabilities to try and undermine critics. Like the cyber form of Ray Epps.
I thought of that too. And I think sometimes it could be a test to see what I do. If someone comes in who is blatantly using hate speech if I let it ride then I could be perhaps banned from Substack. Or discredited or whatever. So if I see that I will ban it. I remember when they just started Gettr and so many trolls from the Left were using the N-word and lots and lots of racist stuff. That was so obviously just to help bring down Gettr. That was my first thought when I saw it.
Hi Sasha, good writing! I like and read your work and subscribe to your Substack.
Did I understand you correctly here that “hate speech” trumps “free speech” and the 1st amendment?
Admittedly I have no idea what it takes to write a regular column or what goes at Substack. So not attacking here, just really curious.
I assume it must have been extreme and offended you deeply to make this decision.
I too sense a boomerang effect. I know some of it is real, but I also think there are a non ignorable # of trouble makers who are trying to paint dissidents as Nazis.
Trolls are everywhere.
Understood and agree 100%. Personally, I haven’t seen much on Substack that hasn’t been polite and respectful, which is why it’s such a pleasant place to explore. But if something is bad, it needs to go!
I agree with you Sasha...there's too much hate going around now.
Stay solid Sasha....keep the freaks out. Sucks you have to deal with that.
A level of civility is necessary for discussion and debate and to truly be able to listen to all sides of an issue. We as a society would be so much better off and able to find common ground if the values of empathy, kindness and grace were used more often. I know this seems ridiculous and old fashioned to most people, but worth a try.
Civility is exactly what the world needs currently. You're correct.
I support your position because trolls really distract and take up valuable screen space.
A beautifully measured position, Sasha. Keep on.
Not cool. Sorry you had to ban someone.
Sorry that you had to say this. But thank you! 😁
I think censorship and self-censorship are the greater evil.
You could have a special "corralled" comments section, where you could summarily banish comments that are unacceptable but people could still read them if they made the effort and it would be clear they were not approved of by you.
Yelp does this by placing some reviews in the "Not Recommended" but they're still available.
I like this suggestion; could even call it a “troll section”. I don’t envy Sasha having to balance all this because I agree I don’t want the site to be taken over by a swarm of negative and conspiracy voices.
Sasha, I don't think you have to worry about actual Nazis or actual KKK, etc. There aren't that many in the country. The media exaggerates their numbers and activities. For example. there were no KKK and one small group of Nazis with a flag at the infamous Charlottesville event, but the media made it a conference of Nazis and KKK. Ditto with January 6. You probably know a Federal judge went after one protestor for carrying a Confederate flag through the Capitol and gave him a harsher sentence than he should have for trespassing.