Substackers Battle Over Banning Nazis

Published

11 months ago

December 22, 2023

admin

Once again, we’re debating about “platforming Nazis,” following the publication of an article in The Atlantic titled ” Substack Has a Nazi Problem” and a campaign by some Substack writers to see some offensive accounts given the boot. And once again, the side calling for more content suppression is short-sighted and wrong.

This is far from the first time we’ve been here. It seems every big social media platform has been pressured to ban bigoted or otherwise offensive accounts. And Substackeveryone’s favorite platform for pretending like it’s 2005 and we’re all bloggers againhas already come under fire multiple times for its moderation policies (or lack thereof). Substack vs. Social Media

Substack differs from blogging systems of yore in some key ways: It’s set up primarily for emailed content (largely newsletters but also podcasts and videos), it has paid some writers directly at times, and it provides an easy way for any creator to monetize content by soliciting fees directly from their audience rather than running ads. But it’s similar to predecessors like WordPress and Blogger in some key ways, alsoand more similar to such platforms than to social media sites such as Instagram or X (formerly Twitter). For instance, unlike on algorithm-driven social media platforms, Substack readers opt into receiving posts from specific creators, are guaranteed to get emailed those posts, and will not receive random content to which they didn’t subscribe.

Substack is also similar to old-school blogging platforms in that it’s less heavy-handed with moderation. On the likes of Facebook, X, and other social media platforms, there are tons of rules about what kinds of things you are and aren’t allowed to post and elaborate systems for reporting and moderating possibly verboten content.

Substack has some rules , but they’re pretty broadnothing illegal, no inciting violence, no plagiarism, no spam, and no porn (nonpornographic nudity is OK, however).

Substack’s somewhat more laissez faire attitude toward moderation irks people who think every tech company should be in the business of deciding which viewpoints are worth hearing, which businesses should exist, and which groups should be allowed to speak online. To this censorial crew, tech companies shouldn’t be neutral providers of services like web hosting, newsletter management, or payment processing. Rather, they must evaluate the moral worth of every single customer or user and deny services to those found lacking. Nazis, Nazis, Everywhere

Uh, pretty easy just not to do business with Nazis, some might say. Which is actually… not true. At least not in 2023. Because while the term “Nazi” might have a fixed historical meaning, it’s bandied about pretty broadly these days. It gets used to describe people who (thankfully) aren’t actually antisemitic or advocating for any sort of ethnic cleansing. Donald Trump and his supporters get called Nazis. The folks at Planned Parenthood get called Nazis. People who don’t support Israel get called Nazis. All sorts of people get called Nazis for all sorts of reasons. Are tech companies supposed to bar all these people? And how much time should they put into investigating whether people are actual Nazis or just, like, Nazis by hyperbole? In the end, “not doing business with Nazis” would require a significant time investment and a lot of subjective judgment calls.

Uh, pretty easy just not to do business with people who might be mistaken for Nazis, some might counter. Perhaps. In theory. But in practice, we again run into the fact that the term is ridiculously overused. In practice, it would be more like “not doing business with anyone who anyone describes as a Nazi”a much wider groupor devoting a lot of the business to content moderation.

OK, but you can have toxic views even if you’re not literally a Nazi. Of course. But you have to admit that what we’re talking about now is no longer ” doing business with Nazis .” It’s about doing business with anyone who holds bigoted views, offensive views, views that aren’t progressive, etc. That’s a much, much wider pool of people, requiring many more borderline judgment calls.

This doesn’t stop at Nazis, the Nazi-adjacent, and those with genuinely horrific ideas. Again, we’re going to run into the fact that sometimes people stating relatively commonplace viewpointsthat we need to deport more immigrants, for example, or that Israel shouldn’t exist, or that sex-selective abortions should be allowed, or whateverare going to get looped in. Even if you abhor these viewpoints, they hardly seem like the kind of thing that shouldn’t be allowed to exist on popular platforms. Slippery Slopes and Streisand Effects

Maybe you disagree with me here. Maybe you think anyone with even remotely bad opinions (as judged by you) should be banned. That’s an all too common position, frankly.

In Substack’s case, some of the “Nazis” in question really may beor at least revereactual Nazis. “At least 16 of the newsletters that I reviewed have overt Nazi symbols, including the swastika and the sonnenrad, in their logos or in prominent graphics,” Jonathan M. Katz wrote in The Atlantic last month.

But you needn’t have sympathy for Nazis and other bigots to find restricting speech bad policy.

Here’s the thing: Once you start saying tech companies must make judgment calls based not just on countering illegal content but also on countering Bad Content, it opens the door to wanna-be censors of all sorts. Just look at how every time a social media platform expands its content moderation purview, a lot of the same folks who pushed for itor at least those on the same side as those who pushed for itwind up caught in its dragnet. Anything related to sex work will be one of the first targets, followed quickly by LGBT issues. Probably also anyone with not-so-nice opinions of cops. Those advocating ways around abortion bans. And so on. It’s been all too easy for the enemies of equality, social justice, and criminal justice reform to frame all of these things as harmful or dangerous. And once a tech company has caved to being the safety and morality arbiter generally, it’s a lot easier for them to get involved again and again for lighter and lighter reasons.

Here’s the other thing: Nazis don’t magically become not-Nazis just because their content gets restricted or they get kicked off a particular platform. They simply congregate in private messaging groups or more remote corners of the internet instead. This makes it more difficult to keep tabs on them and to counter them. Getting kicked off platform after platform can also embolden those espousing these ideologies and their supporters, lending credence to their mythologies about being brave and persecuted truth-tellers and perhaps strengthening affinity among those otherwise loosely engaged.

There’s also the ” Streisand effec t” (so named after Barbra Streisand’s attempt to suppress a picture of the cliffside outside her house only drew enormous attention to a picture that would otherwise have been little seen). The fact that Nazi accounts may exist on Substack doesn’t mean many people are reading them, nor does it mean that non-Nazis are being exposed to them. You know what is exposing usand, alas, perhaps some sympathetic types, tooto these newsletters? The Atlantic article and the Substackers Against Nazis group continuing to draw attention to these accounts. Substack’s Ethos

In their open letter, Substackers Against Nazis don’t explicitly call for any particular accounts to be banned. They’re just “asking a very simple question…:Why are you platforming and monetizing Nazis?” But the implication of the letter is that Substack should change its policy or the writers in question will walk. “This issue has already led to the announced departures of several prominent Substackers,” the letter reads. “Is platforming Nazis part of your vision of success? Let us knowfrom there we can each decide if this is still where we want to be.”

Substack executives haven’t publicly responded to critics this time. But thy have laid out their moderation vision before, and it’s commendable.

“In most cases, we don’t think that censoring content is helpful, and in fact it often backfires,” Substack co-founders Chris Best, Hamish McKenzie, and Jairaj Sethi wrote in 2020, in response to calls for them to exclude relatively mainstream but nonprogressive voices. “Heavy-handed censorship can draw more attention to content than it otherwise would have enjoyed, and at the same time it can give the content creators a martyr complex that they can trade off for future gain.” They go on to reject those who would have Substack moderators serve as “moral police” and suggest that those who want “Substack but with more controls on speech” migrate to such a platform.

“There will always be many writers on Substack with whom we strongly disagree, and we will err on the side of respecting their right to express themselves, and readers’ right to decide for themselves what to read,” they wrote.

If the accounts Katz identified are making “credible threats of physical harm,” then they are in violation of Substack’s terms of service. If they’re merely spouting racist nonsense, then folks are free to ignore them, condemn them, or counter their words with their own. And they’re certainly free to stop writing on or reading Substack.

But if Substack’s past comments are any indication, the company won’t ban people for racist nonsense alone. Keep Substack Decentralized

Plenty of (non-Nazi) Substack writers support this stance. “Substack shouldn’t decide what we read,” asserts Elle Griffin. “We should.” Griffin opposes the coalition aiming to make Substack “act more like other social media platforms.” Her post was co-signed by dozens of Substackers (and a whole lot more signed on after publication), including Edward Snowden, Richard Dawkins, Bari Weiss, Greg Lukianoff, Bridget Phetasy, Freddie deBoer, Meghan Daum, and Michael Moynihan.

“I, and the writers who have signed this post, are among those who hope Substack will not change its stance on freedom of expression, even against pressure to do so,” writes Griffin.

Their letter brings up another reason to oppose this pressure: It doesn’t work to accomplish its ostensible goal. It just ends up an endless game of Whac-A-Mole that simultaneously doesn’t rid a platform of noxious voices while leading to the deplatforming of other content based on private and political agendas.

They also note that it’s extremely difficult to encounter extremist content on Substack if you don’t go looking for it:

The author of the recent Atlantic piece gave one way: actively go searching for it. He admits to finding “white-supremacist, neo-Confederate, and explicitly Nazi newsletters” by conducting a “search of the Substack website and of extremist Telegram channels.” But this only proves my point: If you want to find hate content on Substack, you have to go huntin g for it on extremist third-party chat channels, because unlike other social media platforms, on Substack it won’t just show up in your feed.

And they point out that (as on blogs of yore) individual creators can moderate content as they see fit on their own accounts. So a newsletter writer can choose to allow or not to allow comments, can set their own commenting policies, and can delete comments at their own discretion. Some can opt to be safe spaces, some can opt to be free-for-alls, and some for a stance in between.

I’m with Griffin and company here. Substack has nothing to gain from going the way of Facebook, X, et al.and the colossal drama those platforms have spawned and the mess they’ve become proves it. Substack is right to keep ignoring both the Nazis and those calling to kick them out.

Business

Apple sued by Which? over iCloud use – with potential payout for 40 million UK customers

Published

1 hour ago

November 14, 2024

admin

Apple sued by Which? over iCloud use - with potential payout for 40 million UK customers

Consumer rights group Which? is suing Apple for £3bn over the way it deploys the iCloud.

If the lawsuit succeeds, around 40 million Apple customers in the UK could be entitled to a payout.

The lawsuit claims Apple, which controls iOS operating systems, has breached UK competition law by giving its iCloud storage preferential treatment, effectively “trapping” customers with Apple devices into using it.

It also claims the company overcharged those customers by stifling competition.

The rights group alleges Apple encouraged users to sign up to iCloud for storage of photos, videos and other data while simultaneously making it difficult to use alternative providers.

Which? says Apple doesn’t allow customers to store or back-up all of their phone’s data with a third-party provider, arguing this violates competition law.

The consumer rights group says once iOS users have signed up to iCloud, they then have to pay for the service once their photos, notes, messages and other data go over the free 5GB limit.

“By bringing this claim, Which? is showing big corporations like Apple that they cannot rip off UK consumers without facing repercussions,” said Which?’s chief executive Anabel Hoult.

“Taking this legal action means we can help consumers to get the redress that they are owed, deter similar behaviour in the future and create a better, more competitive market.”

Apple ‘rejects’ claims and will defend itself

Apple “rejects” the idea its customers are tied to using iCloud and told Sky News it would “vigorously” defend itself.

“Apple believes in providing our customers with choices,” a spokesperson said.

“Our users are not required to use iCloud, and many rely on a wide range of third-party alternatives for data storage. In addition, we work hard to make data transfer as easy as possible – whether it’s to iCloud or another service.

“We reject any suggestion that our iCloud practices are anti-competitive and will vigorously defend against any legal claim otherwise.”

It also said nearly half of its customers don’t use iCloud and its pricing is inline with other cloud storage providers.

How much could UK Apple customers receive if lawsuit succeeds?

The lawsuit will represent all UK Apple customers that have used iCloud services since 1 October 2015 – any that don’t want to be included will need to opt out.

However, if consumers live abroad but are otherwise eligible – for example because they lived in UK and used the iCloud but then moved away – they can also opt in.

The consumer rights group estimates that individual consumers could be owed an average of £70, depending on how long they have been paying for the services during that period.

Apple is facing a similar lawsuit in the US, where the US Department of Justice is accusing the company of locking down its iPhone ecosystem to build a monopoly.

Apple said the lawsuit is “wrong on the facts and the law” and that it will vigorously defend against it.

Big tech’s battles

This is the latest in a line of challenges big tech companies like Apple, Google and Samsung have faced around anti-competitive practices.

Most notably, a landmark case in the US earlier this year saw a judge rule that Google holds an illegal monopoly over the internet search market.

The company is now facing a second antitrust lawsuit, and may be forced to break up parts of its business.

And in December last year, a judge declared Google’s Android app store a monopoly in a case brought by a private gaming company.

“Now that five companies control the whole of the internet economy, there’s a real need for people to fight back and to really put pressure on the government,” William Fitzgerald, from tech campaigning organisation The Worker Agency, told Sky News.

“That’s why we have governments; to hold corporations accountable, to actually enforce laws.”

World

‘He was the light of my life and I lost him’: How a famous surgeon died in an Israeli prison after being taken from Gaza hospital

Published

1 hour ago

November 14, 2024

admin

'He was the light of my life and I lost him': How a famous surgeon died in an Israeli prison after being taken from Gaza hospital

As a famous orthopaedic surgeon, Dr Adnan Al-Bursh spent much of his career fixing broken limbs and broken bodies at Gaza’s Al-Shifa Hospital.

One of the best-trained doctors in the enclave, a photo showing him covered in blood in Al-Shifa’s operating theatre went viral in 2018.

When war broke out last October, he worked around the clock. Pictures stored on his mobile phone show him standing in a hole, swinging a blunt-edged shovel as the hospital descended into crisis.

It had run out of fuel, food and basic pain relief and there was no more space to store dead bodies. Dressed in hospital scrubs, Dr Al-Bursh and his colleagues dug mass graves as the sound of explosions rang out behind the hospital’s walls.

Soon after the outbreak of the conflict, the surgeon, along with his wife Yasmin, realised that their world had changed forever.

“Adnan was needed every time there was a war,” she recalled. “So, I told him, ‘get ready, there will be lots of operations, they will need your help’. He went to hospital to receive the injured and stayed for 24 hours. He did not stop.”

Dr Al-Bursh spent his days in the operating room and slept in the staff room at night.

He also kept a diary of sorts with his mobile phone, documenting the increasingly desperate scenes unfolding around him.

“Despite the pain, we are steadfast,” he said as he filmed the scene in a crowded operating theatre.

Israel said the foundations of Al-Shifa were laced with tunnels where Hamas operated a ‘command-and-control centre’, something Hamas denies.

As Israeli troops advanced towards the facility, Dr Al-Bursh captured the mood inside. Another video found on his mobile phone shows a colleague in the staffroom recalling a painful conversation with his wife.

“I remember that she only asked one thing of me, what do you think it was? That request was ‘just let me see you smile’.

“Smile. It’s the first thing I want to do after this war, if God saves us.”

By mid-November, Al-Shifa was under siege by Israeli troops.

A week later, patients, staff and some 50,000 displaced residents sheltering in the compound were ordered to evacuate.

Dr Al-Bursh captured the scene of long columns of people walking towards southern Gaza.

But the surgeon did not follow them. Instead, he went northeast to another facility – the Indonesian Hospital – still operating in northern Gaza. What he found on his arrival horrified him.

“I was shocked by the size of the catastrophe here,” he said in a video. “There are injured people who have been waiting for their operations for more than ten days. [Their] wounds were severely infected.”

On 20 November 2023, the Indonesian Hospital was surrounded by Israeli tanks and later that evening, projectiles were fired into the second floor. At least 12 people were killed.

Dr Al-Bursh survived with minor scrapes but the front entrance of the facility was torn apart. “The destruction is everywhere,” he said in another video.

A spokesman for the IDF denied that Israeli forces were responsible.

By early December 2023, Dr Al-Bursh had moved to a small hospital, also in the north, called Al-Awda.

A series of pictures, posted on the hospital’s social media page, show him examining patients with fatigue etched on his face.

These are the last known images taken of the surgeon.

The Israeli military surrounded the hospital on 5 December, and the staff were worried about what the soldiers would do.

Dr Al-Bursh worked at Al-Awda alongside a friend and colleague, Dr Mohammad Obeid.

Eventually, the hospital’s director told them that they would have to leave the building.

“[The director] told us that the [Israeli army] have full data of all males aged between 14 and 65 at Awda hospital,” Dr Obeid said, tearfully. “They told him that if all men do not come down… they will destroy the Awda Hospital with all the women and children in it.”

We put this allegation to the IDF but they did not respond.

The men filed out of the hospital and five, including Dr Al-Bursh, were taken away.

“A soldier came up to us and called out Dr Adnan’s name, who was sitting next to me… I felt he was in a very difficult situation. The occupation soldier took him and the treatment was very rough.”

In a brief statement, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) confirmed to Sky News that Dr Al-Bursh was detained by its personnel. On 19 December 2023, it says the surgeon was taken to an Israeli military base called Sde Teiman, which has been used for processing detainees since the early part of the war.

Allegations of physical, mental and sexual abuse are rife. A former camp inmate, Dr Khalid Hamouda, believes many of the prisoners at Sde Teiman were medical professionals.

“In the camp where I was, there were about 100 prisoners. I think at least a quarter of them were involved in healthcare. Some of them were doctors, nurses and technicians.”

Dr Hamouda was put to work by the guards at the base as their helper or ‘shawish’, and remembers being told to fetch Dr Al-Bursh at the gate. When he collected him, his fellow doctor said he had been badly beaten and felt pain all over his body.

“He thought he may have broken ribs,” Dr Hamouda said. “He was unable to even go to the toilet alone.”

The IDF told Sky News that after Dr Al-Bursh was processed, he left Sde Teiman on 20 December and became the “responsibility” of the Israeli Prison Service.

In April, the surgeon was taken to an incarceration facility near Jerusalem called Ofer Prison.

He died shortly after his arrival. News of the surgeon’s death was announced in a statement from two Palestinian prisoner support associations at the beginning of May. The Israelis offered no explanation or cause of death.

Sky News has spoken to people who claim to have witnessed the moments before Dr Al-Bursh’s death.

A prisoner, who says he previously knew Dr Al-Bursh in Gaza, provided details in a deposition to lawyers from the Israeli human rights organisation HaMoked.

“In mid-April 2024, Dr Adnan Al-Bursh arrived at Section 23 in Ofer Prison. The prison guards brought Dr Adnan Al-Bursh into the section in a deplorable state. He had clearly been assaulted with injuries around his body. He was naked in the lower part of his body.

“The prison guards threw him in the middle of the yard and left him there. Dr Adnan Al-Bursh was unable to stand up. One of the prisoners helped him and accompanied him to one of the rooms. A few minutes later, prisoners were heard screaming from the room they went into, declaring Dr Adnan Al-Bursh (was dead).”

While some people might suggest that Dr Adnan Al-Bursh was a terrorist, Daqqa said: “If you want to formally answer this question, he was not charged until now. And many of these detainees are not charged from Gaza.”

In a statement to Sky News, a spokesman for the Israel Prison Service said: “IPS is a law enforcement organisation that operates according to the provisions of the law and under the supervision of the state comptroller and many other official critiques.

“All prisoners are detained according to the law. All basic rights required are fully applied by professionally trained prison guards.

“We are not aware of the claims you described and as far as we know, no such events have occurred under IPS responsibility. Nonetheless, prisoners and detainees have the right to file a complaint that will be fully examined and addressed by official authorities.”

Sky News was told by colleagues and Dr Al-Bursh’s wife Yasmin that he was in good physical condition before his arrest.

“He was the light of my life and I lost him,” Yasmin said.

Dr Al-Bursh was prepared to risk his life to save others. This story is one of a countless number, now buried under the immovable weight of Gaza’s recent past.

But Dr Al-Bursh lived and lost his life in a manner that demands acknowledgement, his friends and family members say.

World

Ukrainian frontline commander warns: ‘The world is scared of Russia and losing is not only our problem’

Published

1 hour ago

November 14, 2024

admin

Ukrainian frontline commander warns: 'The world is scared of Russia and losing is not only our problem'

In the courtyard of a farmhouse now home to soldiers of the Ukrainian army’s 47th mechanised brigade, I’m introduced to a weary-looking unit by their commander Captain Oleksandr “Sasha” Shyrshyn.

We are about 10km from the border with Russia, and beyond it lies the Kursk region Ukraine invaded in the summer – and where this battalion is now fighting.

The 47th is a crack fighting assault unit.

They’ve been brought to this area from the fierce battles in the country’s eastern Donbas region to bolster Ukrainian forces already here.

War latest: Russia ready to carry out ‘massive attack’

Captain Shyrshyn explains that among the many shortages the military has to deal with, the lack of infantry is becoming a critical problem.

Sasha is just 30 years old, but he is worldly-wise. He used to run an organisation helping children in the country’s east before donning his uniform and going to war.

He is famous in Ukraine and is regarded as one of the country’s top field commanders, who isn’t afraid to express his views on the war and how it’s being waged.

His nom de guerre is ‘Genius’, a nickname given to him by his men.

‘Don’t worry, it’s not a minefield’

Sasha invited me to see one of the American Bradley fighting vehicles his unit uses.

We walk down a muddy lane before he says it’s best to go cross-country.

“We can go that way, don’t worry it’s not a minefield,” he jokes.

He leads us across a muddy field and into a forest where the vehicle is hidden from Russian surveillance drones that try to hunt both American vehicles and commanders.

Sasha shows me a picture of the house they had been staying in only days before – it was now completely destroyed after a missile strike.

Fortunately, neither he, nor any of his men, were there at the time.

“They target commanders,” he says with a smirk.

‘The world is scared of Russia’

It takes me a moment or two to realise we are only a few steps away from the Bradley, dug in and well hidden beneath the trees.

Sasha tells me the Bradley is the finest vehicle he has ever used.

A vehicle so good, he says, it’s keeping the Ukrainian army going in the face of Russia’s overwhelming numbers of soldiers.

He explains: “Almost all our work on the battlefield is cooperation infantry with the Bradley. So we use it for evacuations, for moving people from one place to another, as well as for fire-covering.

“This vehicle is very safe and has very good characteristics.”

Billions of dollars in military aid has been given to Ukraine by the United States, and this vehicle is one of the most valuable assets the US has provided.

Ukraine is running low on men to fight, and the weaponry it has is not enough, especially if it can’t fire long-range missiles into Russia itself – which it is currently not allowed to do.

If President-elect Donald Trump cuts the supply of military aid, the Ukrainians will lose – it’s that simple.

Sasha says: “We have a lack of weapons, we have a lack of artillery, we have a lack of infantry, and as the world doesn’t care about justice, and they don’t want to finish the war by our win, they are afraid of Russia.

“I’m sorry but they’re scared, they’re scared, and it’s not the right way.”

Like pretty much everyone in Ukraine, Sasha is waiting to see what the US election result will mean for his country.

He is sceptical about a deal with Russia.

“Our enemy only understands the language of power. And you cannot finish the war in 24 hours, or during the year without hard decisions, without a fight, so it’s impossible. It’s just talking without results,” he tells me.

‘Losing will be not only our problem’

These men expect the fierce battles inside Kursk to intensify in the coming days.

Indeed, alongside the main supply route into Kursk, workers are already building new defensive positions – unfurling miles of razor wire and digging bunkers for the Ukrainian army if it finds itself in retreat.

Sasha and his men are realistic about support fatigue from the outside world but will keep fighting to the last if they have to.

“I understand this is only our problem, it’s only our issue, and we have to fight this battle, like we have to defend ourselves, it’s our responsibility,” Sasha said.

But he points out everyone should realise just how critical this moment in time is.

“If we look at it widely, we have to understand that us losing will be not only our problem, but it will be for all the world.”

Stuart Ramsay reports from northeastern Ukraine with camera operator Toby Nash, and producers Dominique Van Heerden, Azad Safarov, and Nick Davenport.