Hi, I'm Amani, could you please help me with my transition?
I am trying to change my life and finally be able to be a happy woman. I just hope to have the support of my entire community and all good people. Please, if you can donate and share, I appreciate it very muchđ€đŒđłïžââ§ïž
More than 200 Substack authors asked the platform to explain why itâs âplatforming and monetizing Nazis,â and now they have an answer straight from co-founder Hamish McKenzie:...
Are you arguing against private entities having editorial freedom? Should private entities not be in charge of their own publications and platforms?
Yes, absolutely. Lemmy.world should be able to ban Nazis if they want to, as should Substack. Personally, I think it would be better in some cases if people didnât. Although, thereâs so much overlap between Nazis and general-toxic-behavior users that I wouldnât really fault them for banning Nazis outright even if they theoretically supported the Nazisâ right to free speech.
Notably though, I think Substack should also be free to not ban Nazis, and no one should give them shit for it. In particular, they definitely shouldnât be talking about trying to get their Stripe account cancelled, or pressuring their advertisers, as Iâve seen other posters here advocate for (although I think the thing about advertisers is just a result of pure confusion on the posterâs part about how Substack even makes income).
In this particular case, I think allowing the Nazis to speak is the âright answer,â so I definitely donât advocate for interfering in anything Substack wants to do with their private servers. But no, I also donât think anyone who doesnât want to host Nazis should have to, and itâs a pretty good and reasonable question.
As I said to someone else, there is presumably a line thatâs too much to cross. Is it âlive stream of grinding up live babies and puppies and snorting themâ? If there is no line, I donât even know where to begin.
Let me say it this way: If what youâre doing or saying would be illegal, even if you werenât a Nazi, it should be illegal. It shouldnât suddenly become illegal to say if youâre wearing a Nazi uniform. Threatening violence? Illegal. Threatening violence as part of your Nazi political platform? Illegal. Wearing a Nazi uniform, saying that white people are superior and the holocaust didnât happen? Legal as long as youâre not doing some other illegal thing, even though historically thatâs adjacent to clearly-illegal behavior.
I realize there can be a good faith difference of opinion on that, but you asked me what I thought; thatâs what I think. If itâs illegal to wear a Nazi uniform, or platforms kick you off for wearing one, then it can be illegal to wear a BLM shirt, and platforms can kick you off for saying #blacklivesmatter. Neither is acceptable. To me.
Probably the closest I can come to agreeing with you is on something like Patriot Front. Technically, is it legal to gather up and march around cities in threatening fashion, with the implication that youâll attack anyone who tries to stop you? Sure. Is it dangerous? Fuck yes. Should it be legal? Um⊠maybe. I donât know. Am I happy that people attacked them and chased them out of Philadelphia, even though attacking them was interfering with their free speech? Yes. I put that in a much more dangerous category than someone hosting a web site that says the holocaust didnât happen.
Platforms taking some responsibility for what they allow would go a long way without requiring a heavy handed government solution. Substack could just say ânah, weâre not letting nazis post stuff.â
Would it go a long way, though?
Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter have been trying to take responsibility for antivax stuff and election denialism for years now, and banned it in some cases and tried to limit its reach with simple blacklisting. Has that approach worked?
Nazi stuff is unpopular because itâs abhorrent and people can see that when they read it. I genuinely donât think that allowing Nazi speech on Substack is a step towards wider acceptance of Naziism. I donât think there are all these people who might have been Nazis but theyâre prevented by not being able to read it on Substack. I do think allowing Nazi stuff on Substack would be a step towards exposing the wider community to the actual reality of Naziism, and exposing the Nazis to a community which can openly disagree with them instead of quarantining them in a place where they can only talk to each other.
I do think responsibility by the platforms is an important thing. I talked about that in terms of combatting organized disinformation, which is usually a lot more sophisticated and a lot more subtle than Nazi newsletters. I just donât think banning the content is a good answer. Also, I suspect that the same people who want the Nazis off Substack also want lots of other non-Nazi content to be âforbiddenâ in the same way that, e.g. Dave Chappelle or Joe Rogan should be âforbiddenâ from their chosen platforms. Maybe Iâm wrong about that, but thatâs part of why I make a big deal about the Nazi content.
Notably though, I think Substack should also be free to not ban Nazis, and no one should give them shit for it.
Substack can host nazis given the legal framework in the US. But why shouldnât I speak up about their platforming of evil? Substack can do what they want, and I can tell them to fuck off. I can tell people who do business with them that I donât approve, and Iâm not going to do business with them while theyâre engaged with this nazi loving platform. Thatâs just regular old freedom of speech and association.
Their speech is not more important than mine. There is no obligation for me to sit in silence when someone else is saying horrible things.
It feels like youâre arguing for free speech for the platform, but restricted speech for the audience. The platform is free to pick who can post there, but you donât want the audience to speak back.
Let me say it this way: If what youâre doing or saying would be illegal, even if you werenât a Nazi, it should be illegal. [âŠ] I realize there can be a good faith difference of opinion on that, but you asked me what I thought; thatâs what I think. If itâs illegal to wear a Nazi uniform, or platforms kick you off for wearing one, then it can be illegal to wear a BLM shirt, and platforms can kick you off for saying #blacklivesmatter. Neither is acceptable. To me.
Youâre conflating laws and government with private stuff. The bulk of this conversation is about what can private organizations do to moderate their platforms. Legality is only tangentially related. (Also it doesnât necessarily follow that banning nazi uniforms would ban BLM t-shirts. Germany has some heavy bans on nazi imagery and to my knowledge have not slid enthusiastically down that slope)
A web forum I used to frequent banned pro-trump and pro-ice posts. The world didnât end. They didnât ban BLM. It helps that it was a forum run by people, and not an inscrutable god-machine or malicious genie running the place.
Iâm also not sure I understood your answer to my question. Is there a line other than âtechnically legalâ that you donât want crossed? Is the law actually a good arbiter?
Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter have been trying to take responsibility for antivax stuff and election denialism for years now, and banned it in some cases and tried to limit its reach with simple blacklisting. Has that approach worked?
I donât think theyâve actually been trying very hard. They make a lot of money by not doing much. Googleâs also internally incompetent (see: their many, many, canceled projects), Facebook is evil (see: that time they tried to make people sad to see if they could), and twitter has always had a childâs understanding of free speech.
I do think responsibility by the platforms is an important thing. I talked about that in terms of combatting organized disinformation, which is usually a lot more sophisticated and a lot more subtle than Nazi newsletters. I just donât think banning the content is a good answer. Also, I suspect that the same people who want the Nazis off Substack also want lots of other non-Nazi content to be âforbiddenâ in the same way that, e.g. Dave Chappelle or Joe Rogan should be âforbiddenâ from their chosen platforms. Maybe Iâm wrong about that, but thatâs part of why I make a big deal about the Nazi content.
A related problem here is probably the consolidation of platforms. Twitter and Facebook as so big that banning someone from it is a bigger deal than it probably should be. But they are free to move to a more permissive platform if their content is getting them kicked out of popular places. Weâre not talking about a nationwide, government backed-by-force content ban.
Iâm not sure what to do about coordinated disinformation. Platforms banning or refusing to host some of it is probably one part of the remedy, though.
"In 2004 and 2005, I conducted 10 interviews with Black psychiatrists and psychologists (nine participants were US-based and one was UK-based). Their reflections about the state of Black therapy services are (sadly) still very relevant today."
Please, friends, it's already a little late. Could someone please send me $70 so I can sleep in a safe place? I don't want to continue on the streetđ
Today in Labor History October 26, 1892: Ida B. Wells published âSouthern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases,â which led to threats against her life, and the burning down of her newspaperâs headquarters in Memphis. Wells, who was born into slavery, was a journalist, educator, feminist, and early Civil Rights leader who helped found the NAACP.
I thank all the people who have worried about me, I know that we all have bad moments at some point in our lives, I just hope that my bad moment ends soon and I can't stand so much suffering againđ
Driverless cars worse at detecting children and darker-skinned pedestrians say scientists::Researchers call for tighter regulations following major age and race-based discrepancies in AI autonomous systems.
Disability ID and Disability Deaths â How Police Killed Elijah McClain (1of2)
CONTENT WARNING (CW): The details and linked videos of this event may be disturbing to some. Image-eye contact.
Even with the positives disability designator IDs might bring, it's unlikely a card will prevent authorities from abusing and killing people with invisible disabilities. Aside from a change in attitudes, there are still far too many, long-overdue reforms needed. Many instances of police induced death involving the disabled, including people with autism, brain injury, and hearing impairments, were blamed on the victim. Most were, in fact, a direct result of: Ablest attitudes (ignorance), use of excessive force, and unacceptable treatment attributed to inadequate training. Utilizing invisible disabilities to scapegoat victims and bury the case, is another tactic often employed but, "inadequate training", is not what has killed so many people with disabilities.
Mentioned in part three of this piece, the history of one particular force, is a prime demonstration of a "pattern and practice", that has destroyed lives and families of people with invisible disabilities. According to other investigations, Aurora Colorado's pattern of policing, has raised concerns of implicit bias towards the disabled, POC and other marginalized people. Perhaps, one of the most famous examples from that city, is the death of a 23-year-old black man with autism and anemia, Elijah McClain. That case, sparked outrage from both the disabled and black communities, and with the first of three homicide trials set to begin in August, now is not the time to forget what happened to Elijah. The demeaning and despicable treatment he was subjected to, is not uncommon in "policing" of the disabled.
August 24, 2019: Elijah McClain, a massage therapist, violinist and "gentle soul", was walking home from a convenience store not, far from his home. Because of his anemia, which often made him feel cold, he was known to wear a ski mask. On his way home, someone in a house he passed called police to report an unarmed, "sketchy" individual. Minutes Later, Aurora PD's Nathan Woodyard saw Elijah walking to his home and stopped. Within 9 sec. of exiting his car, Woodyard had his hands on Elijah McClain. Just seconds later, officers Randy Roedema and Jason Rosenblatt showed up, also engaging with Elisha. As he explained he was an "introvert" and was "just walking home", one of the officers responded, "Relax, or I'm going to have to change this situation".
The officers had McClain against the wall before taking the five feet seven, 143 lb man to the ground. One of their body cameras was detached and landed in the grass, capturing an officer slowly walking out of view. With Elijah and police no longer being filmed clearly, one officer can be heard claiming, "he just grabbed your gun dude". Within four seconds of the allegation, Elijah can be heard choking as a result of police applying the carotid restraint, restricting his airflow. FOUR SECONDS?! One of the officers later told investigators that McClain "briefly" fell unconscious and the officers released their grasp on his neck. The chokehold was implemented only one min. and four sec. after the first officer exited his vehicle. The three officers involved, Woodyard, Rosenblatt and Roedema, all claimed their body cameras "fell off " in the "struggle" with this small statured young man.
The video footage is very difficult to listen to. Elijah McClain can be heard gasping as he pleads with officers to stop, saying, "I can't breathe". Elijah continues to plead, saying his name and that he was "just going home". Through his sobs, came the words myself and many others with invisible disabilities, will never forget. "I'm just different. I'm just different, that's all". It's hard to hear the police on the audio of one body cam but, Elijah's words are clear⊠"I'm so sorry. I have no gun. I don't do that stuff. I don't do any fighting. Why are you attacking me?". As officers ignore his pleas, they seem to spin tales of their "struggle" with a 143 pound person. One repeated the accusation that McClain tried to grab officer Roedema's gun, and that they "had" to use the carotid hold.
About six minutes after the initial contact by police, Elijah McClain can be heard vomiting for the first time. One of the officers commands him to "STOP" to which McClain apologized saying, "I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to do that. I just can't breathe correctly". In the next few minutes, McClain gets sick "a few more times" while officers held him facedown on the ground, telling him repeatedly to stop resisting. Reports say he was also handcuffed and still wearing the ski mask when he was sick, and as a result, was struggling to breathe. He may have been trying to roll on his side or remove the mask to breathe better, as police seemed to be acting out a show of "resisting arrest" for the body cam audio.
Police can be heard threatening him, "Don't get up. It's not gonna be good for you, I'm telling you right now". Another officer standing over him said "You keep messin' around, I'm unna bring my dog out here", saying he would let the dog attack Elijah. Approximately 11 minutes after the initial contact by officer Woodyard, the cameras capture police saying, "When the ambulance gets here, were gonna go ahead and give him some ketamine". This is also when they claimed "whatever he's on, he has incredible strength." Another concurs "yeah, crazy strength". It's alarming that police and individuals of such character, have authority to mandate the administering of this powerful sedative.
The timing of the accusation that Elijah McClain attempted to grab the firearm, only seconds after body cams were removed, is highly suspect. Again, McClain was 143 lbs, being held by three much larger men. While one of the officer's body cam was still attached, another can be heard telling him to "move" his camera. I don't believe the body cams dislodged, and firmly believe these accused murderers doffed them. The Maclean's attorney said police intentionally removed their body cameras "to support a false allegation that McClain reached for a gun". Though it is not clear on the video, there is absolutely, no doubt in my mind. The same is true, regarding their claims for body cam audio that Elijah was "struggling". If he was struggling, it was likely for air and survival.
The report from paramedics, Jeremy Cooper and Peter Cichuniec claimed that when they arrived, Elijah was displaying signs of "excited delirium". The snap "diagnosis" was made, despite never touching, talking to, or checking Maclean's vitals. Were these paramedics scapegoating in an effort to protect their fellow first responders? After incorrectly estimating his weight, the paramedics administered 500 mg of ketamine to McClain, a dosage for someone nearly 60 to 70 pounds larger. For those who believe in forcibly drugging people, the proper ketamine dosage for Elijah's weight, is about 325 mg. Approximately 23 minutes after Nathan Woodyard stopped "to talk" to McClain, the officers responsible were informed, Elijah, had no pulse. Less than a week later, he was declared brain-dead on August 27, 2019, and died, three days later on the 30th.
According to cpr.orgâCPR news: "After McClainâs death, Dr. Stephen Cina, a contractor forensic pathologist for Adams County, completed the autopsy on Sept. 3, 2019. There were two Aurora police officers and two representatives from the Adams County District Attorneyâs office in attendance". I'd be interested to hear that conversation, considering the findings of the autopsy. The Adams County corner ruled the cause of death as "undetermined" saying that, "a therapeutic amount" of ketamine was found in Maclean's system. The report, reeking of scapegoating, speculated about drug use and undiagnosed mental illness, while seeming to conclude nothing but suppositional "ifs".
Excerpt from Dr. Cina's report: "The manner of death may be accident if it was an idiosyncratic drug reaction,â . âIt may be natural if (McClain) had an undiagnosed mental illness that led to excited delirium, if his intense physical exertion combined with a narrow coronary artery led to an arrhythmia, if he had an asthma attack, or if he aspirated vomit while restrained."... "It may be a homicide if the actions of officers led to his death (eg. carotid control holdâŠ)â.
That's a lot of "Ifs". I can't help but wonder "IF", the presence of officers and DA personnel "may" have influence the doctors findings. In conjunction with the corners "undetermined" autopsy determination, Adams County DA Dave Young said, he would not bring charges against the officers. This seeming manipulation of justice, by those who controlled it, was met with outrage.
Another slap in the face, illuminating the culture of APD, occurred in October 2019, less than two months after Elijah's death. Several other officers returned to the scene, taking pictures while they joyfully reenacted the cardioid hold, used on McClain. In July, 2020, after the photos were made public, three officers were fired and one resigned. It's remarkable that they were fired for mocking and taking pictures, while the officers that killed Elijah were still patrolling the streets. The shouts of "Justice for Elijah", became louder as it seemed this heinous police action was being ignored. Once again, protesters took to the streets.
Protests, investigation, Arrests and Trials. Conclusion â "Justice for Elijah" below.
Substack says it will not remove or demonetize Nazi content (www.theverge.com)
More than 200 Substack authors asked the platform to explain why itâs âplatforming and monetizing Nazis,â and now they have an answer straight from co-founder Hamish McKenzie:...
Driverless cars worse at detecting children and darker-skinned pedestrians say scientists (www.kcl.ac.uk)
Driverless cars worse at detecting children and darker-skinned pedestrians say scientists::Researchers call for tighter regulations following major age and race-based discrepancies in AI autonomous systems.