90 Miles From Tyranny

Saturday, January 29, 2022

Substack Stands Strong Against Left’s Anti-Free Speech Pressure

The leaders of media platform Substack responded to leftist censorship pressure with a strong defense of free speech. “I wouldn’t want someone to pick out my clothes for me, much less my ideas,” Substack executive Lulu Cheng Meservey said.

The Washington Post wrote an absurd piece attacking Substack for its pro-free speech approach. The Post accused the platform of being “a hub for controversial and often misleading perspectives about the coronavirus.” Yahoo! News, The Guardian, and The Daily Beast piled on Substack too, citing the leftist Center for Countering Digital Hate. Leftist Clinton Foundation Vice Chair Chelsea Clinton also complained about “Anti-vaxx grift going strong” on Substack. Substack responded by standing firm for free speech. “At Substack, we don’t make moderation decisions based on public pressure or PR considerations,” tweeted Substack Vice President of Communications Meservey, according to Fox News. “An important principle for us is defending free expression, even for stuff we personally dislike or disagree with. We understand principles come at a cost.”

Meservey said she was “proud” of this free speech stance, and that “open debate is not always comfortable,” but it is necessary. “Who should be the arbiter of what’s true and good and right?” Meservey asked. She noted no generation is “infallible.” Meservey pointed out a key issue with Big Tech censorship: “People should be allowed to decide for themselves, not have a tech executive decide for them.”

Substack is specifically meant to be a platform for individuals with widely differing views, including controversial views. “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...

Quick Hits Of Wisdom, Knowledge And Snark #206

Snowden weighs in on Joe Rogan criticism

Ex-National Security Agency analyst-turned whistleblower mocks those believing Joe Rogan’s podcast is a health hazard

Fugitive whistleblower and privacy advocate Edward Snowden took a dig at the critics who’ve accused Joe Rogan of spreading Covid-19 misinformation via his vastly popular show on Spotify, arguing that the idea people would seek medical advice from the podcaster in earnest is nonsensical.

Snowden’s Friday tweet-storm included a post showing the comical logo for Rogan’s podcast, which includes a third eye in the host’s forehead. “I mean, just look at the logo", Snowden said. “Which part of it primes in you an expectation of reliable medical advice.”

He also mocked the idea that Rogan has caused public distrust in government officials, rather than those leaders undermining their own credibility. “But sure, blame the magic, third-eye radio man for the decline of basic trust in institutions,” Snowden said. “Throw him in the volcano and we’ll have world peace by Monday.”

Snowden argued that many of Rogan’s critics haven’t even listened to his ideas. “Nobody has stronger opinions about Joe Rogan than people who have never listened to Joe Rogan,” he said.

The whistleblower also suggested that much of the criticism isn’t genuine. “The idea that people are, like, emerging from their deep caves, eyes blinking against the harshness of a sun whose touch they have never known, on a quest to seek specific medical advice from the glory of a white-robed Rogan is, perhaps, just the slightest bit forced.”

Asked by Brazilian reporter Marcos Candido what his point is, Snowden replied, “Don’t take medical advice from anyone with a third eye.”

Rogan has been a frequent target of criticism from media outlets and public officials. Asked about Rogan’s show in an MSNBC interview on Tuesday, US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called for increased censorship of speech by social media platforms to block...

Larry Fink has emerged as the point man for environmental, social, and corporate governance capitalism, broadly known as ESG. As chief executive officer of BlackRock, which holds a $10 trillion global portfolio, Fink leverages this immense power to compel companies that BlackRock invests in to comply with an aggressive climate change and diversity agenda in their operations.

Fink’s BlackRock is committed to a net-zero carbon strategy, and seeks global conformity across its clients on sustainability reporting measures, i.e., they must prove that their companies are seeking this goal.

His annual letter to CEOs is closely read, and, it would seem, followed. In 2020, he stated that BlackRock “will be increasingly disposed to vote against management and board directors when companies are not making sufficient progress on sustainability-related disclosures and the business practices and plans underlying them.”

His 2021 letter noted the valiant protests for racial justice in 2020. And concluded that companies must meet the demands of protesters: “We ask that your disclosures on talent strategy fully reflect your long-term plans to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion, as appropriate by region.”

All of this, we are told, leads to more profitable companies. For those corporate doubting Thomases, they too must learn to become profitable by following a detailed ESG disclosure regimen. But something does not quite sum here.

Last year, BlackRock sided with “Engine No. 1,” an activist investment fund that replaced directors on ExxonMobil with three of its selections because of a belief that the corporation was not seriously confronting the challenges of climate change in its business strategy. The new directors then attempted to compel the company to divest oil and gas fields in Mozambique and Vietnam. The gaping need is to look for more environmentally sustainable investments in green energy, they argued.

As a slow rolling energy crisis and its increase in demand for conventional energy has emerged in 2021 and 2022, that view is a bit precious.

From whence does Fink’s breathless enthusiasm come? And why does it find such a receptive, pliable audience? To take climate change, most of America’s, and presumably the world’s, progress in decreasing its carbon footprint will come through technological growth and the impacts this growth will have on numerous industries. Companies will find themselves more productive while using less energy.

Coerced investments in sustainable energy technologies, whose markets are heavily created by state intervention, will likely prove negligible in lowering carbon emissions by comparison.

To gain understanding of Fink’s actions, we need to go deeper into the spiritual awakening in identity politics that could reshape virtually every institution in America and the West. In “American Awakening,” Joshua Mitchell argues that identity politics is a religious revival seeking salvation by replacing the substance of justice with the supplement of mercy.

Justice is the arduous task of giving to each person what is due to them. Our voluntary institutions in work, politics, and civic associations are predicated on us attempting and generally getting this virtue right. Mercy, Mitchell observes, is the supplement when we don’t. We ask and hope to be granted forgiveness when we...