6 ms·

The drive towards censorship that seems to have revved up in the last few years is an astonishing change. I'm old enough to remember the utopian thinking about

The drive towards censorship that seems to have revved up in the last few years is an astonishing change. I'm old enough to remember the utopian thinking about the web's planned positive effects on free speech and free discourse: now it seems that a new and, to my mind, strange censoriousness seems to have settled in. When I read Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, I don't think I understood how broadly applicable it would be. His follow-up, with Greg Lukianoff, The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure, is also applicable to the censorship movements afoot in many companies (including publishing companies).

aphroz 6y ago
I agree for the web im general, but I don't think it applies in this case, because he was free to say whatever he wanted, but when he agreed on the deal he also agreed to represent Spotify, and therefore all its employees. It's like a sponsorship.
- throwawayinfo 6y ago
  Don't make excuses for employees demanding their megacorp do censorship. This should be unacceptable behaviour contract or no.
  - krapp 6y ago
    >Don't make excuses for employees demanding their megacorp do censorship. That's within their right of free speech, and Joe Rogan has equal free speech rights to make counter-demands. You believe in free speech don't you?
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      Unless you have a union and a contract with your employer, you’re an at will employee with no recourse (at least in the US). You’re free to your opinion, but also to find employment elsewhere if you take issue with your organization’s partnerships. Freedom of speech doesn’t translate to guaranteed employment while demanding editorial control of your employer’s platform. It should be noted that union organizing activities are protected in the US from employer retaliation.
    - throwawayinfo 6y ago
      No offense, but this strawman is super telling. I don't advocate for the censorship of these employees, even if I do find what they're doing morally reprehensible.
      - krapp 6y ago
        If you feel it should be "unacceptable behavior contract or no" for them to express their right to free speech simply because you disagree with their politics then yes you are advocating censorship.
        throwawayinfo 6y ago
        It's possible to hold two beliefs at once. I detest their ideology but I wouldn't dream of censoring them. If you're projecting the belief that everyone you disagree with should be censored, then you should take a look in the mirror. I'm saying their ideology is unacceptable (anyone calling for censorship should be shunned), not the fact they're speaking their mind.
- voxic11 6y ago
  Spotify also agreed not to censor him if he came to their platform. If you want to get into who agreed to what.
barumi 6y ago
To be fair, the web is not the issue but content distribution. Joe Rogan is free to put together his own site with anything he feels like posting. If instead Joe Rogan wants to use someone else's site to make available his musings then he still has to deal with the owner of that site. It's like buying a house vs booking a hotel: you might feel more comfortable in the hotel but even if you're a paying customer you need to abide by the service provider's rules.
- SllX 6y ago
  The platform’s owners seem fine with Joe.
- jrpt 6y ago
  The difference is Spotify is paying Joe Rogan $100M for his content. He's not a "guest in a hotel", they entered into a mutually beneficial contract to host his content. Spotify is using this to grow their userbase.
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    And, he can certainly afford to pay fully as much as is needed to check the accuracy of every word he and his guests emit.
    - antepodius 6y ago
      I'm sure that'd be an entertaining show to watch, interrupted every 5 seconds for nitpicking corrections of minutae.
biggestlou 6y ago
This involves a private company and is thus literally not censorship.
- mc32 6y ago
  I don't know for sure, but I'd be willing to bet a bit that if some prince from a land far away bought out Twitter and took to moving the workforce ideology to the right and censored, I mean curated, left leaning ideology from the platform a good number of people would cry foul.
  - felixgallo 6y ago
    by foreign land, do you mean, for example, Australia, and by prince, do you mean, for example, a tabloid magnate?
    - pandaman 6y ago
      Not the person you are asking but it seems pretty clear who is being referenced here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Waleed_bin_Talal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Waleed_bin_Talal
- disown 6y ago
  Censorship is the suppression of speech period. It can be done by the government, private institutions or even individuals. You can even censor yourself ( self-censorship ). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship The difference is that law generally allows private censorship but doesn't generally allow public censorship.
lalaland1125 6y ago
Do you also consider it censorship when the New York Times fires or disciples a columnist who keeps printing incorrect information? Spotify is the publisher here and they are responsible for making sure that their products (such as the Joe Rogan shoe since Spotify bought it) provide truthful information. The simple truth of the matter is that Joe Rogan has a tendency for stating falsehoods on his show, and this in turn can result in harm to Spotify's users. For instance, Joe Rogan literally just spread a bunch of misinformation about the wildfires (https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/18/media/joe-rogan-apologizes/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/18/media/joe-rogan-apologizes/in...) while broadcasting on Spotify. He clearly needs some help fact checking and editing his shows so that they can provide more truthful information. Why shouldn't the New York Times fire or disciple a columnist with the exact same factual track record as Joe Rogan?
- bananabiscuit 6y ago
  Because the New York Times’ business is journalism and Rogan’s is entertainment.
- marta_morena_29 6y ago
  I wonder when people will finally understand that outside of mathematics, there is no "truth" and "falsehood". There is only statements that have sufficient evidence to be considered a fact, or statements that lack evidence or even statements that go against evidence while lacking supporting evidence (Lets call these statements "Trumpian statements"). If we establish, that a statement is "really true" only if a celestial being, aware of all the facts, would consider this statement true, then pretty much all statements in the world have an unknown for their truth value. The error also can't be established. What people thought "really true" a hundred years ago, we now laugh about. Same will happen to many other things. Censorship of "falsehoods" is a very dangerous concept. It prevents innovation. Einstein was essentially a heretic. His theories were bold and completely absurd to most people back then. Should we have censored them? However, for many many statements, a lack of evidence has no impact on the truthfulness. Just because I can't prove something, doesn't make it false. Just because there is a mountain of counter-evidence, doesn't make a statement false, it just makes it less likely to be "really true". However, there could be a surprising piece of evidence, that trumps (pun intended) all existing counter-evidence. If you want to censor, then you essentially force society into coherence. That is good in the short-term, as it reduces conflict, but very very bad in the long-term, as it suppresses non-standard opinions (i.e. innovation and free expression). A much better approach than censorship is to create a channel "What Joe Rogan Got Wrong" and list all his supposedly falsehoods and explain the mountain of evidence against it. That of course takes effort. But yeah, the quick solution is rarely the best.

aphroz 6y ago

I agree for the web im general, but I don't think it applies in this case, because he was free to say whatever he wanted, but when he agreed on the deal he also agreed to represent Spotify, and therefore all its employees. It's like a sponsorship.

throwawayinfo 6y ago
Don't make excuses for employees demanding their megacorp do censorship. This should be unacceptable behaviour contract or no.
- krapp 6y ago
  >Don't make excuses for employees demanding their megacorp do censorship. That's within their right of free speech, and Joe Rogan has equal free speech rights to make counter-demands. You believe in free speech don't you?
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    Unless you have a union and a contract with your employer, you’re an at will employee with no recourse (at least in the US). You’re free to your opinion, but also to find employment elsewhere if you take issue with your organization’s partnerships. Freedom of speech doesn’t translate to guaranteed employment while demanding editorial control of your employer’s platform. It should be noted that union organizing activities are protected in the US from employer retaliation.
  - throwawayinfo 6y ago
    No offense, but this strawman is super telling. I don't advocate for the censorship of these employees, even if I do find what they're doing morally reprehensible.
    - krapp 6y ago
      If you feel it should be "unacceptable behavior contract or no" for them to express their right to free speech simply because you disagree with their politics then yes you are advocating censorship.
      - throwawayinfo 6y ago
        It's possible to hold two beliefs at once. I detest their ideology but I wouldn't dream of censoring them. If you're projecting the belief that everyone you disagree with should be censored, then you should take a look in the mirror. I'm saying their ideology is unacceptable (anyone calling for censorship should be shunned), not the fact they're speaking their mind.
voxic11 6y ago
Spotify also agreed not to censor him if he came to their platform. If you want to get into who agreed to what.

barumi 6y ago

To be fair, the web is not the issue but content distribution. Joe Rogan is free to put together his own site with anything he feels like posting. If instead Joe Rogan wants to use someone else's site to make available his musings then he still has to deal with the owner of that site. It's like buying a house vs booking a hotel: you might feel more comfortable in the hotel but even if you're a paying customer you need to abide by the service provider's rules.

SllX 6y ago
The platform’s owners seem fine with Joe.
jrpt 6y ago
The difference is Spotify is paying Joe Rogan $100M for his content. He's not a "guest in a hotel", they entered into a mutually beneficial contract to host his content. Spotify is using this to grow their userbase.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  And, he can certainly afford to pay fully as much as is needed to check the accuracy of every word he and his guests emit.
  - antepodius 6y ago
    I'm sure that'd be an entertaining show to watch, interrupted every 5 seconds for nitpicking corrections of minutae.

biggestlou 6y ago

This involves a private company and is thus literally not censorship.

mc32 6y ago
I don't know for sure, but I'd be willing to bet a bit that if some prince from a land far away bought out Twitter and took to moving the workforce ideology to the right and censored, I mean curated, left leaning ideology from the platform a good number of people would cry foul.
- felixgallo 6y ago
  by foreign land, do you mean, for example, Australia, and by prince, do you mean, for example, a tabloid magnate?
  - pandaman 6y ago
    Not the person you are asking but it seems pretty clear who is being referenced here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Waleed_bin_Talal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Waleed_bin_Talal
disown 6y ago
Censorship is the suppression of speech period. It can be done by the government, private institutions or even individuals. You can even censor yourself ( self-censorship ). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship The difference is that law generally allows private censorship but doesn't generally allow public censorship.

lalaland1125 6y ago

Do you also consider it censorship when the New York Times fires or disciples a columnist who keeps printing incorrect information? Spotify is the publisher here and they are responsible for making sure that their products (such as the Joe Rogan shoe since Spotify bought it) provide truthful information. The simple truth of the matter is that Joe Rogan has a tendency for stating falsehoods on his show, and this in turn can result in harm to Spotify's users. For instance, Joe Rogan literally just spread a bunch of misinformation about the wildfires (https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/18/media/joe-rogan-apologizes/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/18/media/joe-rogan-apologizes/in...) while broadcasting on Spotify. He clearly needs some help fact checking and editing his shows so that they can provide more truthful information. Why shouldn't the New York Times fire or disciple a columnist with the exact same factual track record as Joe Rogan?

bananabiscuit 6y ago
Because the New York Times’ business is journalism and Rogan’s is entertainment.
marta_morena_29 6y ago
I wonder when people will finally understand that outside of mathematics, there is no "truth" and "falsehood". There is only statements that have sufficient evidence to be considered a fact, or statements that lack evidence or even statements that go against evidence while lacking supporting evidence (Lets call these statements "Trumpian statements"). If we establish, that a statement is "really true" only if a celestial being, aware of all the facts, would consider this statement true, then pretty much all statements in the world have an unknown for their truth value. The error also can't be established. What people thought "really true" a hundred years ago, we now laugh about. Same will happen to many other things. Censorship of "falsehoods" is a very dangerous concept. It prevents innovation. Einstein was essentially a heretic. His theories were bold and completely absurd to most people back then. Should we have censored them? However, for many many statements, a lack of evidence has no impact on the truthfulness. Just because I can't prove something, doesn't make it false. Just because there is a mountain of counter-evidence, doesn't make a statement false, it just makes it less likely to be "really true". However, there could be a surprising piece of evidence, that trumps (pun intended) all existing counter-evidence. If you want to censor, then you essentially force society into coherence. That is good in the short-term, as it reduces conflict, but very very bad in the long-term, as it suppresses non-standard opinions (i.e. innovation and free expression). A much better approach than censorship is to create a channel "What Joe Rogan Got Wrong" and list all his supposedly falsehoods and explain the mountain of evidence against it. That of course takes effort. But yeah, the quick solution is rarely the best.