censorship


The Substack controversy

A lot of people have lately been complaining that Substack has only narrow restrictions on the content it allows. Some aren’t just complaining but are leaving the platform. The issue is “racist or bigoted speech”, and in some cases, “explicitly Nazi” material.

It wouldn’t bother me if Substack had somewhat broader restrictions on content, but it’s a dangerous path to go down, and I’m sure they know it. Deciding whether something violates content restrictions is often tricky, and sites with lots of user-generated content rely on software and people under time pressure to decide. They generate a lot of false positives. On pre-Musk Twitter, I was suspended for making a joke about the health hazards of Krispy Kreme, for recommending a sharp blade to separate uncut book pages, and for objecting to an endorsement of mass murder. The innocent were punished more severely than the guilty, since reinstatement required admitting to a violation of the rules.
(more…)


Cancel culture goes mainstream

“One down. Two to go. This forced resignation of the president of @Penn is the bare minimum of what is required.”

That’s the kind of language you might expect from the Minister of Truth in a socialist dictatorship. It’s from Elise Stefanik, a Congresswoman from New York. The offense for which Stefanik and many others are seeking to remove three university presidents is the failure to regard advocacy of genocide unconditionally as harassment.
(more…)


A legal threat against news organizations

According to a Des Moines Register article, fourteen state attorneys general have accused the New York Times, the Associated Press, CNN, and Reuters of serious crimes. The accusations appear highly dubious. The claim is that these news organizations have paid freelance reporters who have ties to Hamas and have thereby committed the crime of “material support for terrorism.”

A Fox News article corroborates the main points and adds some details. I don’t consider Fox News a very reliable source, but when a news outlet makes the people it generally supports look bad, it’s more credible, and the Fox News article has a bit more nuance than the Register article.
(more…)


To kill a student’s mind

A teacher who wants to limit students’ minds and close off their horizons is a vile person. To Kill a Mockingbird is a powerful, moving novel about racial injustice in the South. It presents a world that’s different from today’s America and presents the suffering and hope of the people who suffered and tried to correct its injustices. A man defends the target of a false criminal accusation at great personal cost. For this reason, four progressive teachers in the state of Washington wanted to keep their students from reading it. A Washington Post article tells the tale.

In their formal challenge to the book in the Mukilteo School District, the teachers claimed, “To Kill A Mockingbird centers on whiteness. … It presents a barrier to understanding and celebrating an authentic Black point of view in Civil Rights era literature and should be removed.” Three of the four are white, just by the way. Claiming that the novel “centers on whiteness” shows either gross ignorance of the book or gross dishonesty. In normal use, the Civil Rights Era began in the 1950s, and the novel is set during the Depression. It’s true that it doesn’t celebrate what it was like to be black in Alabama in those days.
(more…)