3 ms·

> I'm a grown adult, I can decide what I want to listen to I'm also a grown adult. I can stop paying money to those that host content with Alex Jones (and ind

> I'm a grown adult, I can decide what I want to listen to I'm also a grown adult. I can stop paying money to those that host content with Alex Jones (and indirectly basically pay Alex Jones). Not sure I'm representative or part of a larger group than those that want to pay Spotify to hear Alex Jones. Hard to say. > If they find so much of the show unpalatable, why did they make the deal in the first place? Completely agree. That said, this is 2% of the content. There is some fraction of the content that makes sense to cut out. It could be zero or one episode, or 2% or half of them. But there is a point where the trouble they get into on some level is just larger than the gain. And I think they just played it safe here. Also, when other outlets (Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, whatever) ban something or someone, it becomes even less comfortable to keep them on. So it's pretty understandable I think.

prepend 6y ago
> I can stop paying money to those that host content with Alex Jones (and indirectly basically pay Alex Jones) If you won’t use a service that lets you make custom playlists just because they also serve stuff that you don’t like to other people, and others do that, we’re going to only have terrible content. Will you not shop at a bookstore that sells Alex Jones books? Will you not ride on a bus that allows Alex Jones? If people expect this level of micromanagement of content platforms then we’re doomed to only have content so boring that no one complains about it. Shows how protocols are more important than platforms.
- alkonaut 6y ago
  I think there is a small but important difference when Spotify enters the kind of agreement they did with JRE, effectively becoming his publisher. I see them as more responsible for his content than e.g the lyrics of any song in their catalog. > Will you not shop at a bookstore that sells Alex Jones books? It depends. I’m not going to judge a store by having a large selection of books including things I disagree with. But if the store has a huge display of Jones books on a big table in the center? An Alex Jones book signing is taking place in the store? Yeah I’m probably going elsewhere. The risk here I think is that people like Alex Jones are included in what we call “the political spectrum”. He’s not part of it. Booting him isn’t a political stance. He’s not some voice of right wing politics or even extreme right or “alt right”.
  - prepend 6y ago
    Spotify isn’t promoting Alex Jones with a big table in the center. It’s just part of the catalog. My concern with your reasoning, and if enough people think similarly to you, is that people don’t like lots of people. So if people skip a bookstore because they have a JK Rowling signing, they lost customers. And if people skip for a Ben Shapiro signing. And if they skip for a Hemingway signing (raised for the dead through necromancy just for a signing). Etc etc Bookstores like money so rationally they’ll stop having signings from people who could alienate customers. I like having lots of choices for books and worry that eventually there won’t be stores that carry the books I want to read. So I tolerate the availability of lots of stuff because that leads to books I like being available. Spotify being responsible for lyrics is a bad thing. I remember in the 80s and 90s when Congress tried to pressure music labels to censor lyrics on albums. That sucked. Not just because it was Congress but because it made it harder for artists to express their ideas. Companies like Walmart would only carry censored versions or not carry albums at all. That sucked. People were butthurt about curse words and devil references back then. Being butthurt about gay frogs and Sandy hook stupid conspiracy theories is today’s version, replacing alt right for satanists and cop killers.
    - alkonaut 6y ago
      > Spotify isn’t promoting Alex Jones with a big table in the center. It’s just part of the catalog. I think this collaboration goes a bit further than their regular catalog but ok I agree there is a difficult line to draw here > My concern with your reasoning, and if enough people think similarly to you, is that people don’t like lots of people. I think that’s unavoidable that people object to a tiny bit of content so much that they reject a whole company based on it. And it’s also unavoidable that a company would adjust their catalog. > So if people skip a bookstore because they have a JK Rowling signing, they lost customers. Indeed. I’m sure there are people who are offended by JKR who would boycott a store that invites her. > And if people skip for a Ben Shapiro signing. And if they skip for a Hemingway signing (raised for the dead through necromancy just for a signing). Etc etc Bookstores like money so rationally they’ll stop having signings from people who could alienate customers. Of course. But I’m guessing book signings also drive customers. So the sensible thing commercially is to invite everyone but the alienating ones. Thus creating a set of non-offensive book signings that drive more business than they alienate. I don’t really see the alternative to this setup? Is it forcing book stores to carry books? Banning boycotts by customers? What? It’s one thing to say “I don’t like this it’s a worrying trend” and another thing entirely to argue the alternative. I can’t see one! (I’m not worried half as much by tech giant censorship as I am about the effect of spread of the content like Jones’ though obviously which is why I’m not concerned about this) > I like having lots of choices for books and worry that eventually there won’t be stores that carry the books I want to read. So I tolerate the availability of lots of stuff because that leads to books I like being available. I too like having lots of choices for content. I’m however more than ready to sacrifice a bit of content to remove the platform for some other content so that even people who like it aren’t reached by it. I don’t see a big problem with arbitrarily having someone like Spotify being allowed to decide what falls into the category that should be marginalized. > Spotify being responsible for lyrics is a bad thing. I remember in the 80s and 90s when Congress tried to pressure music labels to censor lyrics on albums. That sucked. Not just because it was Congress but because it made it harder for artists to express their ideas. Companies like Walmart would only carry censored versions or not carry albums at all. That sucked. People were butthurt about curse words and devil references back then. Being butthurt about gay frogs and Sandy hook stupid conspiracy theories is today’s version, replacing alt right for satanists and cop killers. Oh I don’t think government should make any laws here. That’s censorship. That’s positively dystopian. But the same works in reverse - should Spotify be forced (by who?) to promote something? I just don’t see why they can’t be free to associate with whatever content they want? Of course there are limits to speech also for book stores (there are a few countries that have extreme free speech protections without many restrictions, such as the US, but even there no one is forced to say or promote anything.) That I hold them morally responsible for their platform doesn’t mean I think they should be legally responsible or that there should be censorship laws. Free speech is important in the negative, possibly more so. Being able to not promote something is important.

prepend 6y ago

> I can stop paying money to those that host content with Alex Jones (and indirectly basically pay Alex Jones) If you won’t use a service that lets you make custom playlists just because they also serve stuff that you don’t like to other people, and others do that, we’re going to only have terrible content. Will you not shop at a bookstore that sells Alex Jones books? Will you not ride on a bus that allows Alex Jones? If people expect this level of micromanagement of content platforms then we’re doomed to only have content so boring that no one complains about it. Shows how protocols are more important than platforms.

alkonaut 6y ago
I think there is a small but important difference when Spotify enters the kind of agreement they did with JRE, effectively becoming his publisher. I see them as more responsible for his content than e.g the lyrics of any song in their catalog. > Will you not shop at a bookstore that sells Alex Jones books? It depends. I’m not going to judge a store by having a large selection of books including things I disagree with. But if the store has a huge display of Jones books on a big table in the center? An Alex Jones book signing is taking place in the store? Yeah I’m probably going elsewhere. The risk here I think is that people like Alex Jones are included in what we call “the political spectrum”. He’s not part of it. Booting him isn’t a political stance. He’s not some voice of right wing politics or even extreme right or “alt right”.
- prepend 6y ago
  Spotify isn’t promoting Alex Jones with a big table in the center. It’s just part of the catalog. My concern with your reasoning, and if enough people think similarly to you, is that people don’t like lots of people. So if people skip a bookstore because they have a JK Rowling signing, they lost customers. And if people skip for a Ben Shapiro signing. And if they skip for a Hemingway signing (raised for the dead through necromancy just for a signing). Etc etc Bookstores like money so rationally they’ll stop having signings from people who could alienate customers. I like having lots of choices for books and worry that eventually there won’t be stores that carry the books I want to read. So I tolerate the availability of lots of stuff because that leads to books I like being available. Spotify being responsible for lyrics is a bad thing. I remember in the 80s and 90s when Congress tried to pressure music labels to censor lyrics on albums. That sucked. Not just because it was Congress but because it made it harder for artists to express their ideas. Companies like Walmart would only carry censored versions or not carry albums at all. That sucked. People were butthurt about curse words and devil references back then. Being butthurt about gay frogs and Sandy hook stupid conspiracy theories is today’s version, replacing alt right for satanists and cop killers.
  - alkonaut 6y ago
    > Spotify isn’t promoting Alex Jones with a big table in the center. It’s just part of the catalog. I think this collaboration goes a bit further than their regular catalog but ok I agree there is a difficult line to draw here > My concern with your reasoning, and if enough people think similarly to you, is that people don’t like lots of people. I think that’s unavoidable that people object to a tiny bit of content so much that they reject a whole company based on it. And it’s also unavoidable that a company would adjust their catalog. > So if people skip a bookstore because they have a JK Rowling signing, they lost customers. Indeed. I’m sure there are people who are offended by JKR who would boycott a store that invites her. > And if people skip for a Ben Shapiro signing. And if they skip for a Hemingway signing (raised for the dead through necromancy just for a signing). Etc etc Bookstores like money so rationally they’ll stop having signings from people who could alienate customers. Of course. But I’m guessing book signings also drive customers. So the sensible thing commercially is to invite everyone but the alienating ones. Thus creating a set of non-offensive book signings that drive more business than they alienate. I don’t really see the alternative to this setup? Is it forcing book stores to carry books? Banning boycotts by customers? What? It’s one thing to say “I don’t like this it’s a worrying trend” and another thing entirely to argue the alternative. I can’t see one! (I’m not worried half as much by tech giant censorship as I am about the effect of spread of the content like Jones’ though obviously which is why I’m not concerned about this) > I like having lots of choices for books and worry that eventually there won’t be stores that carry the books I want to read. So I tolerate the availability of lots of stuff because that leads to books I like being available. I too like having lots of choices for content. I’m however more than ready to sacrifice a bit of content to remove the platform for some other content so that even people who like it aren’t reached by it. I don’t see a big problem with arbitrarily having someone like Spotify being allowed to decide what falls into the category that should be marginalized. > Spotify being responsible for lyrics is a bad thing. I remember in the 80s and 90s when Congress tried to pressure music labels to censor lyrics on albums. That sucked. Not just because it was Congress but because it made it harder for artists to express their ideas. Companies like Walmart would only carry censored versions or not carry albums at all. That sucked. People were butthurt about curse words and devil references back then. Being butthurt about gay frogs and Sandy hook stupid conspiracy theories is today’s version, replacing alt right for satanists and cop killers. Oh I don’t think government should make any laws here. That’s censorship. That’s positively dystopian. But the same works in reverse - should Spotify be forced (by who?) to promote something? I just don’t see why they can’t be free to associate with whatever content they want? Of course there are limits to speech also for book stores (there are a few countries that have extreme free speech protections without many restrictions, such as the US, but even there no one is forced to say or promote anything.) That I hold them morally responsible for their platform doesn’t mean I think they should be legally responsible or that there should be censorship laws. Free speech is important in the negative, possibly more so. Being able to not promote something is important.