Substack Notes (1 Viewer)

[Deadmanposting]

Also I agree with egg, having met a few of these media socialites who love to spearhead these things, they are most certainly a modern day incarnation of the catholic virtue police. They might not be as extreme or have a several hundred year crusades and wealth background to weild as power, but the mentality is there for sure.

Only the closed mind is certain

 

[pete]

I’m certain it’s bad.

 

[egg_]

Publishers/platforms should have the balls to say if they either will or won’t enable it.

I disagree. Assuming that the substack people are not racist themselves, what the fuck is wrong with them just winging it and seeing how they get on? Did you have a content moderation policy when you set up thumped?

 

[taubstumm]

Racism is bad, guys. Publishers/platforms should have the balls to say if they either will or won’t enable it.

yeah but they should also just say it as a practical decision, instead of this always turning into a morality-play performance about free speech.

the substack guy could easily say something like “no racists, it’s bad for business, if you don’t like it, go start your own social media platform.” it would have a practical clarity to it. but, because it’s american startup bro guys who are chasing “engagement” and “vision” and stuff like that, he instead has to pretend that this is a big song-and-dance about principles. which allows the flipside — the upholders of liberal “values” and other aspirational moral boundary-keeping — to do their act in return. won’t somebody please think of the children, etc.

basically, the opinions of humans, at scale, are awful
that’s the wall that every social media platform keeps running straight into

 

[ann post]

Racism is bad, guys. Publishers/platforms should have the balls to say if they either will or won’t enable it.

YOU POSTED IT.

You are fucking cancelled too mate.

Nah in fairness I thought this was the completely obvious bit - It's pretty clear from your mans PR repeats (there's at least two times he tries the same question dodge which is a sure sign of scripting from PR) - usually they'll tell people that if they don't have answer then to deflect with something memorized till you think of something. It might actually happen three times in the piece.

The stuff I like looking at is that if he had indeed a well scripted PR answer for that bit and he spat it out and the interviewer moved on, it'd still be the same platform, just the wool would be over the eyes. I find this part far more interesting than racist of the week part. If everyone is looking at the racist, who is looking at everyone kinda stuff...

 

[pete]

I disagree. Assuming that the substack people are not racist themselves, what the fuck is wrong with them just winging it and seeing how they get on? Did you have a content moderation policy when you set up thumped?

No, but if someone had asked if I was aiming for stormfront.ie I’d have been able to clarify that fairly fucking quickly.

 

[taubstumm]

No, but if someone had asked if I was aiming for stormfront.ie I’d have been able to clarify that fairly fucking quickly.

everything is simple until you’re a substack employee who is suddenly required to make racism decisions in an argument between an abkhazian and a mingrelian about a massacre that happened in 1836

 

[pete]

yeah but they should also just say it as a practical decision, instead of this always turning into a morality-play performance about free speech.

the substack guy could easily say something like “no racists, it’s bad for business, if you don’t like it, go start your own social media platform.” it would have a practical clarity to it. but, because it’s american startup bro guys who are chasing “engagement” and “vision” and stuff like that, he instead has to pretend that this is a big song-and-dance about principles. which allows the flipside — the upholders of liberal “values” and other aspirational moral boundary-keeping — to do their act in return. won’t somebody please think of the children, etc.

basically, the opinions of humans, at scale, are awful
that’s the wall that every social media platform keeps running straight into

Here’s the thing - the first two words there would have been a perfectly good response to the question as it was put to him. It wasn’t a question about immigration or culture wars or balancing competing rights that he was asked. If a more nuanced follow up was then asked, sure - equivocate and elaborate on the finer points of your free speech policy as required, but when the question is as black and white as “will you allow outright racists on your platform” then you really should be able to respond.

 

[taubstumm]

Here’s the thing - the first two words there would have been a perfectly good response to the question as it was put to him. It wasn’t a question about immigration or culture wars or balancing competing rights that he was asked. If a more nuanced follow up was then asked, sure - equivocate and elaborate on the finer points of your free speech policy as required, but when the question is as black and white as “will you allow outright racists on your platform” then you really should be able to respond.

I basically agree, I suppose the thing that profoundly irritates is the idea that there are any simple answers to refereeing the world’s opinions. but as a PR move the guy would have had an easier day if he had just said “no racists,” even though we know that’s basically impossible at scale

 

[egg_]

american startup bro guys who are chasing “engagement” and “vision” and stuff like that, he instead has to pretend that this is a big song-and-dance about principles. which allows the flipside — the upholders of liberal “values” and other aspirational moral boundary-keeping — to do their act in return

This. A theatre of wankers

 

[egg_]

... and by the way both of them have probably acheived what they set out to. Priest guy has shown that he's upholding his values, and free speech guy has shown that he won't be browbeaten. Techbros who want to continue ever-so-slightly edgy conversations they already have on substack know they can continue to do so on substack notes, and the moral police know they can find them there in order to harangue them.

 

[Deadmanposting]

Ah, I think the Substack guy was like a deer in the headlights of a conversation he wasn't expecting to have

He went to a stock answer and just hoped for it to end after that
He didn't look happy about it at all

Whatever the Silicon Valley version of morto is, he was feeling it yesterday

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

Is the concept that people might not agree that jumping on a 'fuck that guy' bandwagon on a weekly basis the weird turn thumped has been taking, or have i missed the mark?

You’ve missed the mark. I’m not saying Thumped is for Racists but between this, the racist boxer, and a few comments here and there on other topics I’ve noticed an up-tick in regressive and reactionary views.

I know here you’re trying to engage in the nuance but not calling out racism because it reminds you of a completely different type of moralising (in religion, it’s going to protect the powerful to moralise; in racism, it’s an attempt to break down a power imbalance) or because social media is a sewer of ego is completely misguided. If you actually did the calling out too it wouldn’t be left to the Twitter egos. At the end of the day, if the guy who’s actually brown-skinned is calling out racism, I’m going to listen to him. Just like I’ll listen to a woman who calls out a creep or to the person in a wheelchair who says public transport is shit. To dismiss those voices is to continue the status quo and the status quo is fucked.

 

[ann post]

You’ve missed the mark. I’m not saying Thumped is for Racists but between this, the racist boxer, and a few comments here and there on other topics I’ve noticed an up-tick in regressive and reactionary views.

I know here you’re trying to engage in the nuance but not calling out racism because it reminds you of a completely different type of moralising (in religion, it’s going to protect the powerful to moralise; in racism, it’s an attempt to break down a power imbalance) or because social media is a sewer of ego is completely misguided. If you actually did the calling out too it wouldn’t be left to the Twitter egos. At the end of the day, if the guy who’s actually brown-skinned is calling out racism, I’m going to listen to him. Just like I’ll listen to a woman who calls out a creep or to the person in a wheelchair who says public transport is shit. To dismiss those voices is to continue the status quo and the status quo is fucked.

I'm making the point that it's equally dismissive if they just roll off the PR speil that satisfies the social machine. They still exist and think the same things after they've made their little statement. The status quo at present is cancel a racist every week and then they fuck off to gab or truth social to have their shitty opinions magnified and massaged in a safe space where they can learn more shitty opinions off like minded people along with twenty other ostracised flat earth style theories, or enough light gets shined on them that they become talisman to the next budding racist. It's like sending someone to prison expecting them to learn less about crime. From racist to famous racist in a few days thanks to all the calling out online.

Think about it like this, if they are gone off twitter, cancelled or internet ostracised where do they go next, and what do they do?

Not having a twitter account to not call out racists isn't actually regressive in 2023 - it's a cul de sac that ended somewhere in the trump era. The best and most effective way to call out racism is in real life, face to face and it doesn't have to be confrontation. I'm around people from all backgrounds all the time, I don't need to feed an advert machine to feel a sense of community. Anywhoo as much of a jerk of as it is now, it'll all be entirely fucked once the AI's appear in the election year, they'll be mad altogother.

 

[Deadmanposting]

If the boxer is a convicted racist, then does it logically follow that she should not be allowed on any social media?


Seems like people want to listen to women when it suits them.
When women say they don't want men in their changing rooms or abuse shelters or administering their rape kits, then there's a whole lot less listening going on.

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

I'm making the point that it's equally dismissive if they just roll off the PR speil that satisfies the social machine. They still exist and think the same things after they've made their little statement. The status quo at present is cancel a racist every week and then they fuck off to gab or truth social to have their shitty opinions magnified and massaged in a safe space where they can learn more shitty opinions off like minded people along with twenty other ostracised flat earth style theories, or enough light gets shined on them that they become talisman to the next budding racist. It's like sending someone to prison expecting them to learn less about crime. From racist to famous racist in a few days thanks to all the calling out online.

Think about it like this, if they are gone off twitter, cancelled or internet ostracised where do they go next, and what do they do?

Not having a twitter account to not call out racists isn't actually regressive in 2023 - it's a cul de sac that ended somewhere in the trump era. The best and most effective way to call out racism is in real life, face to face and it doesn't have to be confrontation. I'm around people from all backgrounds all the time, I don't need to feed an advert machine to feel a sense of community. Anywhoo as much of a jerk of as it is now, it'll all be entirely fucked once the AI's appear in the election year, they'll be mad altogother.

This is in an incredibly narrow view of what's going on - that might be the status quo on your timeline but I'm seeing something completely different on mine. I get your point about moving onto a different social media platform to create a shitty, racist safe space doesn't get rid of the problem but the whole point of this particular interview was to call out someone who seems to be making another shitty, racist safe space. You'll never eradicate racism, you'll never stop racists meeting up online or in real life to share their shitty views with each other but you can not let it slide when it rears its head either online or off.

If the boxer is a convicted racist, then does it logically follow that she should not be allowed on any social media?

She can post on Gab because Twitter is a leftist utopia of circle jerking hippies now under Elon.

Seems like people want to listen to women when it suits them.
When women say they don't want men in their changing rooms or abuse shelters or administering their rape kits, then there's a whole lot less listening going on.

Is this a Terf thing? Genuine question because otherwise I don't get the context.

 

[ann post]

This is in an incredibly narrow view of what's going on - that might be the status quo on your timeline but I'm seeing something completely different on mine.

My timeline is the entire twitter because i don't have an account - when you look at it without an account you see what actually is going on rather than a filter view. What it is, weekly is supposed left wing right on's elevating the worst people they can find to a global platform constantly.

 

[Unicron]

My timeline is the entire twitter because i don't have an account - when you look at it without an account you see what actually is going on rather than a filter view. What it is, weekly is supposed left wing right on's elevating the worst people they can find to a global platform constantly.

How does this work? I was curious so I just logged out of twitter and when I went to twitter.com all it did was show me the trending topics without any tweets.

 

[Unicron]

Is this a Terf thing? Genuine question because otherwise I don't get the context.

If it is a terf thing the people who kick up a fuss over this stuff are perfectly happy to ignore the women who take the position of being supportive of trans people, or the ones who are in general indifferent to it.

 

[ann post]

How does this work? I was curious so I just logged out of twitter and when I went to twitter.com all it did was show me the trending topics without any tweets.

I only use it on desktop now. You log out and it just becomes a more transparent news* site, not the same site you logged into as such. You get a much less filtered view of whats actually happening on twitter in comparison with the following / for you timeline that you'd get if logged in. Click on Gerry Hutch and you'll see the more popular conversations around him today etc etc etc. You are not gonna see more than the 3-4 tweets that are doing the rounds because obvs they would rather you signed in/up. If i want to know more I actually will just read some new articles rather than skim tweets till i've go the jist as i would have. It's a much better view of the site in terms of what actually happens on it. It has much less of the 'we though this might make you angry so we put in your timeline because you got annoyed about x,y and z in our registrars over the past few months' kinda feel which is sorta surprising at first.