3 ms·

Why shouldn't they? Forget the names and the details of this situation for a moment. Spotify is a business that offers a catalog of content for a fee. Their

by mulmen 5y ago

Why shouldn't they? Forget the names and the details of this situation for a moment. Spotify is a business that offers a catalog of content for a fee. Their value proposition is that they provide content people want to consume. Perhaps some content has fallen out of favor for some reason. Could be objectionable or just stale, public opinion is always shifting. If someone with more appealing content comes along and says "you have to get rid of that other thing in order to distribute my content" then how is there some moral choice Spotify has to make? They can do anything they want, and as a business they will probably choose based on what will make them money. This is a proxy for doing the thing that best aligns with their customer's interests. It is impossible for any one organization to satisfy everyone's opinions. This is literally the point of freedom of expression.

gonehome 5y ago
Well in this specific case a couple of easy reasons. Rogan’s deal was $100M which is way more money than Young. So if it’s a business move than keeping Rogan is the obvious choice as he provides way more value to Spotify. I care less about that though and more about the principled position here. In this case I think they’re the same.
- mulmen 5y ago
  And I don't think your principles are sound. We are also participating in a marketplace of ideas. I'm not buying what you are selling. You are free to continue as you are, as am I.
  - gonehome 5y ago
    I think private companies/platforms are able to exercise their speech in order to decide who is or isn’t on them. Keeping or removing Rogan is an exercise of their speech and within their right to decide. Still, I think it’s generally a bad idea to remove someone because of this kind of pressure. In Rogan’s specific case I also think it would be the wrong decision. I’m against internet cancel mobs as a general rule.
    - mulmen 5y ago
      > Still, I think it’s generally a bad idea to remove someone because of this kind of pressure. I can't agree with this in general. I can imagine a situation where it may be reasonable so I wouldn't tie my hands. In fact making this decision on a case by case basis is the business Spotify is in. > In Rogan’s specific case I also think it would be the wrong decision. Sure but that's just this case, it's not a fundamental question of freedom of expression. This is what I mean when I say "there is no freedom of speech position". Literally everyone involved including Spotify, Rogan, Young, Mitchell, you, me, and anyone who reads and decides to reply or not is exercising their right to free expression.
      - gonehome 5y ago
        In a strictly technical sense I agree. In a practical sense, one side is arguing to suppress someone’s ability to speak/express themselves via a popular platform and one side is not.
        mulmen 5y ago
        We are triggering HN's flamewar algorithm so this is my last reply. I have not argued the merits of this case at all. I don't really care about it to be honest. You supported your opinions on this case in terms of being in favor of freedom of speech. I don't think that is a sound framing. You have stated opinions as is your right, that doesn't mean whoever disagrees with you opposes freedom of speech in any way.
    - white_dragon88 5y ago
      [dead]
28304283409234 5y ago
> Why shouldn't they? "I will not defend your opinion, but I will defend your right to express it." Something along those lines. With these actions,Joni and Neil are saying: "I will not defend your right to express them, in fact I will try to stop you from expressing it."
28304283409234 5y ago
> Why shouldn't they? "I will not defend your opinion, but I will defend your right to express it." Something along those lines. With these actions,Joni and Neil say: "I will not defend your right to express them, in fact I will try to stop you from expressing it."

by mulmen 5y ago

gonehome 5y ago

Well in this specific case a couple of easy reasons. Rogan’s deal was $100M which is way more money than Young. So if it’s a business move than keeping Rogan is the obvious choice as he provides way more value to Spotify. I care less about that though and more about the principled position here. In this case I think they’re the same.

mulmen 5y ago
And I don't think your principles are sound. We are also participating in a marketplace of ideas. I'm not buying what you are selling. You are free to continue as you are, as am I.
- gonehome 5y ago
  I think private companies/platforms are able to exercise their speech in order to decide who is or isn’t on them. Keeping or removing Rogan is an exercise of their speech and within their right to decide. Still, I think it’s generally a bad idea to remove someone because of this kind of pressure. In Rogan’s specific case I also think it would be the wrong decision. I’m against internet cancel mobs as a general rule.
  - mulmen 5y ago
    > Still, I think it’s generally a bad idea to remove someone because of this kind of pressure. I can't agree with this in general. I can imagine a situation where it may be reasonable so I wouldn't tie my hands. In fact making this decision on a case by case basis is the business Spotify is in. > In Rogan’s specific case I also think it would be the wrong decision. Sure but that's just this case, it's not a fundamental question of freedom of expression. This is what I mean when I say "there is no freedom of speech position". Literally everyone involved including Spotify, Rogan, Young, Mitchell, you, me, and anyone who reads and decides to reply or not is exercising their right to free expression.
    - gonehome 5y ago
      In a strictly technical sense I agree. In a practical sense, one side is arguing to suppress someone’s ability to speak/express themselves via a popular platform and one side is not.
      - mulmen 5y ago
        We are triggering HN's flamewar algorithm so this is my last reply. I have not argued the merits of this case at all. I don't really care about it to be honest. You supported your opinions on this case in terms of being in favor of freedom of speech. I don't think that is a sound framing. You have stated opinions as is your right, that doesn't mean whoever disagrees with you opposes freedom of speech in any way.
  - white_dragon88 5y ago
    [dead]

28304283409234 5y ago

> Why shouldn't they? "I will not defend your opinion, but I will defend your right to express it." Something along those lines. With these actions,Joni and Neil are saying: "I will not defend your right to express them, in fact I will try to stop you from expressing it."

28304283409234 5y ago

> Why shouldn't they? "I will not defend your opinion, but I will defend your right to express it." Something along those lines. With these actions,Joni and Neil say: "I will not defend your right to express them, in fact I will try to stop you from expressing it."