Nikita Petrov – How Substack Can Solve Online Censorship (Bonus Episode)
Nikita Petrov – How Substack Can Solve Online Censorship (Bonus Episode)
Appears in this episode
Most people would agree that every online platform needs some way to moderate user-generated content. It seems reasonable, for example, that YouTube would remove videos containing child pornography or that Twitter would ban an official Al Qaeda account or that Facebook would ban a user who issues direct threats to the physical safety of others. But when you remove explicitly violent and illegal content from the equation, the line between commonsense moderation and censorship grows hazy. To delete a violent video is one thing; to censor an unpopular opinion (or any opinion) is quite another.
I ran into this problem last month when YouTube deleted my conversation with Mark Goldblatt and John McWhorter. (We subsequently uploaded it directly to Substack—you can watch it here.) In the wake of this egregious instance of censorship, my team and I have spent a lot of time thinking about how we handle our own responsibilities as stewards of our own community of users. Creating a space where conversation and debate can happen relatively freely is a tricky thing, and there’s no one I know of who has better ideas about how to do it than my creative director, Nikita Petrov. It’s clear to us that Substack offers one of the best venues for free expression currently available online. But there are ways they could make the platform even more responsive to its users. In this bonus episode of TGS, Nikita offers his suggestions as to how Substack can continue to serve as an invaluable platform for free expression while putting even more power in its users hands.
This is a bonus episode of The Glenn Show. To get early access to episodes, as well as an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below.
0:00 Why YouTube censored a TGS episode
6:25 How can YouTube justify censoring matters of opinion?
15:15 Why there’s no such thing as free speech
26:00 Nikita’s notes on Substack Notes
39:53 Democratizing content moderation
46:11 Creating better, community-centered comments sections
Recorded May 4, 2023
Links and Readings
Nikita’s Substack, Psychopolitica
The censored TGS episode, “I Feel, Therefore I Am”
Matt Taibbi’s Substack, Racket News
Glenn’s most recent conversation with Amy Wax
Nikita Petrov – How Substack Can Solve Online Censorship (Bonus Episode)
I do not really have to listen to this. I know enough to not really need to schedule this into my day. Let me tell you what I am thinking then: The so-called 'liberals' in today's word. They is crazy. This is not conservative speech you are reading/hearing. I am not at any point beyond two weeks ever been one - been a conservative or not after the age of about eleven. Before that, I may have been (there are a few suspect things). I am totally by ACCIDENT replicating speech patterns. I mean to say, I am replicating ways of speaking that I know. I have heard already from conservative sorts of people at times in my life. So I am not one, but it jut sounds like that. There is no reason to be against conservatives anymore if it is a matter of who is crazy. Because --- THEY ARE. I don't need to hear any more of it. We have people in public life today who are crazy. Those of us who, by contrast NOT CR'ZY, need to band smilingly together. calmly, I mean!
“Misinformation” as category is problematic for a number of reasons. “Inciting violence” concept is within my academic realm and requires cause-effect evidence/data. Thus far, none of the woke claims of “inciting violence” are legitimate in my opinion. “Hate Speech” - I am short and I hate people who are tall, (not really). What is wrong with expressing my hatred against others? “Explicit Call for violence or physical harm” - is the only category I consider harmful. Media platforms need to have numbered rules with an example of a sentence that breaks each rule. Platform discipline towards user violation needs to (a) Include quote of offending sentence, (b) Reference to rule that was violated, (c) Explanation of how sentence broke rule.
I wrote down numerous sentences from April 23 Goldblatt discussion. All sentences sounded normal to me. Public Health/APA were supposed to create new words for trans people, rather than allow existing language to be appropriated and redefined. My Dec 2022 letter to AG Garland addresses this. If I send new letter to media platform CEO’s; I will forward to Loury/McWhorter.