These are PROPOSED guidelines for comment moderation Please use the comments below to comment on the proposed comment policy. Introduction There are three dots below every Substack Article. They can be used to report another person’s inappropriate comment or to
We have a troll that should be reported on Steve Kirsch's substack. I'm not sure how to do that, pls d.m. me... thank you.
Are my attempts at humor/sarcasm ok? I feel it's my best tool for red pilling people.
Maybe all the people complaining about these modest guidelines and crying censorship don't realize that many Substacks only allow subscribers to comment. Letting people comment for free is very generous, considering how popular this stack is. If it were limited to subscribers, how many of you would pay to post as obnoxiously as you please? I'm guessing none.
Some of you are confusing an author's stack with a public square like Twitter. No one is constraining your ability to express anything on your own stack, which is what Twitter has been doing. These are local ordinances, and if you are halfway respectful, you'll never run afoul of them.
Censorship is a very important issue, but this isn't censorship. It's moderation. The difference is that it restricts actions rather than ideas.
Moderation is a matter of respecting the many people who use this section, including the author who generated the content in the first place. Those who won't follow reasonable terms of engagement invite tyranny.
It's not unreasonable to have these guidelines, and posting them is a courtesy. Your posts could just disappear without you knowing why. Instead, there's an open discussion and debate about the rules themselves...hardly looks censorious to me. When does Twitter or Facebook give you a chance to complain directly to them about their policies?
antisemitism? to know who rules over you ask who you cannot criticize...Voltaire
antisemitism?....its a trick we always use it....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0kWAqZxJVE
Please allow anonymous posts to protect the commenter, including using VPNs, TOR, etc. It will give a platform to whistle blowers to safely share inside information. Having comment redaction should be sufficient to cover for cases of misuse.
I like the “Wild West” of Zero Hedge.
It’s actually very useful to see all comments ( for an experienced political science person ).
If the trolls are super active, it means the article is very important, and the true mis/disinformation agents ( Govt/MSM/Big Tech ) are busily trying to confuse the casual reader.
If you’re getting a lot of flak, it means you’re over a valuable enemy target.
Oooo I can't wait to report a troll! LOL not sarcasm. Save a troll for me!!!
I would venture that a too long comment harms no one, unless substackers are charged by comment length. Nor does off topic if it is still related to the topic. (How does one define "too off topic?")
What I am reading is that the Steve Kirsch substack wants the comments to be what the writer wants to read, not what his readers might want to read in regards to those two proposed guidelines. Would that be a fair assessment, or no? If not would someone explain why either too long or off topic is not sometimes beneficial to the comment conversations?
The other guidelines make sense from at least my point of view. I just LIKE the long comments with links. I learn a lot from those.
But what if one of the accepted truths of the 20th/21st centuries is actually a gigantic pity play carried out by an ancient liars culture and death cult?
Buna ziua. Vă salut din Republica Moldova 👋👋👋.Videoclipurile Dumneavoastră au ajuns și la cetățenii din Republica Moldova 🖐👍👍.Felicitări pentru munca care o depuneți din greu de a ne informa.👋.
Just a small comment Steve; meat is hung, people are hanged
Something I do appreciate about Steve's comment section is that it's set to most recent comment first. Most substacks seem to set the comment section to "top first" which might sound like a good idea but in practice it means that comments made early with some emotional resonance are prioritized over a lot of important stuff.
I am reminded of an observation by Jordan Peterson - he was all in favor of "hate speech" laws, as long as he got to define what "hate speech" was. Benign Dictatorships are also fantastic. They don't exist, of course, but if they did - boy they'd be great.
I do agree with encouraging people not to write too much. I often write too much. "If I had more time, I'd have written less." Not sure that needs to be a rule per se, but it is a good bit of advice.
My essential point - fewer rules are better.
Comment "moderation", "inappropriate" comments, Racism, antisemitism and like posts, Troll activity is DEFINED by the moderators... will be deleted and the poster banned.
IOW, Censorship. Hmmm, it's beginning to smell like Twitter.
First of all, who the hell is WayneBGood?
"Comment Guidelines", is censorship.
I want to know how people are feeling, and that comes through the way people are able to freely express themselves.
Comments should make you think, not an exercise in ass-kissing.
Hate speech laws and censorship got us where we are today. Without them, we wouldn't be having this Covid conversation today.
Remember how woke and enlightened you were when you gave the thumbs-up to the normalization of homosexuality and same-sex marriage?
Fast forward, now your kids don't know what gender they are, which may not matter because if they survive the shot they probably will not reproduce anyhow.
I rarely read the comments because (a) it takes too long and (b) my primary interest is in what Steve Kirsch has to say. There is a big difference between the expertise of Steve Kirsch - based in a vast amount of diligent and intelligent research - and what the average commenter might add. Having said that, I have to admit that when I do occasionally post comments, it is nice to see the 'likes' coming in.