This post is about a very silly but true situation. I have recently gotten into a kerfuffle with Elle Griffin over at The Elysian.
She posted a very popular piece on free speech but with the comments locked. I objected because that practice prevented my free speech before I had even spoken. She said in her article that Substack was a good community of writers precisely because writers were able to patrol their own turf, so to speak, and block or delete anyone who offended. They could also restrict comments to subscribers only, or posts to subscribers only. Fair enough. It is a free country.
Also, I agree that free speech with community policing is the way to go.
I have one request though. At the beginning of the article, please put in a note saying it is restricted to subscribers only if it is, or that comments are restricted, so that I won’t waste my time reading it, only to be pulled up short halfway in by the “subscribers only” notice. It is very frustrating. I am the sort of person who wants to know how it all turns out. So have pity on me. Insert that cautionary sign, or allow free subscribers. Let paying a subscription be a free choice, and not one coerced just to see the ending.
Yes, I know the practice is meant to cause people to subscribe. But if I pay every newsletter I find interesting $5 to $7 a piece, it can run into hundreds of dollars. My budget does not allow that. I can’t easily just sign up and then cancel. It is much easier to subscribe than to cancel.
Elle said she restricted comments because she is running literary salons with diverse thinkers. I merely observe that paying $5 or$7 a month does not make anyone a diverse thinker, or suitable for a literary salon. It just makes them able to pay the fee. It may make policing easier because you can prevent messes before they happen. But I would remind her, she still holds the power of the delete or cancel button, once someone has transgressed. Her current policy protects her diverse thinkers, but it also excludes diverse thinkers without money. Like me.
However. I offer my apologies for my rather aggressive tone in earlier comments. I have attracted several readers whose names are not pleasant. Aggression attracts aggressive types, I guess. The comments I made lacked charity. They also demonstrated why you block comments. You want to keep your threads clean rather than having to launder them all the time.
I remember seeing that thread. That letter was shared *as if it were an open letter* to everyone. Did she paywall it or were the comments the only thing that was paywalled? I think you can choose which posts are public and which are only for paid subscribers. I think for this particular issue it is important to have an open debate and send out Free. Perhaps she wasn't meaning for it to go as viral as it did? (I saw it reposted by many.)
On the note of charity, it is hard to put out the right tone on written replies. Things can sound a bit more truculent in comments than they would be if people were actually talking to people in real life. Anyway, I think the high emotions were also feeding the situation a bit as well. I mostly read everyone's responses and signed nothing. Perhaps my lack of putting my name on letters comes from working for/with lawyers for so long.