I appreciate this post, and I'm almost entirely with you. I think the harder edge case is deciding what forms of content we actually should censor... we generally seem to agree that incitement to violence is that bar (as indeed the supreme Court found in proscribing falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater). it is pretty easy to agree that we would not allow/platform Hutu genocidaires to advocate for the mass murder of Tutsis. but: what of the white supremacist who advocates for the mass destruction of Jews... albeit skirting the line carefully enough to not explicitly call for a final solution?
to me that is the much harder case, to decide where specifically we draw that line in the Sand. if we agree that any censorship is possible and even desirable, as I think we do... the two most difficult questions are who decides, and what is that Rubicon? I have personally struggled with this, and specifically in the context of substack against Nazis (as someone who also writes on substack) and I found Hamish's response unsatisfying.... even as I think Katz depicted a straw man and didn't deal with the two hardest questions I name above. I don't expect you to answer this, as it is incredibly hard, but i would be curious to hear your thoughts as someone whose opinions I respect.
I think that the phrase ‘destruction of Jews’ is a call for genocide and would fall under incitement to violence. I do agree that censorship of calls to violence is justified. I also believe that censorship is our weakest tool for addressing the seriousness of a situation in which some people believe in genocide. So while I am in favour of censoring calls to violence, I don’t kid myself that that is enough or that it actually deals with the problem. The much harder and more serious work is trying to find out why people hold such beliefs and trying to change that. There are people doing that work, specifically with regards to Nazism and genocidal hatred, and also more generally, such as the work I do trying to encourage people to find the courage to face themselves and what they’ve done. These types of work deserve a lot more of our attention than any debate about censorship, in my opinion. I was quite satisfied with Hamish’s response. And I actually see the whole situation as having far more to do with a class of Twitter professional types trying to gain attention off of controversy rather than with any serious engagement with what to do about Nazism or other forms of dehumanization.
thank you for taking the time to reflect and respond. I agree with all of this, especially the point about where we choose to focus our energy. I disagree about Hamish's response, which I think points to maybe the core (possible?) disagreement here: I think there's a difference between censorship and choosing to platform. censorship is a choice to restrict; platforming is a choice to allow. we frame censorship as the choice, but I think that masks the fact that what we choose to allow on platforms is also a choice that has consequences.
of course it's a balancing act: value of free speech weighed against harm of what results from that speech in the world.
my fear is not that these ideas exist, it's about how they spread. cultivating a good garden is not only about planting healthy seeds, it also requires being judicious about removing weeds. because so many people are being radicalized by this content, and I think we can agree that it is not pro-social (e.g. the world we wants to live in does not include white supremacy)... so I think that raises the bar for being more proactive about not platforming those ideas. which returns us to the question of where you draw the line: some of the examples Katz cites espouse an ideology that is comfortable with the extermination of Jews... even if they aren't explicitly calling for it and therefore staying on this side of the "inciting violence" line.
I didn't co-sign the substack letter because I think this is particularly difficult, and a slippery slope for all the reasons you name... and I think it is the responsibility of platforms to put a thumb on the scale in service of the type of world you want to create. anyway, I appreciate you sticking out a controversial position, and think there is still more nuance here that isn't served by the Katz v Hamish binary.
Yeah, I do think a public platform refusing to allow certain people to use it based on their views is censorship. I don’t make a distinction between general censorship and ‘not allowing a platform’. Interestingly, my own cancellation initially was phrased as a demand that I ‘deplatform’ so I am naturally as wary of that tactic as I am any other attempt to silence dissident thinking. The same issues emerge.
I appreciate this post, and I'm almost entirely with you. I think the harder edge case is deciding what forms of content we actually should censor... we generally seem to agree that incitement to violence is that bar (as indeed the supreme Court found in proscribing falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater). it is pretty easy to agree that we would not allow/platform Hutu genocidaires to advocate for the mass murder of Tutsis. but: what of the white supremacist who advocates for the mass destruction of Jews... albeit skirting the line carefully enough to not explicitly call for a final solution?
to me that is the much harder case, to decide where specifically we draw that line in the Sand. if we agree that any censorship is possible and even desirable, as I think we do... the two most difficult questions are who decides, and what is that Rubicon? I have personally struggled with this, and specifically in the context of substack against Nazis (as someone who also writes on substack) and I found Hamish's response unsatisfying.... even as I think Katz depicted a straw man and didn't deal with the two hardest questions I name above. I don't expect you to answer this, as it is incredibly hard, but i would be curious to hear your thoughts as someone whose opinions I respect.
I think that the phrase ‘destruction of Jews’ is a call for genocide and would fall under incitement to violence. I do agree that censorship of calls to violence is justified. I also believe that censorship is our weakest tool for addressing the seriousness of a situation in which some people believe in genocide. So while I am in favour of censoring calls to violence, I don’t kid myself that that is enough or that it actually deals with the problem. The much harder and more serious work is trying to find out why people hold such beliefs and trying to change that. There are people doing that work, specifically with regards to Nazism and genocidal hatred, and also more generally, such as the work I do trying to encourage people to find the courage to face themselves and what they’ve done. These types of work deserve a lot more of our attention than any debate about censorship, in my opinion. I was quite satisfied with Hamish’s response. And I actually see the whole situation as having far more to do with a class of Twitter professional types trying to gain attention off of controversy rather than with any serious engagement with what to do about Nazism or other forms of dehumanization.
thank you for taking the time to reflect and respond. I agree with all of this, especially the point about where we choose to focus our energy. I disagree about Hamish's response, which I think points to maybe the core (possible?) disagreement here: I think there's a difference between censorship and choosing to platform. censorship is a choice to restrict; platforming is a choice to allow. we frame censorship as the choice, but I think that masks the fact that what we choose to allow on platforms is also a choice that has consequences.
of course it's a balancing act: value of free speech weighed against harm of what results from that speech in the world.
my fear is not that these ideas exist, it's about how they spread. cultivating a good garden is not only about planting healthy seeds, it also requires being judicious about removing weeds. because so many people are being radicalized by this content, and I think we can agree that it is not pro-social (e.g. the world we wants to live in does not include white supremacy)... so I think that raises the bar for being more proactive about not platforming those ideas. which returns us to the question of where you draw the line: some of the examples Katz cites espouse an ideology that is comfortable with the extermination of Jews... even if they aren't explicitly calling for it and therefore staying on this side of the "inciting violence" line.
I didn't co-sign the substack letter because I think this is particularly difficult, and a slippery slope for all the reasons you name... and I think it is the responsibility of platforms to put a thumb on the scale in service of the type of world you want to create. anyway, I appreciate you sticking out a controversial position, and think there is still more nuance here that isn't served by the Katz v Hamish binary.
Yeah, I do think a public platform refusing to allow certain people to use it based on their views is censorship. I don’t make a distinction between general censorship and ‘not allowing a platform’. Interestingly, my own cancellation initially was phrased as a demand that I ‘deplatform’ so I am naturally as wary of that tactic as I am any other attempt to silence dissident thinking. The same issues emerge.