Olives @olives@qoto.org

For years, I never really understood Substack, and this big desire to go jump onto a big corporate middleman to... Basically host a blog.

My opinion is more nuanced than just "You should use Substack", in fact I think you shouldn't use Substack (self-host, if possible), but I don't see the value in piling onto platforms either because of apparently a few very unpleasant accounts (when historically that hasn't gone anywhere good).

Of course, like Elizabeth, I also have to question whether nit-picking a few accounts posting, alright, very offensive content, isn't doing a disservice to free expression (particularly when you consider how over the top Big Tech has gone). Is it really contributing?

Setting policies, quietly "reinterpreting policies" (to avoid the embarrassment of publicly backing down), these are like Big Tech shenanigans, and not particularly fun ones.

It's not even particularly good for free speech. The approach of the neutral hoster might be better (and would include things related to sex) than acting as if they're out there to save journalism.

It's also the sort of platform that is entirely optional.

At the end of the day, Substack is a blog hosting platform too. A blog is far easier to self-host than any of these other things.

It's not really clear why someone really needs yet another middleman coming along here. It's even less clear when using that middleman involves getting dragged into that middleman's own political drama.

At the end of the day, someone just wants to host a blog. Why so many games?

In fact, looking at the current dance going on, it seems like the same sort of political games which you had going on with Big Tech.

Perhaps, it's time to skip the games and exit early onto something that you can control yourself.

Hey, I support people using their own self-hosted solution (i.e. Ghost), rather than yet another middleman (i.e. Substack).

https://web.archive.org/web/20240116024448/https://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2FPPRiCAqhKb7yhsrHPiif0%2F1kumQo%2BD50%2F9nZB8sh%2BSXw2rU9z6OACw0gFuqtxLLzbGbY8zvV%2BJN1f3Rk%2B1b99SwrYcHSLeZkcUZFS0pl7G25fMIfpsB3dX7S%2FEqbFNqVFSe1ZgEMGnW5yiA%3D%3D

Commenting on U.N. / Senegalese silliness this time.

The term "mere representation" is extremely suspicious and should be deleted. There is no legitimate purpose for this whatsoever.

The term "realistic" is somewhat suspicious and likely problematic (i.e. chasing fictional scenarios). Something needs to be done about this.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/10/eff-and-45-organizations-tell-un-reverse-decision-host-igf-saudi-arabia
@eff seems to agree with me that hosting the #IGF in Saudi Arabia is a bad idea.

https://web.archive.org/web/20240106034714/https://indico.un.org/event/1009455/
https://web.archive.org/web/20231114005554/https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/mag-2024-members

The next #IGF (an internet policy event hosted by the U.N.) is being held in Saudi Arabia, a country known for brutal repression and chopping critical journalists up into tiny little pieces.

Talk about out of touch.

You might remember the IGF from this critique of Kadokawa.

https://web.archive.org/web/20231227071126/https://www.iso.org/standard/81467.html

Nothing like a standards organization like ISO engaging in silly virtue signalling, like telling you what "SDGs" this supposedly "contributes towards" (this seems to be done in a "this vaguely intersects with this, let's toss it in" manner). Also, is it ethical to charge for these standards?

https://reason.com/2024/01/15/the-newly-unveiled-hhs-rationale-for-rescheduling-marijuana-underlines-drug-warriors-dishonesty/

"Last week, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by Houston lawyer Matthew Zorn, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) revealed the rationale for its August 2023 recommendation that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act."

Well, less humorously, robomanagers may well be more of a thing (and that might not necessarily be a good thing).

Manager: I thought AI would take the jobs of my employees, not my job.

Lol.

https://themessenger.com/news/florida-school-district-dictionaries-escambia-county-sex-ed
"A school district in Florida has taken dictionaries off its libraries' shelves because of fears they violate the state's recent legislation on books depicting or describing sexual conduct."

I don't know whether to laugh at this because of the sheer absurdity of it or complain about it. Both?

Are you tired of a company which manufactures hygienics products (Dove) reckoning themselves "experts" and coming in with their bad take on online "safety" legislation?

Are you tired of the mayonnaise company reckoning themselves a player in world politics?

Are you tired of a (seemingly conservative) investor (Ackman) clumsily delving into internet related matters and driving sex related censorship? (2020 - 2022).

Are you tired of a company which manufactures plastic blocks (Lego) turning up to internet policy summits?

It's also worth mentioning how pervasive criticism of this is. I hear it in random chat groups with friends (or strangers or acquaintances). I hear it from relatives (who might not even understand what the word "woke" means, but who know this ESG stuff is a problem).

https://reason.com/2024/01/14/is-esg-already-over/ I personally find there is a lot of virtue signalling and regressive behavior which both fails to contribute to any social value, and also undercuts a business' ability to offer useful services. Also, while this article mentions climate more, it's not simply about climate.