3 ms·
So either we have to limit all speech or no speech? There's no middle ground?
by enkid 5y ago
So either we have to limit all speech or no speech? There's no middle ground?
- rosndo 5y agoOkay, but why start with Joe Rogan instead of Eminem? (I’m not advocating for either, but Eminem regularly says far worse things than Joe)
- harryvederci 5y agoIf I may abstract your question to "Why start with a podcast instead of a rapper?", it does make a bit more sense to me to start with a podcast. At least to me, a podcast has a more informative feel to it than songs. To songs, I listen 100% for entertainment. Could be different for different people, I guess.
- rosndo 5y agoI’ve only tried to listen to Rogan a couple of times, but based on those experiences and his general portrayal in the media it’s hard to imagine people viewing him as informational rather than as straight up entertainment. The guy was heavily criticized for interviewing Alex Jones, a well known comedy sketch character. Most likely his critics are just people who simply can’t differentiate between entertainment and information, so why treat music any different?
- enkid 5y agoThe US had a reality star as president. I don't think people are able to make a distinction between experts and celebrities at this point.
- tomschlick 5y agoIf it's legal, don't limit it. Spotify doesnt have to actively promote it via suggesting to other users, but stopping unpopular speech all together is how we get things like the lab leak theory being suppressed then suddenly being ok a year later when the mainstream decides it is.
- EdSharkey 5y agoI think comments like this trigger cognitive dissonance.
- enkid 5y agoI have no idea how this would work. Spotify has to make a decision about which content it pays for and which it doesn't, so you can't mandate it carry everything without massive changes to copyright. In this reality, it seems literally impossible for Spotify to carry everything that is illegal speech.