I very much believe in free speech and think that Substack has handled that better than most other platforms. But we also need to have context, which Substack also provides pretty well. If I mentioned the word "socialist" on Twitter I might get canceled because people would have a lot of assumptions about what I mean by that. But here I can clarify what I mean by that, what parts of it I think are interesting, and what parts of it aren't interesting at all. And that nuance needs to exist.
For example:
1) You say that I "paint Nordic countries as modern day utopias because of their high GDPs and wealth redistribution through taxation" and you agree with it.
2) Then you say that Sweden is also dystopian because they have a high number of deaths from mass shootings.
Both things are true. The point of utopian studies is not to look at one culture and say "they are the panacea, we should copy everything they're doing." Obviously no country is a panacea and I would never suggest that. But I should be able to suggest that we copy the wealth distribution models of the Nordic countries, without suggesting that we copy their mass shooting strategies. We should be able to take what works and leave what doesn't. That nuance needs to exist.
All or nothing is "hot take culture" and it exists on Twitter but it doesn't need to exist here!
So Twitter is one thing, but how would you feel if everyone could go onto ChatGpt and ask:
Tell me what Elle Griffin thinks about Socialism. Give me a political profile of her, show me her weak arguments, so I can attack them.
Would you be happy with that? Do you want AI to be able to scrape your writings and allow that? I admire your explorations with your writing, but are you writing for humans or machines? Machines that could potentially use your words against you, or empower trolls to disturb your day.
Well I'm not on twitter so I'll never see it? 🤷🏼♀️😆 That's the benefit of being here where only my paid subscribers can comment and engage in my work. I'll only ever be engaging with real people. If people take me down they'll have to do it elsewhere. And then they'll very much be missing context.
Again great points. The AI tools can give people shortcuts to information, but with increasing use people will loose nuance and context. Thanks so much for your thoughts here Elle!
The only danger of closing yourself in with a fixed audience is that you may create an echo chamber where you may receive no criticism at all.
I only feel free to explore all sides of the aisle in my writing because I can do so without being attacked. In my experience, opening yourself up to every opinion on the internet doesn't result in a balanced worldview, in fact it forces you to defend yourself and take a side. I actually think that's why we've become so polarized.
I have paid subscribers that are capitalist, socialist, and anarchist. I have paid subscribers who are democrat and republican. So I don't think we've created an echo chamber, but rather a safe space to have discourse without a lack of context or a fear of being taken out of context. In fact, that's allowed me to shape my ideas in public, because I know I can just change my ideas later on if I learn more. Rather than feeling like I have to defend a position because someone is trying to condemn me!
I suppose that's a long way of saying that I actually think it's near impossible to create an echo chamber in today's environment because the default culture online is the exact opposite of an echo chamber (a megaphone??). It's extremely difficult to find a space without the noise!
Really loving your work. That’s a subscribe. Thanks. 🙏
I very much believe in free speech and think that Substack has handled that better than most other platforms. But we also need to have context, which Substack also provides pretty well. If I mentioned the word "socialist" on Twitter I might get canceled because people would have a lot of assumptions about what I mean by that. But here I can clarify what I mean by that, what parts of it I think are interesting, and what parts of it aren't interesting at all. And that nuance needs to exist.
For example:
1) You say that I "paint Nordic countries as modern day utopias because of their high GDPs and wealth redistribution through taxation" and you agree with it.
2) Then you say that Sweden is also dystopian because they have a high number of deaths from mass shootings.
Both things are true. The point of utopian studies is not to look at one culture and say "they are the panacea, we should copy everything they're doing." Obviously no country is a panacea and I would never suggest that. But I should be able to suggest that we copy the wealth distribution models of the Nordic countries, without suggesting that we copy their mass shooting strategies. We should be able to take what works and leave what doesn't. That nuance needs to exist.
All or nothing is "hot take culture" and it exists on Twitter but it doesn't need to exist here!
So Twitter is one thing, but how would you feel if everyone could go onto ChatGpt and ask:
Tell me what Elle Griffin thinks about Socialism. Give me a political profile of her, show me her weak arguments, so I can attack them.
Would you be happy with that? Do you want AI to be able to scrape your writings and allow that? I admire your explorations with your writing, but are you writing for humans or machines? Machines that could potentially use your words against you, or empower trolls to disturb your day.
Well I'm not on twitter so I'll never see it? 🤷🏼♀️😆 That's the benefit of being here where only my paid subscribers can comment and engage in my work. I'll only ever be engaging with real people. If people take me down they'll have to do it elsewhere. And then they'll very much be missing context.
Again great points. The AI tools can give people shortcuts to information, but with increasing use people will loose nuance and context. Thanks so much for your thoughts here Elle!
The only danger of closing yourself in with a fixed audience is that you may create an echo chamber where you may receive no criticism at all.
I only feel free to explore all sides of the aisle in my writing because I can do so without being attacked. In my experience, opening yourself up to every opinion on the internet doesn't result in a balanced worldview, in fact it forces you to defend yourself and take a side. I actually think that's why we've become so polarized.
I have paid subscribers that are capitalist, socialist, and anarchist. I have paid subscribers who are democrat and republican. So I don't think we've created an echo chamber, but rather a safe space to have discourse without a lack of context or a fear of being taken out of context. In fact, that's allowed me to shape my ideas in public, because I know I can just change my ideas later on if I learn more. Rather than feeling like I have to defend a position because someone is trying to condemn me!
I suppose that's a long way of saying that I actually think it's near impossible to create an echo chamber in today's environment because the default culture online is the exact opposite of an echo chamber (a megaphone??). It's extremely difficult to find a space without the noise!
Thank you Elle, great points.
Thanks, Boodsy, for the mention, even it is me at my most paranoid.
I appreciate anyone who is taking a step back and thinking about what we are really trying to accomplish on Substack.
Wow, Boodsy, I love this. The Tibet metaphor is perfect.
Thanks Vanda!
Nice article, Boodsy. I like rabbit holes too, they can be such a comfort. 😉