6 ms·
...along side, say it, actual doctors and actual scientists. Yes, maybe others are also speaking out, as they should. Most yapping about antivax aren't doctors
by petee 5y ago
...along side, say it, actual doctors and actual scientists.
Yes, maybe others are also speaking out, as they should. Most yapping about antivax aren't doctors anyway, to match your comparison.
Edit - can't reply, so here: Who decides? The people paying for the soapbox. If spotify wants to support it, no one is stopping them, but their customers sure are going to speak out, and take their money elsewhere. Welcome to America.
- throwaway364747 5y agoYou didn't answer my question. Who gets to decide who deserves a soapbox?
- dendriti 5y agoWhy don't you tell us?
- igetspam 5y agoIn this case, the market. This isn't a town square or any other public space. It's private enterprise. If Spotify loses enough revenue from it, they'll probably do a song and dance about ethics and duty to blah blah blah, to justify evicting him. Right now, the math is on the side of Rogan. Maybe it changes. Maybe it doesn't. My money goes elsewhere, when I find content to be too inflammatory.
- josephcsible 5y agoCan you give a non-hypothetical example of something online that is a public space?
- dijonman2 5y agoI will pay money to anyone who resists censorship. I don’t give a fuck if it’s “misinformation“ as those who classify what is right and wrong are a big part of the problem. I worked at a media company and we had a substantial reach and liberal bias. We were a propaganda machine.
- petee 5y agoSo you're ok paying to platform a Nazi group, personally? I know everyone hates the comparison, but they do still exist, and spew filth, though their 1st amendment right to. What about rumor of the pedophile ring out of the pizza joint in Washington? Is it really worth giving large voice to just any old trash, just for 'the cause'? And its not censorship. Its their soapbox, they can do what they want. You can always start your own soap box. Per my example above, you shouldn't have to pay money to support voices that you fundamentally disagree with, nor work for.
- version_five 5y agoGodwin
- petee 5y agoI know, I know :) I couldn't help it
- __blockcipher__ 5y agoCustomers are always free to leave. Nobody is forcing someone to pay for spotify so your argument is absurd on its face.
- toomuchtodo 5y agoI find it difficult to argue for absolute speech freedom when people are dying on ventilators or poisoning their grandchildren with ivermectin from misinformation. “Yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire” sort of thing. There is no expectation or obligation of free speech on a private platform. Censorship arguments ring hollow when outright lies are weaponized and causing measurable, real harm.
- __blockcipher__ 5y agoWho here is arguing that private businesses can’t deplatform? I’m arguing that they shouldn’t, not that they can’t. I’m not going to bite on the ivermectin/ventilator stuff because it’s just completely absurd. BTW the way you used the “it’s easy to argue” construction backwards.
- ravenstine 5y agoIn which case the people who disagree with JRE can... simply stop paying for Spotify. But that's not enough. In their ideal world, I would be not allowed to pay for "misinformation" because their position wouldn't be limited to Spotify. Spotify is really just a pointless implementation detail. That's absolutely a fascist attitude. They actually think they and their club know better than everyone else, and their best argument is apparently along the lines of "well you're not a doctor either".
- petee 5y agoI guess the counter argument is, I had Spotify before Joe Rogan was there, I have every right to ask Spotify to get rid of him before I cancel. You are more than welcome to pay for misinformation anywhere else, on someone else's platform, or even start your own, but I'd prefer you do it not in my music app please.
- ravenstine 5y agoNo, that's not the counter argument, because no one is saying that you have no right to ask Spotify to cancel Joe Rogan. People disagree with your position because it's counter to their interests. A group of people is advocating for the removal of voluntarily accessible material because they believe they know better, and many would beg to differ because, guess, what, nobody is infallible or can know everything. > or even start your own [platform], but I'd prefer you do it not in my music app please. That's fine, but that doesn't mean people can't find this philosophy insufferable. If they find it insufferable, that doesn't mean they believe you have no right to be insufferable. They just don't want you to succeed.