3 ms·

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 i

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]

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]