Unhinged Liberals' Heads Are Exploding Across The Internet Because 'Cancel Culture' Is Suddenly Being 'Canceled' By A Rapidly Strengthening Conservative Online Eco-System

Student News Daily describes the term cancel culture as "a modern form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles – either online on social media, in the real world, or both [for expressing opinions that are condemned by progressives]. Those who are subject to this ostracism are said to be “canceled.”  (wikipedia)  – Generally those who have been cancelled are banished from the public square.  Harry Potter author JK Rowling was ‘canceled’ for expressing her opinion because it did not line up with progressive thinking."

In the case of JK Rowling, her "opinion" was simply mocking a headline about "people" that menstruate by stating on social media "“‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”

Her refusal to allow the "politically correct" crowd to erase women, was the start of the attacks against her.

For years we have watched conservatives, or even Democrats that didn't toe the "official party line," deplatformed, or "canceled" by social media and big tech any time liberals got their panties in a bunch over an opinion that doesn't match what the MSM tells them is correct.

We saw it with Alex Jones at InfoWars, where platform after platform all "canceled" him at once, in an obvious coordinated attack against what they considered "wrong-think." Then they banned Laura Loomer in much the same way. Finally they became so emboldened they blocked the President of the United States of America, Donald Trump.

Throughout those years, the Independent Media and conservatives called out for platforms that liberals could not control, no matter how much of a temper tantrum they threw on a daily basis, and slowly but surely, we started noting the creation of a conservative eco-system, for lack of a better term, that radical liberals had absolutely no control over.

Once the MSM and online liberals discovered that eco-system was built in a way where they couldn't control it or cancel those using it.... the unhinged meltdowns began.

SUBSTACK FOUNDERS REFUSE TO COWER TO THE MOB

Recently a writer over at Mashable, a far left liberal website, decided it would be a good idea to ask "why has this type of content been allowed to thrive on Substack, even in the midst of an ever-rising tide of COVID misinformation in digital spaces?"

"Allowed to thrive." How dare Substack "allow"  opinions other than the preferred, and constantly changing, narratives to be disseminated?

Without even seeing the irony of a website to which half the nation disagrees with ideologically encouraging the "canceling" and/or deplatforming of those they personally disagree, they push for censoring others.

Substack's primary principle that has Mashable so riled is "To be a safe place for discussion and expression."

Wow... novel idea.

In December 2020, Substack Founders explained their position on the content allowed on their website.

The insistence on the platform's support for "robust discourse" was reiterated in Substack's own newsletter. In December 2020, a lengthy post by Substack CEO Chris Best and co-founders Jairaj Sethi and Hamish McKenzie explained their ideology behind content moderation, arguing they "favor civil liberties, believe in democracy, and are against authoritarianism of all kinds." The post was prompted by an "increasing interest" at the time in their content moderation policies. Though the founders caveat Substack does not allow porn, doxxing, or harassment on the platform, the post affirms that Substack "will resist public pressure to suppress voices that loud objectors deem unacceptable."

While those guidelines seem perfectly reasonable, as the January 24, 2022 Mashable piece clearly shows, that type of attitude that all opinions should be welcome and discussed and debated, is still gnawing at liberals because they cannot browbeat, threaten, or cancel Substack, nor their writers.

Here is the main reason Mashable hates Substack: "According to the Center for Countering Digital Hate, more than 59 million people were reached by 425 anti-vaxxer accounts tracked by the organization in 2020 on social media platforms."

59 million.....probably more than Mashable sees in a year. 

As to the claim of being "anti-vaxxers,' although there are many of those, the major complaint of most in present day isn't the "vax" itself but the attempts to force people to take it. They are anti-mandate more than anything else. 

It is noteworthy that it is not just "conservatives" writing over at Substack and earning revenue for their work, but liberals that have been ostracized for not toeing the liberal party line in every instance, are also using Substack to discuss the issues important to them.

So once again, the founders of Substack addressed the issue and explained why they would continue to  take a hands off approach unless it was porn, doxxing  or harassment, as stated in their guidelines.

This point rings true to us. That’s why, as we face growing pressure to censor content published on Substack that to some seems dubious or objectionable, our answer remains the same: we make decisions based on principles not PR, we will defend free expression, and we will stick to our hands-off approach to content moderation. While we have content guidelines that allow us to protect the platform at the extremes, we will always view censorship as a last resort, because we believe open discourse is better for writers and better for society. 

This position has some uncomfortable consequences. It means we allow writers to publish what they want and readers to decide for themselves what to read, even when that content is wrong or offensive, and even when it means putting up with the presence of writers with whom we strongly disagree. But we believe this approach is a necessary precondition for building trust in the information ecosystem as a whole. The more that powerful institutions attempt to control what can and cannot be said in public, the more people there will be who are ready to create alternative narratives about what’s “true,” spurred by a belief that there’s a conspiracy to suppress important information. When you look at the data, it is clear that these effects are already in full force in society. 

Emphasis mine.

Allowing readers to decide for themselves what to read.... no wonder liberals like those at Mashable are having meltdowns

The entire article from the founders can be read here.
(read more)