3 ms·

Using leverage in an attempt to convince a business to silence someone else... is not an argument for free expression. It's free expression arguing against al

• mulmen 5y ago
  Why not? I can say "dang should ban beerandt or I will stop posting" (I don't believe this and I am not making such a claim). dang can do whatever he wants in response, including nothing at all. HN is free to downvote me or say they disagree, or not. That's the competitive marketplace of ideas. If you offer something unappealing it will fail. > Spotify didn't give into demands to censor. Censorship is a loaded term in conversations about freedom of speech, especially in the United States. IMHO Spotify, Young, Mitchell and Rogan are incapable of censorship in the first amendment sense because they are not government entities.
  • beerandt 5y ago
    >I can say "dang should ban.." It is your free expression to make that argument, but the argument itself is against free expression. >incapable of censorship That's a mighty narrow definition of censorship. (I didn't say government censorship or even mention the 1st amendment.) What is it that you would call Young's implied request to Spotify, if not an ultimatum to censor? Especially given the context that his demand is founded on opposing the content of Rogan's speech, and that he is attempting to leverage an authoritative power (Spotify) to unilaterally remove Rogan's published media and prevent it's distribution.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]