4 ms·

Cancel culture at it's best. What happened to freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, freedom to choose. If Spotify were smart they wouldn't censor any of the p

by anonu 6y ago

Cancel culture at it's best. What happened to freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, freedom to choose. If Spotify were smart they wouldn't censor any of the podcasts. Instead they would put a Twitter like message warning the user... As a way to satisfy the cancel culture crowd. I don't care about Joe or his views. But I do care about people having choice and freedom

tmpz22 6y ago
I don’t know if complete deregulation is the answer, there are some pretty shitty podcasts out there pushing QAnon, nazi, and just plain fake, information which vulnerable groups latch onto and amplify to the extent that society is severely impacted. I’m in favor of a hybrid approach where extreme hate content is tracked, called out, and in extreme cases deplatformed. The Joe Rogan platform is not at that point in my view, it’s merely gathering the lowest common denominator of podcast viewers which unfortunately really likes conspiracy content and content whose only merit is to push against academia and domain matter experts.
threeseed 6y ago
Spotify has the right to choose what is on their platform. Spotify employees have the right to voice their concerns if the company they work for is alienating them. But I guess that's not the kind of freedom you are interested in.
- xupybd 6y ago
  They have every right but they have an opportunity to avoid cancel culture and cash in on the most popular pod cast ever produced. Joe Rogan is popular with the masses, very popular. This tells me his views are probably mainstream. Mainstream enough to make a lot of money out of without worrying about backlash.
- liability 6y ago
  > But I guess that's not the kind of freedom you are interested in. I do not see a suggestion by anonu that the people they disagree with should be deprived of their freedom. To criticize people for saying something is not the same as saying they shouldn't have the right to say it. That would only be the case if somebody had an absolutely authoritarian mindset. It unnerves me how quick some are to conflate these positions, as though they view the world through an authoritarian lens and assume others must as well. "People shouldn't say mean things" and "People shouldn't have the right to say mean things" are not equivalent statements unless you are an authoritarian.
  - mpalmer 6y ago
    I'm pretty sure threeseed is pointing out that anonu's comment is selective about the freedoms worthy of defense.
  - schwartzworld 6y ago
    > "People shouldn't say mean things" and "People shouldn't have the right to say mean things" are not equivalent statements unless you are an authoritarian. yup, nothing disingenuous about this analysis.
    - liability 6y ago
      Sarcasm? If you disagree with what you quoted, perhaps you could explain why? Simply saying you disagree doesn't really move the conversation forward, does it? It seems quite obvious to me those are not equivalent statements, but if you think I'm wrong I'm willing to listen to why you think that, if you're willing to explain it.
      - schwartzworld 6y ago
        What's disingenuous is describing hate speech as "mean things". Have you ever actually heard of someone trying to make "saying mean things" illegal? Can you give an example, even if anecdotal?
- StanislavPetrov 6y ago
  >Spotify has the right to choose what is on their platform. They do only as far as whatever the contract they signed with Rogan stipulates. Since some of his old shows are being censored, it seems that the contract allows for censorship, though to my knowledge the contract has not been made public yet. Seems likely we'll find out.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- bonesss 6y ago
  > Spotify employees have the right to voice their concerns if the company they work for is alienating them. For sure... So why is Bill Cosby still on Spotify? And if transgender rights are our priority, why are endless numbers of outspoken anti-trans a-holes like Ted Nugent still on there? Or, hey, what about the incredible number of songs stuffed with the n-word, the b-word, the f-word, the r-word, the c-word, anti-trans sentiment, and detailed descriptions of lawbreaking and violence? I'm unsympathetic to shallow, hypocritical, and inconsistent morality plays.
- anonu 6y ago
  What about spotify users? Isnt that the most important cohort here? I want to use a platform that gives me the choice - and doesnt make the choice for me.
wutbrodo 6y ago
> What happened to freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, freedom to choose. Most people are petty and simple-minded, only supporting liberal principles like individual rights and protection of diverse views from the cultural powers-that-be when 1) their side is the one that needs protecting or 2) they blindly absorb the prevailing wisdom, which happens to be liberal in some lucky eras (usually prosperous and optimistic ones). As much as both sides of the political spectrum like to fling "you started it" back and forth, the reason we're seeing the same decline in basic liberal values across the spectrum is that liberalism-as-civic-religion is in retrenchment for complicated structural reasons, and most people aren't remotely capable of understanding what a principle is, let alone holding one. As always, the ultimate victims of illiberal lurches in norms will be the marginalized.
sdfhbdf 6y ago
Freedom of speech applies only to government not being allowed to censor anyone. A private company may do whatever they want
- jwond 6y ago
  Freedom of speech is a concept that exists independently of any law or government. Just because it is not illegal for private companies to censor speech does not mean that it is not infringing on the concept of freedom of speech.
- thursday0987 6y ago
  except in the case of baking cakes, at which point the government will force private companies to do something they didn't want to.
charwalker 6y ago
This is a private company making its own decisions, not the government. Also, cancel culture is a catch-22 where those who named and bash it frequently turn to it all the same by going after private companies and persons like Ted Cruz trying to boycott Nike this summer. It's almost an oxymoron. Everyone does it to some degree and it is a perfectly lawful way to vote with your wallet aka boycott those with opinions or actions counter to your morals. Personally I find Trumps fraudulent use of his NY charity, shut down after he settled fraud charges, more than enough reason to boycott him and those who support him. If that's cancel culture, then good.
ecf 6y ago
> Cancel culture at it’s best. What happened to freedom of speech, freedoms of opinion, freedom to choose. I’d argue that the existence of cancel culture means that those freedoms are working exactly as they should. Being forced to tolerate someone who I don’t agree with is when those freedoms are actually gone.

by anonu 6y ago

tmpz22 6y ago

I don’t know if complete deregulation is the answer, there are some pretty shitty podcasts out there pushing QAnon, nazi, and just plain fake, information which vulnerable groups latch onto and amplify to the extent that society is severely impacted. I’m in favor of a hybrid approach where extreme hate content is tracked, called out, and in extreme cases deplatformed. The Joe Rogan platform is not at that point in my view, it’s merely gathering the lowest common denominator of podcast viewers which unfortunately really likes conspiracy content and content whose only merit is to push against academia and domain matter experts.

threeseed 6y ago

Spotify has the right to choose what is on their platform. Spotify employees have the right to voice their concerns if the company they work for is alienating them. But I guess that's not the kind of freedom you are interested in.

xupybd 6y ago
They have every right but they have an opportunity to avoid cancel culture and cash in on the most popular pod cast ever produced. Joe Rogan is popular with the masses, very popular. This tells me his views are probably mainstream. Mainstream enough to make a lot of money out of without worrying about backlash.
liability 6y ago
> But I guess that's not the kind of freedom you are interested in. I do not see a suggestion by anonu that the people they disagree with should be deprived of their freedom. To criticize people for saying something is not the same as saying they shouldn't have the right to say it. That would only be the case if somebody had an absolutely authoritarian mindset. It unnerves me how quick some are to conflate these positions, as though they view the world through an authoritarian lens and assume others must as well. "People shouldn't say mean things" and "People shouldn't have the right to say mean things" are not equivalent statements unless you are an authoritarian.
- mpalmer 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure threeseed is pointing out that anonu's comment is selective about the freedoms worthy of defense.
- schwartzworld 6y ago
  > "People shouldn't say mean things" and "People shouldn't have the right to say mean things" are not equivalent statements unless you are an authoritarian. yup, nothing disingenuous about this analysis.
  - liability 6y ago
    Sarcasm? If you disagree with what you quoted, perhaps you could explain why? Simply saying you disagree doesn't really move the conversation forward, does it? It seems quite obvious to me those are not equivalent statements, but if you think I'm wrong I'm willing to listen to why you think that, if you're willing to explain it.
    - schwartzworld 6y ago
      What's disingenuous is describing hate speech as "mean things". Have you ever actually heard of someone trying to make "saying mean things" illegal? Can you give an example, even if anecdotal?
StanislavPetrov 6y ago
>Spotify has the right to choose what is on their platform. They do only as far as whatever the contract they signed with Rogan stipulates. Since some of his old shows are being censored, it seems that the contract allows for censorship, though to my knowledge the contract has not been made public yet. Seems likely we'll find out.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bonesss 6y ago
> Spotify employees have the right to voice their concerns if the company they work for is alienating them. For sure... So why is Bill Cosby still on Spotify? And if transgender rights are our priority, why are endless numbers of outspoken anti-trans a-holes like Ted Nugent still on there? Or, hey, what about the incredible number of songs stuffed with the n-word, the b-word, the f-word, the r-word, the c-word, anti-trans sentiment, and detailed descriptions of lawbreaking and violence? I'm unsympathetic to shallow, hypocritical, and inconsistent morality plays.
anonu 6y ago
What about spotify users? Isnt that the most important cohort here? I want to use a platform that gives me the choice - and doesnt make the choice for me.

wutbrodo 6y ago

> What happened to freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, freedom to choose. Most people are petty and simple-minded, only supporting liberal principles like individual rights and protection of diverse views from the cultural powers-that-be when 1) their side is the one that needs protecting or 2) they blindly absorb the prevailing wisdom, which happens to be liberal in some lucky eras (usually prosperous and optimistic ones). As much as both sides of the political spectrum like to fling "you started it" back and forth, the reason we're seeing the same decline in basic liberal values across the spectrum is that liberalism-as-civic-religion is in retrenchment for complicated structural reasons, and most people aren't remotely capable of understanding what a principle is, let alone holding one. As always, the ultimate victims of illiberal lurches in norms will be the marginalized.

sdfhbdf 6y ago

Freedom of speech applies only to government not being allowed to censor anyone. A private company may do whatever they want

jwond 6y ago
Freedom of speech is a concept that exists independently of any law or government. Just because it is not illegal for private companies to censor speech does not mean that it is not infringing on the concept of freedom of speech.
thursday0987 6y ago
except in the case of baking cakes, at which point the government will force private companies to do something they didn't want to.

charwalker 6y ago

This is a private company making its own decisions, not the government. Also, cancel culture is a catch-22 where those who named and bash it frequently turn to it all the same by going after private companies and persons like Ted Cruz trying to boycott Nike this summer. It's almost an oxymoron. Everyone does it to some degree and it is a perfectly lawful way to vote with your wallet aka boycott those with opinions or actions counter to your morals. Personally I find Trumps fraudulent use of his NY charity, shut down after he settled fraud charges, more than enough reason to boycott him and those who support him. If that's cancel culture, then good.

ecf 6y ago

> Cancel culture at it’s best. What happened to freedom of speech, freedoms of opinion, freedom to choose. I’d argue that the existence of cancel culture means that those freedoms are working exactly as they should. Being forced to tolerate someone who I don’t agree with is when those freedoms are actually gone.