My previous post mentioned my support for the WSFS resolution urging the China Worldcon to drop Sergei Lukianenko as a guest, because of his support for the Ukraine invasion. The proposed resolution before that also deals with the invasion:
Resolved, that it is the spirit of the Business Meeting to offer solidarity with Ukrainian Fans, recognizing that Ukraine has been invaded by fascists. We encourage all to boycott those who would platform or champion the illegal invasion. The Business Meeting looks forward to a return of freedom and fandom to Ukraine.
This one, unfortunately, is a poorly written piece of work that shouldn’t pass.
The invasion deserves condemnation regardless of what you think Russia’s form of government is, but in saying “invaded by fascists,” the resolution shows more activity in the knee than the head. There are many forms of autocratic government; fascism includes features such as treating the economy as an organic extension of the state and pushing extreme national unity and loyalty. The Russian government is more of a gang of bosses trying to maintain its grip on a divergent and unruly collection of subjugated populations and grab back some of the ones it lost. A lot of people use “fascist” simply to mean “bad,” and that seems to be the case here.
Not that it really matters whether Putin’s gang is fascist or just power-mad. The more important point is the call to boycott anyone who would “platform” the invasion. I don’t know what platforming an invasion means, and I don’t think anyone else does. “Platform” as a verb is jargon. It seems to mean “to give a platform,” but that’s vague, especially when it’s applied not to a person or group but to an action. If a news site reports the justifications Putin offered, is it “platforming” the invasion? What about a Web hosting company that lets a user run a pro-Russian blog? How about journalism that presents videos of statements by Russian officials?
It’s especially bad that the resolution doesn’t just ask people not to “platform,” but calls for a boycott of anyone who does. That invites people to scour publications and websites for any hint of pro-Russian sentiment, report it, and try to mount a boycott. Exactly that (minus the websites) happened in the US about 70 years ago.
The resolution reads as if it started out well, then someone using more reflexes than thought tinkered with it. I don’t know if it can be amended at the meeting. It shouldn’t pass in its current form.