Censorship On Substack?

The first attack on free speech: An activist is asking for "protection".

Do I really want to open that can of worms? I already offended Trump fans and some Christians and lost subscribers over it. But I don’t write to please people.

If I go down that road, I will soon run out of meaningful topics. Someone always will get offended. “I am nobody; going nowhere” is my mantra. I can’t be cancelled, intimidated or offended if I don’t have a big ego. I am free to write what I want.

So what happened? Sharon happened. Three days ago, she asked for protection from bigotry, slurs and racism. This is the follow-up note after she got push back:

So who is Sharon? A fragile, sensitive flower writing poetry who needs protection? Well, judge for yourself. That’s the banner of her substack:

I am wondering: Is she using that sharp pencil for writing or for stabbing someone in the eye? I can’t see how it is even possible to write while holding a pencil like that. I wouldn’t associate “helpless” and “needing protection” with that banner. In her intro, she writes:

I'm an anti-racism writer, activist and educator, sharing global perspectives on anti-racism and racism, including essays, interviews and personally curated tools and resources for fighting racism.

So it doesn’t seem very personal. It looks much more ideological. I can’t help thinking she uses the personal (“please protect me”) to advance her ideological cause. There is nothing wrong with fighting for a good cause, like anti-racism, but giving the impression you have been personally attacked? I don’t know.

Let’s look at some of the comments she got from other substack readers to the above message.

I found about 12 comments supporting it and about 26 against it at the time of writing. Let’s look at some of the supportive ones first.

So people offer personal support assuming pain and personal insults were hurled at Sharon. Poor Sharon. She was personally attacked in a racist way. That’s what I thought until I found this, posted three days ago:

Substack’s CEO didin’t unequivocally come out against controlling racism and hate speech on Notes. An Eminem lyric comes to mind: It’s all political. No personal attacks or slurs by bigots caused this call for protection.

There has been a nice and friendly buzz on Notes since it launched six days ago. I haven’t seen anything offensive. People commented how different it was from Twitter and other online spaces. Then Sharon comes along. No actual incident. Just Global Majoriy folx telling her they are not happy.

The CEO must have ignored it because a day later, she increases the pressure:

Sharon claims, People of the Global Majority and deliberately disadvantaged folx are asking questions and watching to see how Substack handles this on Notes. If you, like me, are wondering who the folx of “Global Majority” are, here is the Wikipedia definition:

"Global majority" is a collective term for ethnic groups which constitute approximately 85 per cent of the global population

So Sharon seems to be in direct communication and speaking for the 6.8 Billion people defined as Global Majority. I don’t understand. Is she the elected president of the Global Majority charged with representing them all?

No one likes racists and bigots, of course. The only small problem is, how do you define a racist and bigot? All white men, maybe? One of her supporters thinks white male authors on Substack sexually harass women:

So there was no personal insult directed towards Sharon before she launched her initial request. It is just an alleged presence of bigots and racists on the platform. Another one of her supporters is Walt, a white, old man:

Walt writes, that blocking or banishing bigots and trolls would make this place exhausting. Is he serious? I just blocked Walt. Two clicks. Less than two seconds. Done. I am so exhausted. (I will unblock Walt again, of course. Nothing personal. Nice smile. I can handle a different opinion)

So with all these shenanigans going on, some folx from Substack, talking for themselves, had some issues with Sharon. Let’s start with the moderate, practical comments first, before we get to the angry ones.

As demonstrated with Walt, blocking is easy. But that’s not good enough for Sharon because the bigots remain free to harass others. So Sharon does not only speak for 6.8 billion Majority People but becomes the slef-proclaimes defender of apparent helpless people who can’t block a bigot themselves. Everyone who fits Sharon’s bigot definition must be digitally destroyed. Having read only a few paragraphs of her articles, I fear that many people could be, including possibly all white men.

Molly Knight, also has a problem with blocking:

Ok, let’s unpack that. Mollys seems entitled to decide and speak for all of us on Substack. If one person, like Molly, for example, decides someone is threatening or harassing, that person should be removed because it is not enough that Molly blocks the person because everyone else can still see him. It doesn’t matter that maybe everyone else doesn’t care or doesn’t see any threat or harassment. Molly has become the thought police that decides for everyone else.

Then she alleges that “white nationalism” is cool on Substack. There is no white nationalism on Substack. What does that even mean? White nationalism? If I am white and love my country, do I have to leave Substack? Shut the door, Molly. Are you mad? Do you have a superiority complex? Who do you think you are deciding who can publish on Substack and who can’t?

Then she says that “white nationalism” will “hurt all of us?” She thinks a handful of activists are all of the substacks 35 million subscribers. How full of herself is she?

And then she throws a thinly veiled threat to Substack that the “brand will tank”.

Some commentators see them as soft liberals:

I think these commentators underestimate them, calling them hyper-liberals needing a safe space. To me, they sound more like very active, aggressive and manipulative Marxist revolutionaries. Beware.

Then we had a few comments looking deeper. Fortunately, many of the commentators were wise to the manipulations and misrepresentations and angry about it:

What will Substack do?

Hopefully nothing. As I said, there was no real problem until Sharon turned up with her activist agenda. No one offended her until she offended free speech lovers who cherish the uncensored Substack.

This was predictable. It was not if but when Substack would be attacked and put under pressure by the free speech destroyers. Substack is a very painful thorn in the foot of the mighty Internet wanna-be controllers disguised as anti-hate speech advocates.

Who runs Sharon and Molly? It is obvious this is not personal. This looks like a deliberately planned attack on Substack. I hope Substack will hold tight. They are in the door if you give them one millimetre on this topic. After that, it will be demand after demand after demand.

My advice to Substack is an old love song I heard the other day: You say it best……. when you say nothing at all.