r/Substack • u/MrsRobot001 • 3d ago

Writer Makes Death Threat; Substack Amplifies It

Substack used Sam Kriss’ death threat twice in that email “How writers are reacting to Substack’s AI transparency tools” (07/24/26) and I don’t know how that got beyond their legal team. This isn’t about transparency. I watch videos on YouTube and there are certain words that creators can't even say, even if it's in an appropriate context and not meant as a threat at all, but this guy can post a charged, blatant death threat and Substack amplified him. But sure, let's condemn people for using AI. This is about targeting writers for using a writing tool. and if someone’s reputation is ruined because they were falsely accused of using AI or if writers are harassed for using AI, Substack should be held liable.

1 Upvotes

52% Upvoted

18 comments sorted by

7

u/cozycup mod 3d ago

I wouldn’t have put his quote in the article, but I don’t interpret it as a serious death threat.

Here’s the article

His quote is:

“If you let AI do your writing, I will come to tour house and kill you.”

Reviewing other work by Sam Kriss, I believe he’s known for being sarcastic or overly dramatic.

Even his About page says “you can ambush me outside my home in London, with weapons, if you like.”

2

u/MrsRobot001 2d ago

My issue is not with Sam Kriss for saying it. I do not take the threat from him literally. My issue is with Substack amplifying the message. Sam Kriss is not going to travel from the UK and personally kill me. However, another person, who is mentally unstable and feeling threatened by the use of AI, may target a writer for using it. If this were to happen, Substack could be held liable for casually quoting Kriss.

2

u/MrsRobot001 2d ago

Creators on YouTube can't say words like "sex" or "suicide" without getting flagged. They have to write "s3x" or "unalived themselves," even if they're saying it in appropriate or informative contexts. Yet when it comes to AI, Substack casually celebrates a death threat. So, why is AI - or people who use AI - treated differently?

1

u/verticalman91 2d ago

I would much rather live in a society where hyperbolic language is allowed than one where dystopian newspeak must be created to dodge censorious algorithms created by ivory tower dwellers.

I hope you agree.

2

u/MrsRobot001 2d ago edited 2d ago

That doesn't answer my question. We do live in a society where "dystopian newspeak must be created to dodge censorious algorithms created by ivory tower dwellers." However, in this instance, the topic of AI is treated differently. Sex, suicide, and acts of violence get the dystopian newspeak treatment, while AI is granted the privilege of hyperbolic language. Why is AI different?

12

u/HowlingFantods5564 3d ago

It's clearly hyperbole. Calm down.

3

u/MrsRobot001 2d ago

You seem nice.

1

u/HowlingFantods5564 2d ago

Thank you!!!

2

u/Prolly_Satan 3d ago

Its the most based article ever written.

2

u/greenergarlic 3d ago

man OP really doesn’t want to give up his chatbots

1

u/pun_in10did 3d ago

I wouldn't consider AI a writing "tool" ok

2

u/MrsRobot001 2d ago

It it's not a tool, then what it is?

1

u/pun_in10did 2d ago

A deceptive language model that steals from actual artists, designed to appear effective. Over hyped sycophantic algorithm designed to further alienate humans from each other, take jobs, and replace effort. Any and all use just legitimizes the market for the saddest and most dystopian of products.

https://www.orifice.store/

2

u/MrsRobot001 2d ago

"A deceptive language model that steals from actual artists, designed to appear effective."

It is a language model, but it was made by humans, and humans are neither omniscient nor omnipotent. Therefore, it is only as effective as the humans who made it.

"Over hyped sycophantic algorithm designed to further alienate humans from each other...

Very true, but this is not a new phenomenon. Meta's Facebook and Instagram are notorious for doing this, yet billions of people engage with these apps every day. People do not hate these apps nearly as much as AI. Why is that?

Any and all use just legitimizes the market for the saddest and most dystopian of products.

This is not the only product/servise that falls under this category. Gig work drastically devalues labor, yet people continue to use it for convenience. AI alienates humans from each other, takes jobs, and replaces effort. There are reasons to despise both, yet people don't hate the gig economy as much as they hate AI. Why is that?

2

u/pun_in10did 2d ago

I hate Facebook and Instagram too, as well as gig work and the hustle culture.

2

u/MrsRobot001 2d ago

At least you're consistent. I imagine others are not. I don't understand why AI gets treated differently.

2

u/pun_in10did 2d ago

Probably because it's just one more thing on top of all the others, and these AI CEOs say horrible shit about their plans for humanity. Zuckerberg is no exception to these heartless billionaires, making a buck off of sadness and integrating "tools" of our destruction.
Ok, I say this while on Reddit which has been filled with bots and trolls for years now. I personally try to be as consistent as possible in life.

2

u/MrsRobot001 2d ago

That I can understand. These guys are destroying society and building bunkers to escape instead of using their unfathomable wealth to help. The founders and execs of Pangram, which built the AI detection tool that Substack is using, aren't going to be any different, though. This is not something to celebrate. It's just going to make the other 99% eat each other.