I don't consider that you did anything that deserved suspension of your account. However, I have spent my life as an outlier so perhaps my opinion is worthless. Nevertheless, I think it was not a valid action but commend you for your civility and equanimity in accepting it without rancour and giving the obvious amount of thought you have.
I am pleased that your material will reappear and admire your attitude and concern to alleviate any discomfort or offence that some may have felt.
If our supposed 'leaders' and many others who support and serve them with neither rationality nor empathy nor compassion, were to act in similar considered and intelligent fashion, my view is that there would be much less conflict in our world and that it would generally be a much more peaceful, accepting and positive place to be.
Roger, your comment really touched my heart. You are profoundly kind and that is a balm on the wound of my suspension. What they ultimately told me is that I was suspended because I was linking too much and too often to PayPal (to raise funds for Hind Khoudary). It was a bit confusing because at one point they told me I was permanently banned, then they told me I was back. Moral of the story, back up all your writing and your subscriber list. Your companionship on this journey is a blessing.
I made only what I believe to be a valid assessment of what happened to you - it was wrong. The confusing way in which you have been treated only adds salt to the wound. I value this platform but there is a problem in this area particularly.
I have no problems with selection but censorship is never valid. We are all unique, despite there be much in common or of a universal nature. Sadly, many curent ‘norms’, which are simply the result of socialisation, (indoctrination), that suits those in power and is presented to those who are not as, simply inevitable - the way things just happen to be - and so should be accepted. Those who don’t accept those norms and protest or defy them, are treated as dissidents or worse.
That is one major and significant reason why censorship is invalid. Indeed, when we silence those with different views than our own or even than the majority, we do ourselves no favours. As an old saying goes: “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.” In addition, censorship inevitably draws attention and attracts greater notice, reading, viewing, listening or whatever, to precisely what it is intended to hide.
If we disagree with, object to, are offended by, or consider a view or statement or assertion to be false, unkind, rude, disgraceful, unhealthy, pronographic or in any way destructive then what is rational is to review and discuss those matters, tranparently and with disinterest, i.e. objectivity, (not lack of interest). It is also important to consider just who, if anyone, has any valid right to determine that something should not be thought or said. Far too often censorship is the result of a single or very small number of complaints and views. All too often such complaints are made by people who haven’t read, viewed or heard what it is about which they complain.
At its start, Substack appeared to have an aim to allow for wide and robust discussion which would encompass and allow expression of a wide range of views and responses to them. When anonymous mediators particularly, but even known ones, with a single or particular allegiance or controlling authority make decisions about what is and isn’t appropriate then that constitutes a significant problem and far from preventing the circulation of offensive, abusive or anti-social and divisive and prejudiced or biased views, actually facilitates them. How widely or evident such is the case will depend on the nature and stance of the individual or group who carry out that censorship.
Selection, often not recognised as such but considered, instead, censorship, is different because it determines what to include rather than what to reject. In addition, selection is usually made according to well established critical criteria aimed at providing certain materials aimed at serving a particular purpose and need. It is a positive rather than negative process and is, at least in my extensive experience as an educator, librarian and researcher, in most instances a transparent, rigorous, well informed and useful process and practice.
I mention all this because I feel that if Substack wishes to retain its present membership and continue to attract more authors or contributors of worth, then it needs to increase transparency and eliminate the type of opaque, sudden confusing and what often seems to be arbitrary process of censoring members contributions.
Substack can achieve this by adopting a process of the type used in selection. It need only provide as clear and unequivocal statement of what it wishes to publish and why, perhaps with examples of how those aims may be met. These guidelines should allow members to ‘self-select’ what they choose to post, with the knowledge that if their posts or comments disregard those guidelines then the can expect them either not to appear or to disappear. In addition, where content is removed, even for reasons that it clearly does not accord with what is required, the member ought to receive a clear notification of in what way it contravened the selection criteria. My own view would be that nothing be removed before that has happened and that a ‘3 strikes and your out’ or some similar approach be taken to those who choose not to comply with the guidelines, ie. those who fail to meet their obligations of membership. In deference to fairness, if this is to happen then an open appeal process ought to be available on request and preferably facilitated through an independent panel, perhaps one comprising other members of varied backgrounds and views but themselves guided by terms of reference which mitigate against them making decisions on interested rather than disinterested views.
I’m sorry. I hadn’t really intended to go this far in responding to your thanks. I simply wanted to acknowledge them. However, I have seen more of this type of action by Substack than I think is good for the platform or those who use it. Indeed, I read much here that is offensive to me but I counter that not by complaining or asking for it to be removed but rather by responding in as careful and informed a way I am able wihout resorting to abuse or rancour of any sort. - No, I’m not an angel and I make mistakes but if and when I realise that or when they are pointed out to me, I apologise and take on board the lesson such that I can reduce the chance of making a similar mistake again.
None of us is perfect. We are all unique. The benefit of a platform such as Substack is that it allows the airing of wide views, feelings, anger, hurt, emotion of all sorts and similarly thought and perspectives from a range of political, cultural, social, gender, age, occupation, nationality and other characteristics. It offers, perhaps what Twitter intended in its early days and, indeed, many members came here from Twitter when they realised into what it had degenerated or later when it was taken over and became a tool of a multi-billionaire, as X.
Please, let’s not see Substack go that way.
I apologise for my long winded comment - only today I was told: “RH, you know little and write too much.” That may or may not be true but at least I don’t abuse or make assertions without evidence to support them or of learning and experience that has taken me there.
Beautifully put, Roger. I wish you would put this out as a Substack entry from your own newsletter, or at least as a note. It needs a broader audience.
I was just so glad to see you back, Val, it didn't matter to me what you posted. But I can understand Laura's writing might have confused some, being so different from your voice. The Celt in me appreciates her satire, both for her style of straight up ironic truth telling and for relief, but satire can take some getting used to. I'm very glad your suspension was lifted, though I do wonder why it was suspended in the first place so it does not happen again.
I'm especially so very relieved to know that Hind is okay!!! - I've been worried ever since I heard that three more journalists had been martyred in these last days. So thank you so much for that update!
And thank you for some hope. We don't know what will happen with Greta and the courageous activists on the Madleen, but that they have given our brothers and sisters in Gaza some hope is such a blessing. And then to hear that hundreds if not thousands are marching across North Africa toward Gaza from Tunisia and Algeria and all over the world brings joy to my heart!
I hope your own health issues are going well. Take very good care of yourself!
I was very gratified this morning to see that you had shared Laura’s article; I consider her a brilliant light in a dark world and I often share her genius satire with others. I find it sad that some readers don’t see the sarcasm, but I realize that there are such people and I guess we need to act with caution. I find it difficult myself to predict this reaction, and have been misinterpreted, sometimes to my horror. Personally, if I’m not sure I understand someone’s remarks, I shy away from commenting on them until I am sure (or I think I do!); I recommend this tactic to everyone and don’t think we need to feel overly responsible for others’ misunderstandings. I thought you did a good thing by posting Laura. And all of your other posts.
Thank you, Rebel. I, too, find her witty and frequently hilarious, but none of us speak to everyone. That’s why it’s so important for us each to put our voices into the mix, and support each other.
Sarcasm does not work in this medium because there is no real world information - tone of voice, expression of face, knowledge of the individual etc., to allow such an assessment to be made.
Sarcasm intended should always be noted. Some people may get it but many will not. Better to be clear.
They said I was linking to PayPal too much (to help raise funds for Hind Khoudary) and so it seemed like I wasn’t really creating content I was just using my newsletter to funnel people to PayPal. That’s the story I got anyway. No word on whether it’s okay to funnel people to GoFundMe or what.
I don't consider that you did anything that deserved suspension of your account. However, I have spent my life as an outlier so perhaps my opinion is worthless. Nevertheless, I think it was not a valid action but commend you for your civility and equanimity in accepting it without rancour and giving the obvious amount of thought you have.
I am pleased that your material will reappear and admire your attitude and concern to alleviate any discomfort or offence that some may have felt.
If our supposed 'leaders' and many others who support and serve them with neither rationality nor empathy nor compassion, were to act in similar considered and intelligent fashion, my view is that there would be much less conflict in our world and that it would generally be a much more peaceful, accepting and positive place to be.
Thank you.
Roger, your comment really touched my heart. You are profoundly kind and that is a balm on the wound of my suspension. What they ultimately told me is that I was suspended because I was linking too much and too often to PayPal (to raise funds for Hind Khoudary). It was a bit confusing because at one point they told me I was permanently banned, then they told me I was back. Moral of the story, back up all your writing and your subscriber list. Your companionship on this journey is a blessing.
I made only what I believe to be a valid assessment of what happened to you - it was wrong. The confusing way in which you have been treated only adds salt to the wound. I value this platform but there is a problem in this area particularly.
I have no problems with selection but censorship is never valid. We are all unique, despite there be much in common or of a universal nature. Sadly, many curent ‘norms’, which are simply the result of socialisation, (indoctrination), that suits those in power and is presented to those who are not as, simply inevitable - the way things just happen to be - and so should be accepted. Those who don’t accept those norms and protest or defy them, are treated as dissidents or worse.
That is one major and significant reason why censorship is invalid. Indeed, when we silence those with different views than our own or even than the majority, we do ourselves no favours. As an old saying goes: “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.” In addition, censorship inevitably draws attention and attracts greater notice, reading, viewing, listening or whatever, to precisely what it is intended to hide.
If we disagree with, object to, are offended by, or consider a view or statement or assertion to be false, unkind, rude, disgraceful, unhealthy, pronographic or in any way destructive then what is rational is to review and discuss those matters, tranparently and with disinterest, i.e. objectivity, (not lack of interest). It is also important to consider just who, if anyone, has any valid right to determine that something should not be thought or said. Far too often censorship is the result of a single or very small number of complaints and views. All too often such complaints are made by people who haven’t read, viewed or heard what it is about which they complain.
At its start, Substack appeared to have an aim to allow for wide and robust discussion which would encompass and allow expression of a wide range of views and responses to them. When anonymous mediators particularly, but even known ones, with a single or particular allegiance or controlling authority make decisions about what is and isn’t appropriate then that constitutes a significant problem and far from preventing the circulation of offensive, abusive or anti-social and divisive and prejudiced or biased views, actually facilitates them. How widely or evident such is the case will depend on the nature and stance of the individual or group who carry out that censorship.
Selection, often not recognised as such but considered, instead, censorship, is different because it determines what to include rather than what to reject. In addition, selection is usually made according to well established critical criteria aimed at providing certain materials aimed at serving a particular purpose and need. It is a positive rather than negative process and is, at least in my extensive experience as an educator, librarian and researcher, in most instances a transparent, rigorous, well informed and useful process and practice.
I mention all this because I feel that if Substack wishes to retain its present membership and continue to attract more authors or contributors of worth, then it needs to increase transparency and eliminate the type of opaque, sudden confusing and what often seems to be arbitrary process of censoring members contributions.
Substack can achieve this by adopting a process of the type used in selection. It need only provide as clear and unequivocal statement of what it wishes to publish and why, perhaps with examples of how those aims may be met. These guidelines should allow members to ‘self-select’ what they choose to post, with the knowledge that if their posts or comments disregard those guidelines then the can expect them either not to appear or to disappear. In addition, where content is removed, even for reasons that it clearly does not accord with what is required, the member ought to receive a clear notification of in what way it contravened the selection criteria. My own view would be that nothing be removed before that has happened and that a ‘3 strikes and your out’ or some similar approach be taken to those who choose not to comply with the guidelines, ie. those who fail to meet their obligations of membership. In deference to fairness, if this is to happen then an open appeal process ought to be available on request and preferably facilitated through an independent panel, perhaps one comprising other members of varied backgrounds and views but themselves guided by terms of reference which mitigate against them making decisions on interested rather than disinterested views.
I’m sorry. I hadn’t really intended to go this far in responding to your thanks. I simply wanted to acknowledge them. However, I have seen more of this type of action by Substack than I think is good for the platform or those who use it. Indeed, I read much here that is offensive to me but I counter that not by complaining or asking for it to be removed but rather by responding in as careful and informed a way I am able wihout resorting to abuse or rancour of any sort. - No, I’m not an angel and I make mistakes but if and when I realise that or when they are pointed out to me, I apologise and take on board the lesson such that I can reduce the chance of making a similar mistake again.
None of us is perfect. We are all unique. The benefit of a platform such as Substack is that it allows the airing of wide views, feelings, anger, hurt, emotion of all sorts and similarly thought and perspectives from a range of political, cultural, social, gender, age, occupation, nationality and other characteristics. It offers, perhaps what Twitter intended in its early days and, indeed, many members came here from Twitter when they realised into what it had degenerated or later when it was taken over and became a tool of a multi-billionaire, as X.
Please, let’s not see Substack go that way.
I apologise for my long winded comment - only today I was told: “RH, you know little and write too much.” That may or may not be true but at least I don’t abuse or make assertions without evidence to support them or of learning and experience that has taken me there.
Take care. Stay safe. ☮️
Beautifully put, Roger. I wish you would put this out as a Substack entry from your own newsletter, or at least as a note. It needs a broader audience.
I was just so glad to see you back, Val, it didn't matter to me what you posted. But I can understand Laura's writing might have confused some, being so different from your voice. The Celt in me appreciates her satire, both for her style of straight up ironic truth telling and for relief, but satire can take some getting used to. I'm very glad your suspension was lifted, though I do wonder why it was suspended in the first place so it does not happen again.
I'm especially so very relieved to know that Hind is okay!!! - I've been worried ever since I heard that three more journalists had been martyred in these last days. So thank you so much for that update!
And thank you for some hope. We don't know what will happen with Greta and the courageous activists on the Madleen, but that they have given our brothers and sisters in Gaza some hope is such a blessing. And then to hear that hundreds if not thousands are marching across North Africa toward Gaza from Tunisia and Algeria and all over the world brings joy to my heart!
I hope your own health issues are going well. Take very good care of yourself!
Sending you love and wellness ❤️
Thank you so much, Liana. Your loving support and stalwart comradeship on here mean the world.
It's an honor to share this work Val. ❤️🇵🇸✊🇵🇸❤️
For Greta and Crew.....May they be safe and unharmed. 🙏 ⛵️ 🙏
I was very gratified this morning to see that you had shared Laura’s article; I consider her a brilliant light in a dark world and I often share her genius satire with others. I find it sad that some readers don’t see the sarcasm, but I realize that there are such people and I guess we need to act with caution. I find it difficult myself to predict this reaction, and have been misinterpreted, sometimes to my horror. Personally, if I’m not sure I understand someone’s remarks, I shy away from commenting on them until I am sure (or I think I do!); I recommend this tactic to everyone and don’t think we need to feel overly responsible for others’ misunderstandings. I thought you did a good thing by posting Laura. And all of your other posts.
Thank you, Rebel. I, too, find her witty and frequently hilarious, but none of us speak to everyone. That’s why it’s so important for us each to put our voices into the mix, and support each other.
Sarcasm does not work in this medium because there is no real world information - tone of voice, expression of face, knowledge of the individual etc., to allow such an assessment to be made.
Sarcasm intended should always be noted. Some people may get it but many will not. Better to be clear.
I wondered where you were. For what did they suspend you?
They said I was linking to PayPal too much (to help raise funds for Hind Khoudary) and so it seemed like I wasn’t really creating content I was just using my newsletter to funnel people to PayPal. That’s the story I got anyway. No word on whether it’s okay to funnel people to GoFundMe or what.
Well of course if you had been funnelling people to a site raising money for Israel it would have been fine.