Tag Archives: Rubin

Viewpoint Discrimination at Substack

A while back I decided to create a Substack account as another outlet for writing and sharing my thoughts about the political situation, among other things. I had already decided to stop active participation in Twitter/X given the undermining of the original concept by its new owner, Elon Musk. I thought I would over time transition away from this blog to using Substack as my primary outlet. Substack hosts a number of people I follow closely, like Prof. Timothy Snyder, and I wanted to write in that same environment.

So, I signed up. I used my Gmail account with the shiningseausa as a pen name because that is the pseudonym I have used on most social media accounts. My thought was that using a single pen name would make it easier for readers to understand who was writing and, if they desired, to choose which social media in which to follow me.

My first Substack post, on September 23, 2024, was a message, a plea into the ether, that Jill Stein should do everyone a favor, including herself, by withdrawing from the 2024 presidential race in which she stood a zero chance of success. It was titled simply, “A Proposal for Jill Stein.”

The second post was Only the Best People, on November 17, 2024, about some of the people Donald Trump was proposing for his cabinet and other high government positions. It contained only one link, to an opening poem, and no one clicked on it. This post was also published in this blog but no one reading it in Substack would have known that unless they subscribed to both.

Substack posted this no-reply message on November 17:

Share Only the Best People

We’ve generated custom assets to help you promote your post on other social networks. Download your videos and images and share with a link to your post!

https://shiningseausa.substack.com/p/only-the-best-people

That message was accompanied by other links created by Substack, that clearly encouraged me to repost on Twitter/X, Instagram, TikTok and possibly others. I did not act on that invitation.

My third Substack post was called, “The Nauseating Descent of Mainstream Media,” posted on December 5, 2024. It was also posted in this blog, but the only link in the post was to a Substack post by Harry Litman that I urged everyone to read.

Then, it happened. Jennifer Rubin, whose opinion pieces I followed in the Washington Post, announced her resignation in the face of Jeff Bezos’ interference in the editorial side of the paper. Shortly thereafter, Rubin announced in the BlueSky app, the formation of The Contrarian, described as “a new media outlet not owned by anybody.” I tried to subscribe and at that point, for the first time, learned this:

Your account is currently suspended. Something you posted may have violated Substack’s Spam & Phishing policy. If you believe this is a mistake, you can submit a appeal to our Trust & Safety team here: https://substack.link/account-ban-appeal.

Consider that message closely. “Something” I posted, but unidentified. “May have violated” … presumably that means “actually violated,” since the result of my posting the unidentified material resulted in suspension of my account, not an inquiry about it.

On December 3, 2024, two days before my third post, Substack sent me a reader statistics report. No mention of any issue related to spam or phishing. On December 5, immediately after my third Substack post, I received another no-reply Substack email:

Share The Nauseating Descent of Mainstream Media

We’ve generated custom assets to help you promote your post on other social networks. Download your videos and images and share with a link to your post!

https://shiningseausa.substack.com/p/the-nauseating-descent-of-mainstream

Again, no mention of spam or phishing issues, but including the same sharing suggestions as before. The next day, another reader statistics report with no issues raised.

On December 17, 2024, Substack announced a new project:

The new media, powered by Substack

Partnering with The Free Press to better support media organizations

The Free Press, a media organization founded by the journalists Bari Weiss, Nellie Bowles, and Suzy Weiss, and hosted by Substack, has relaunched its website with a fresh design….

This relaunch showcases a model that, in the years ahead, will give big-vision publishers a new option for starting a fully-fledged media business, encompassing rich design, advanced websites, deep analytics, automated marketing features, and first-class support for video, audio, and more.

Substack will always be dedicated to helping individuals and small teams publish across formats, build an audience, and make money from subscriptions, but we also want to support publishers’ ambitions as they grow on the platform. With that in mind, we are building a toolset that will allow high-volume publishers with sophisticated needs—including custom branding, website design, and support for large editorial teams—to take advantage of Substack’s best-in-class publishing system while also being plugged into a network that drives subscriptions.

On January 3, 2025, Substack sent me another reader statistics report with no indication of anything amiss.

At this point I was, and remain, thoroughly confused as to what the issue really was at Substack. The site was encouraging me to share my Substack posts using my shiningseausa pen name and simultaneously telling me I had violated some policy I was unable to divine from Substack’s policy statements while simultaneously proclaiming its dedication to free expression.

I appealed the suspension. Substack acknowledged the appeal on January 13 and responded with this:

As noted in our Content Guidelines, Substack is not intended for advertising-based accounts or conventional email marketing.

The moderation team has reviewed your account and determined that its content is in breach of these guidelines. Specifically, we have concluded that the primary purpose of the account is to advertise external products or services, drive traffic to third-party sites, distribute offers and promotions, enhance search engine optimization or similar activities. [Bolding added]

I responded on January 16:

I have examined all three of the posts I placed in Substack & do not understand how you reached the conclusion you assert unless it’s the single reference to my blog in the first post on Sept. 24, 2024, which reference was related solely to matters of policy content of the argument I was making. In the other two posts, no reference is made to the blog. The blog has no commercial component, no advertising, no product promotions except a single reference to a book I published in December. I do not therefore understand the basis for your conclusion that the primary purpose of my entire Substack account is to “advertise external products or services, drive traffic to third-party sites (all are cited only as sources or references to arguments being made), distribute offers and promotions (there are none), enhance search engine optimization or similar activities.” My second Substack post was devoted entirely to criticism of Trump’s cabinet & other nominees, and the third post related solely to disputing attacks on President Biden for pardoning his son. With all due respect, since you cite nothing specific to support the sweeping conclusion you state about the purpose of my Substack account, which is barely off the starting block, I ask that you identify precisely where the offense lies. I have read many Substack posts by many different authors, all of whom cite authorities & sources for their arguments. All seem identical substantively to what I posted. If you’re going to permanently ban me from Substack, you should at least be specific as to the offense committed. [Bolding added here]

On January 17 Substack responded with this:

As noted, Substack is vehemently anti-spam and may ban accounts that post spam when interacting with others on Substack, such as in comments, discussion threads, or email replies.

To reactivate your account, please confirm we may remove previous notes and comments engaging in these activities, and we will be happy to remove your account restrictions.

 Within minutes, I replied:

I too am vehemently anti-spam. The issue here is that I don’t understand what the spam is that Substack is concerned about in my three posts. If Substack has in mind deleting “notes and comments” from the 3 posts, it would be most helpful if you told me what those were so I can give informed consent. Right now I truly have no idea what the concern is.

Less than an hour later, Substack responded:

We’ve reviewed your account activity and noted your interactions on other newsletters. Specifically, we’ve identified two comments on separate newsletters which included links directing to your personal website. Additionally, the bio section of your Substack profile includes a link to the same site.

Our moderation team regards these actions as promotional activity geared to direct users off-site to an external webpage. As stated in our Content Guidelines, while advertising and marketing are allowed on Substack, these activities should not be the main focus of a Substack account. The primary purpose should be creating valuable, unique content for subscribers.

In this case, the frequent linking to an external site gives an impression of an account primarily intended to drive traffic elsewhere, rather than engaging with the Substack community.

To resolve this issue and reactivate your account, we propose to remove these external links from your comments and profile. Once removed, your account restrictions will be lifted.

We’re awaiting your consent to proceed with this step. If there are any further concerns or queries, please let us know.

The very next afternoon Substack sent me a survey asking me to “rate the support you received.”

I replied that same day that “I am still waiting for you to identify the claimed offending statements.”

On January 24, Substack finally responded:

To resolve this issue and reactivate your account, we propose to remove these external links from your comments and profile.

https://shiningseausa.com/
https://shiningseausa.com/2024/12/05/the-nauseating-descent-of-mainstream-media/
https://shiningseausa.com/2024/12/05/the-nauseating-descent-of-mainstream-media/

Once removed, your account restrictions will be lifted.

We’re awaiting your consent to proceed with this step. If there are any further concerns or queries, please let us know.

The same day I replied:

Remove those links from what accounts specifically? How do I access my bio with account suspended?

Four days later Substack had not responded. I wrote:

I am astonished and disappointed that Substack has chosen to resist explaining its bizarre position that my posting(s) are somehow spam. I have asked for straightforward factual information on which to base a decision to the path Substack has demanded and you simply repeat the same demand with no discernable effort to address the questions I have posed. I am finished repeating myself to be faced with apparent stonewalling by Substack’s team. You leave me no choice but to address this another way. Very unfortunate.

And so, here we are. Someone familiar with the workings of social media has suggested to me that Substack’s action is driven by a complaint someone filed. If so, that has not been disclosed. I am at a loss.

As a result of Substack’s persistent refusal to explain its concerns and demands, I am left with no choice but to terminate the account. Very disappointing.

The Doomsday Scenario – Strangelove as President

You’ve seen one of the movies, most likely. One masterpiece that comes to mind is Dr. Strangelove, subtitled, “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.” If you are one of the five living people who hasn’t seen it, Wikipedia summarizes the story like this:

The story concerns an unhinged United States Air Force general who orders a first strike nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. It separately follows the President of the United States, his advisors, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a Royal Air Force (RAF) exchange officer as they attempt to prevent the crew of a B-52 plane (who were following orders from the general) from bombing the Soviets and starting a nuclear war. [https://bit.ly/39fqU0M]

There are other such stories, including the similar Seven Days in May, about a “military-political cabal’s planned takeover of the United States government in reaction to the president’s negotiation of a disarmament treaty with the Soviet Union.” [https://bit.ly/2Xip8cF]

At the root of each drama is the conflict between the civilian and Constitutional leader of the military (the President) and the military leadership. Usually, it’s the military people that go off the reservation. In the real world, we had the opposite, terrifying scenario of the President of the United States becoming unhinged from reality and unrestrained by Constitutional or any other restraints (including his Cabinet). Trump was behaving so irrationally that the senior military authority, General Mark Milley, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, undertook steps to be sure that Trump’s lunacy did not destroy the world.

Republicans, and even a few Democrats, are losing their minds over this. Ignore the Republicans, who, as with COVID-19, Ukraine and many other situations, can be counted upon to suspend all rational thinking in favor of obeisance to Donald Trump. Especially people like the morally compromised Senator Marco Rubio. Their reaction is predictable and meaningless.

Our attention is captured, however, as it should be, when someone like Ret. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, driven out of the service by Donald Trump, complains that Gen. Milley should be removed because he “usurped civilian authority, broke Chain of Command, and violated the sacrosanct principle of civilian control over the military.” https://wapo.st/3zbu9Ry

Despite my great respect for Lt. Col. Vindman for his courageous stand against Trump’s lies about the Ukraine extortion, I disagree with his judgment on Gen. Milley.

In time of crisis, there are two essential options: (1) look to an authority source for direction and mechanically do what it says, or (2) use judgment to assess whether the authority source works in the situation at hand and, if not, choose another course of action. People face these choices every day in one way or another, thankfully almost always in situations trivial by comparison to the problem Gen. Milley faced. They make such choices on the spur of the moment, often without much thought. Sometimes they are right and sometimes not.

For example, in a different realm, the standard instruction is: don’t run from a bear; running will trigger its predatory instincts to attack. Also, don’t get between a mother bear and her cubs.

Fine, but what if you’ve wandered between the mother and cubs before you are even aware of their presence. The rules then are more complicated: if it’s a brown bear and it charges you, fall into a fetal position, trying your best to protect head, neck and stomach. If it’s a black bear, fight back. Throw things, get “big,” shout. Brown bears are more aggressive typically but may lose interest when you cease to be a threat. Black bears are ferocious but may yield and run from a fight.

If it’s a polar bear, well, hope your estate plan is in order.

The point is that these “rule book” principles are fine until they don’t work. If a grizzly attacks, you go fetal and he starts eating you, it may be that the stick lying beside you is your only remaining hope of survival. So, you grab the stick and poke him in the eye or other sensitive place, make a lot of noise and fight like hell for your life. You’re going to die otherwise, so you do what you have to do. Your options are few so you do what you can to change the odds.

Imperfect as analogies may be, the ultimate question is crisis is: will following the authority solve the problem or do I have to improvise and do the unthinkable?

Gen. Milley was faced with precisely this situation. [Disclosure: I haven’t yet read the Woodward/Costa book that revealed this story and even then might not have all the information.]

Gen. Milley had the real-life Dr. Strangelove in the role of President of the United States. His choice was to follow the rule book, let events take their course. He realized he could possibly be witness to, and complicit in, the destruction of the world as we know it if Donald Trump, desperate to cling to power, were to issue orders for a nuclear strike against China. Evidence was abundant that Trump was having serious mental disfunction. This was nothing new, but the loss of the 2020 election unhinged him from reality to a degree not previously seen. He claimed without evidence that the election had been stolen; he refused to cooperate in the peaceful transition of power; on January 6 he had urged his followers to use force to stop the final step in certifying the election result; he openly sought to reverse election counts in multiple states by pressuring state officials.

Donald Trump spit in the face of the constitutional order, giving every indication that he might be prepared to do something even more unprecedented in human history to retain power.

In those circumstances, perhaps one person alone stood as the final bulwark against insanity on the loose. That was General Milley. He chose to act rather than be another passive instrument of Trump’s delusion. I think I understand the tendency of people like Lt. Col. Vindman to turn to the “book” in cases like this, but history should vindicate the judgment of Gen. Milley that the evidence of irrational behavior was too strong, and the weakness of the inner Trump circle was too compromised, to simply hope for the best. The nation, indeed the world, should be grateful.

Note: Jennifer Rubin’s Washington Post opinion piece on this issue raises questions regarding the lessons to be taken from this episode and how we shore up the constitutional order against a future Trump. https://wapo.st/3hEyKpm Those are very important questions that require the most serious consideration.

 

Donald Trump – American Terrorist, The Enemy Within – Part 1 of Many

By now we are well accustomed to learning about a mass shooting somewhere in the U.S. and seeing the statement that authorities are determining whether the killing represents an act of terrorism or “merely” something else. The “else” is, presumably, less serious, less grievous, less disturbing, at least if you’re not among the victims or their families.

But there is another kind of terrorism that that may not directly lead to deaths but that has broad impact on many more people and leads to, among other things, loss of freedom. I refer to political terrorism. We know about it from observing other countries with “less democratic” and “less free” societies. In those countries, you step out of line, and you get imprisoned, disappeared, shot, poisoned and so on. If you’re “lucky,” you just lose your job, maybe your home and possessions and possibly your reputation. Political terrorism can take other forms as well. Among them are public humiliation, shunning and so on.

In one way or another, all of these non-violent (so far) forms of political terrorism have arrived on our shores and are embodied in the practices of the Trump administration. They didn’t come from overseas, however, and can’t be blamed on “foreigners” or “immigrants.” These are all home-grown right here in the US of A. USA! USA! USA! All part of “Make America Great Again.”

The Federal Bureau of Investigation defines “domestic terrorism” as “Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.” https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism  The FBI’s definition of “international terrorism” also includes a violence component.

The common elements are “violent crimes” and bitideological goals” that in the domestic case arise from domestic “political, religious, social, racial, or environmental” beliefs.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of “terrorism” is broader: “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.”  bit.ly/2zbV86n The root “terror” means “a state of intense or overwhelming fear.” No physical violence is required.

When I started this post, Donald Trump had already become the quintessential American-bred political terrorist. Here is some, a tiny fraction, of the overwhelming, incontrovertible proof. The only potentially missing element is violence but in the United States, at least for now, fear serves almost as well as violence to fulfill the monarchical aspirations of the putative dictator that sits in the people’s house.

It was fear, for example, that motivated Trump’s henchmen in the United States Senate, who, refusing to look at the evidence, but with plenty of proof before them even without additional witnesses, decided to ignore their oaths of office and constitutional obligations by voting against the Articles of Impeachment. It is reliably reported by a U.S. Senator present on the scene that “In Private, Republicans Admit They Acquitted Trump Out of Fear,” https://nyti.ms/395DTAs

In the United States Senate, like in many spheres of life, fear does the business…. History has indeed taught us that when it comes to the instincts that drive us, fear has no rival…. Playing on that fear, the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, sought a quick impeachment trial for President Trump with as little attention to it as possible. Reporters, who usually roam the Capitol freely, have been cordoned off like cattle in select areas. Mr. McConnell ordered limited camera views in the Senate chamber so only presenters — not absent senators — could be seen.

And barely a peep from Republican lawmakers.

One journalist remarked to me, “How in the world can these senators walk around here upright when they have no backbone?”

Fear has a way of bending us….

For the stay-in-office-at-all-cost representatives and senators, fear is the motivator. They are afraid that Mr. Trump might give them a nickname like “Low Energy Jeb” and “Lyin’ Ted,” or that he might tweet about their disloyalty. Or — worst of all — that he might come to their state to campaign against them in the Republican primary. They worry:

“Will the hosts on Fox attack me?”

“Will the mouthpieces on talk radio go after me?”

“Will the Twitter trolls turn their followers against me?”

My colleagues know they all just might. There’s an old Russian proverb: The tallest blade of grass is the first cut by the scythe. In private, many of my colleagues agree that the president is reckless and unfit. They admit his lies. And they acknowledge what he did was wrong. They know this president has done things Richard Nixon never did. And they know that more damning evidence is likely to come out….

I have asked some of them, “If the Senate votes to acquit, what will you do to keep this president from getting worse?” Their responses have been shrugs and sheepish looks.

They stop short of explicitly saying that they are afraid. We all want to think that we always stand up for right and fight against wrong. But history does not look kindly on politicians who cannot fathom a fate worse than losing an upcoming election. They might claim fealty to their cause — those tax cuts — but often it’s a simple attachment to power that keeps them captured.

As Senator Murray said on the Senate floor in 2002, “We can act out of fear” or “we can stick to our principles.” Unfortunately, in this Senate, fear has had its way. In November, the American people will have theirs.

When I started drafting this post, Trump was operating through non-violent fear, but that has changed. Trump wants the country to “reopen” and doesn’t much care how many people are exposed to the death-dealing coronavirus in the process. He was tweeted to his followers that they should LIBERATE Michigan, Virginia and Minnesota, leading to swarms of his lunatic followers blocking entrances to hospitals, calling for the firing of one of the few experts who seem to know what’s going on and intimidating a few governors into prematurely reopening beaches and other public places. Groups of angry people, almost all white men, many carrying guns, bearing Confederate flags and emblazoned with swastikas have descended on some state capitols to “demand” that the governor re-open immediately. In some cases, they have physically challenged police assigned to protect state property and personnel from violence and interference with government processes. Wearing no masks, they have screamed directly in the faces of officers who, presumably following orders, simply stood their ground and made no arrests.

These actions, at the behest of the President of the United States, are acts of terrorism by any reasonable definition. Trump is willfully inciting violence against state authorities who will not bend to his insane will by reopening their states to dangerous behaviors that will kill people as certainly as a Trump-adoring neo-Nazi with an AR-15. The appearance of Confederate battle flags and swastikas at these gatherings of Trump supporters are clear evidence of their beliefs.

To be clear, I am in complete agreement that the First Amendment allows people to peacefully protest government policy, no matter how misguided that protest may be. But, as I had to tell a (now former) Facebook friend the other day, the right to protest does not confer the right to endanger others. Society has adopted rules and processes, some of which are slower to move than we would like, to protect everyone’s “rights.” So, to use a well-worn example, you cannot shout fire in a darkened theater, and you can’t drive 50 in a 25 mph school zone. Those “freedoms” are limited to protect others freedom.

The “reopen immediately” crowd seem to think they are the only ones with “rights” that matter. Trump has openly encouraged them, calling them “good people.” He said the same thing about the neo-Nazi crowd that marched in Charlottesville, leading to the death of a counter-protester.

Further evidence of Trump’s fondness for Nazis and what they stand for lies in his decision to dishonor the Presidential Medal of Freedom by awarding it to Rush Limbaugh, whose career, as described by Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post, Feb. 5, 2020, has been marked by “hate-filled racism, homophobia and misogyny, all characteristics favored by Donald Trump throughout his own career. https://wapo.st/35y1UiK This is the same medal previously given to the likes of Rosa Parks, Elie Wiesel and George Balanchine.

Citing multiple examples, Rubin noted that Limbaugh is the “embodiment of divisive, hateful right-wing media rhetoric, which, just like Trump, casts Democrats as evil and the media as enemies of the people.” Further, “a president who considers himself as president of only his supporters and who has debased and cheapened our language and our politics, making the reprehensible perfectly acceptable, would of course want to honor someone of Limbaugh’s ilk.”

Republicans, who claim to be offended by the accusation they were knuckling under to Trump on impeachment (before they knuckled under on impeachment) and collapse on the fainting couch when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) rips up her copy of Trump’s historically divisive and dishonest address, cheer Trump’s selection….

Trump’s great lie is convincing Americans that white males no matter what their conduct — Brett Kavanaugh, convicted war criminals and, most of all, himself — are victims of elites. That, in turn, gives them license to unleash bigotry and engage in intolerable, unhinged conduct, all in the name of vindicating themselves from oppression. That mentality of grievance, propagated effectively by Limbaugh, is nothing more than cover for white nationalism. The country should denounce, not honor, its practitioners.

Here are a few of Limbaugh’s other statements that Trump agrees with; apologies to those who find these deeply offensive. It is important that they not be lost to history. Limbaugh speaks:

“Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”.

[To an African American female caller] “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back.”

“I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.”

“You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.”

“Women should not be allowed on juries where the accused is a stud.”

“Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?” while holding up a photo of 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton on his 1993 TV show.

“Holocaust? Ninety million Indians? Only four million left? They all have casinos — what’s to complain about?”

Discussing the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison: “It’s sort of like hazing, a fraternity prank. Sort of like that kind of fun.”

Those are the principles that appeal to Donald Trump and apparently to roughly a third of the American voting population.  Terrorism by any other name is still terrorism. November is coming. Prepare.