Four Intractable Flaws in Vocal's Censorship Policies

They are subjective and thus impossible to enforce fairly and thus unjust

Subjectivity if fine when judging a piece of writing on its artistic merits. Beyond spelling, grammar, and a few other basic components judging the quality of any given written work is always going to be a highly subjective process. After all, people have very different tastes in what they like to read and two people can have diametrically opposed ideas on what they believe qualifies as "good" or "bad" writing. We all have our own unique likes and dislikes and inherent biases. There is nothing wrong with this and it is in fact part of what makes each individual person unique. Subjectivity in judging quality is a fact of life and any publication which wants to exclude works it feels does not meet a certain quality standard (as determined subjectively by whomever it feels qualified to judge such a thing) is entirely free to do so. I might think this is stupid and I might rail against the unfairness of it, but in the end I must accept it, and in fact I would accept it, no matter how much I might grumble about the unfairness of it. When it comes to quality, fairness is in the eye of the beholder. However, if said publication seeks to exclude works not because of a quality standard but rather for reasons of objectionable content the situation changes considerably. Unlike quality, content is an objective standard, or at least it should be. It must be in fact for the content standard to be considered fair in any sense of the word. And, because it is an objective standard it must be fair or the publication implementing the standard is behaving in an unjust fashion. Consider Vocal's prohibition on the publishing of works containing "religious" or "graphic" content. What is religious content and what is graphic content? Who defines these terms? Who determines if any given content meets the definition? Vocal defines them and the moderators/reviewers determine this. However, it is simply not possible for any person or group of persons to define either of those terms in a way that will account for any possible situation. And no single or group of moderators will ever be able to agree in every case as to the correct application of their own "rules" with respect to writings that may or may not have such content. They will always in the end be judgement calls, human made judgement calls, and they will be disputed. They will be subjective, and thus they will be unfair, they will be unjust. This makes Vocal, as currently configured, an unjust organization and an unjust publication. Congratulations.

They tell the world that Vocal doesn't believe freedom of expression is important

I understand that private entities are free to make their own rules. This includes rules that cut against values we take as cornerstones of modern, free societies. Freedom of expression is one such core value and particularly in the modern west it is viewed, or should be viewed, as sacrosanct. Vocal is free to implement rules which stifle freedom of expression, but it must accept the consequences of that stance. One of the consequences is the message it sends to the world which is that Vocal does not believe freedom of expression is important, or at least, it is not as important as the profit motive, or whatever other reason it might want to give for its censorship policies. Bottom line is that Vocal does not value freedom of expression as highly as it values many other things. To repeat, they are totally free to take this stance, but just because Vocal can do this, does not make it right. I find it highly objectionable and unjust and I believe it must end, and because of these things, I will fight against it in every way I can, including by publishing pieces like this one which point out the massive flaws in the "thinking" behind it. Make no mistake, I do not want the world thinking that by publishing in Vocal I in any way support their policies in this regard, I do not. See below

They are in direct opposition to my own core values and belief systems as a scientist and as a human being

It is impossible to be a practicing scientist, at least a good one, if you do not value objectivity. One of the defining traits of the scientific method is that it is, to the extent possible, free of human judgement and biases. Of course this vaunted view of science as completely free from human fallibility is incorrect and in truth it is an impossible standard to meet. That said, we must as scientists strive to be objective to the extent possible in all of our work. I bring that same value to my private life and the censorship policies of Vocal as I described above are the opposite of that. They are subjective in the extreme, and could never be objective no matter how long and detailed the rule book, and how supposedly impartial and wise the censors. But it is not just because I am a scientist that I am in opposition to these absurd policies, but also because I am a human being. As such, I have a very strong desire to remain living in a free and open society. Policies like the ones Vocal have imposed here are antithetical to that and in fact directly and indirectly may contribute to the rise of authoritarianism (see below), a form of government which I find highly objectionable in the extreme and wish to avoid at all costs.

They are a slippery slope to authoritarianism

When we accept or endorse censorship policies for written works we are much more likely to accept and endorse similar policies in other areas of our lives. This is simply a fact and so obvious that I am not even going to waste my time with an explanation. The thing about censorship is that it requires censors. And who are the censors? Well, the censors are always the group that holds the most power. In modern societies it is the public governmental authorities who ultimately hold the most power. If we accept and endorse censorship in the private sector we tell those authorities implicitly that we might accept and endorse censorship in the public sector too. The more they hear that message the more tempting it becomes to act on it.

Author's postscript: I intend to append the below disclaimer to all works I publish here going forward. I ask that other authors with similar feelings do the same. Use my wording or use your own but please, say something, do something. Do not sit idly by and wait for others to do it for you. Most will not. I, on the other had, intend to do everything I can. By myself, unfortunately, in the end that amounts to very little.

"Publication of my works on Vocal.media do not represent in any way an endorsement of their outrageous and unjust censorship policies. I do not support those policies and in fact find them absurd, abhorrent, and an affront to free societies everywhere. Thank you for reading my works here, but know they are published under conditions in which freedom of expression is being muzzled. Therefore, any works of mine you read in these pages will not reflect the full range of my interests and certain topics will be by necessity greatly minimized or entirely absent. Please accept my sincere apologies on behalf of the editors and moderators of Vocal. Since they won't do it for themselves I will do it for them."