4 ms·

Young's objection to being on the same platform as Joe Rogan's podcast is over the podcast spreading of misinformation about vaccines. Misinformation about vacc

Young's objection to being on the same platform as Joe Rogan's podcast is over the podcast spreading of misinformation about vaccines. Misinformation about vaccines are not political beliefs. I'm sure Young also objects to many political beliefs expressed by Rogan's guests, and probably Rogan himself, that's unrelated to what Young did or said.

rhino369 5y ago
Maybe public policy beliefs is the better word for it, but either way, undoubtedly the type of speech meant to be protected. Earnest misinformation cannot be an exception to freedom of speech without throwing away the entire concept. A lot of commonly accepted truths were dismissed as misinformation by the powers that be. It doesn't even work as a practical matter. You get too many false positives--how many CDC facts have been called into question. They've even deliberately lied. Should bigTech have banned people saying masks work in April 2020 and ban people saying they don't in April 2021? And its not effective. At best, you are playing wackamole. And banning people from taking opposing positions just entrenches opposing view points. If Donald Trump successfully lobbied bigTech to censor "misinformation" about covid, would you believe a fucking thing you heard from those sources?
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  > Earnest misinformation cannot be an exception to freedom of speech I agree with this. It is a matter for the audience to decide what speech they will listen to, and how they will evaluate it. It is cause for regret thaat so many people lack the means to evaluate the utterances of crackpots. But you can't start to evaluate it if you haven't heard it; there are "forbidden views" that you won't hear on MSM or the big internet platforms. I'm not a free-speech maximalist. Incitement to hatred or violence is forbidden here, and I'm cool with that. Lying, fakery and distortion are permitted (provided it's not in furtherance of selling stuff), and I'm OK with that too. I'm not OK with a whole swath of views being suppressed without any process. That's not what's happening with Young and Rogan. Rogan has been paid by Spotify for his podcast; if they decide to shut him down, well he has other platforms. And he gets to keep the money. There's no chance he'll be silenced. I'm not OK with the way the word "censorship" is being bandied around here. Once upon a time, when email blocklists started to become popular, spammers accused MSPs of censorship, which was ludicrous. Nobody has a right to use the private property of others to exercise their free speech. You can say what you like, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone, and I don't have to stand next to you on the platform while you say it.

rhino369 5y ago

Maybe public policy beliefs is the better word for it, but either way, undoubtedly the type of speech meant to be protected. Earnest misinformation cannot be an exception to freedom of speech without throwing away the entire concept. A lot of commonly accepted truths were dismissed as misinformation by the powers that be. It doesn't even work as a practical matter. You get too many false positives--how many CDC facts have been called into question. They've even deliberately lied. Should bigTech have banned people saying masks work in April 2020 and ban people saying they don't in April 2021? And its not effective. At best, you are playing wackamole. And banning people from taking opposing positions just entrenches opposing view points. If Donald Trump successfully lobbied bigTech to censor "misinformation" about covid, would you believe a fucking thing you heard from those sources?

denton-scratch 5y ago
> Earnest misinformation cannot be an exception to freedom of speech I agree with this. It is a matter for the audience to decide what speech they will listen to, and how they will evaluate it. It is cause for regret thaat so many people lack the means to evaluate the utterances of crackpots. But you can't start to evaluate it if you haven't heard it; there are "forbidden views" that you won't hear on MSM or the big internet platforms. I'm not a free-speech maximalist. Incitement to hatred or violence is forbidden here, and I'm cool with that. Lying, fakery and distortion are permitted (provided it's not in furtherance of selling stuff), and I'm OK with that too. I'm not OK with a whole swath of views being suppressed without any process. That's not what's happening with Young and Rogan. Rogan has been paid by Spotify for his podcast; if they decide to shut him down, well he has other platforms. And he gets to keep the money. There's no chance he'll be silenced. I'm not OK with the way the word "censorship" is being bandied around here. Once upon a time, when email blocklists started to become popular, spammers accused MSPs of censorship, which was ludicrous. Nobody has a right to use the private property of others to exercise their free speech. You can say what you like, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone, and I don't have to stand next to you on the platform while you say it.