2 ms·

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 t

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

> 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]