3 ms·

> Pro speech people don't like this I’m “pro speech” and I love this! No governmental agency stepped in and told Spotify what to do. They have a contract with

> Pro speech people don't like this I’m “pro speech” and I love this! No governmental agency stepped in and told Spotify what to do. They have a contract with Joe Rogan, are ostensibly honoring it, and are making a decision on what speech they want to be associated with. What else do you want them to do? Be forced by someone to make a decision they don’t want to make? That doesn’t sound like something someone who believes in free speech would want.

TOMDM 5y ago
Exactly, if you want to take issue with Spotify's decision that's fine, but calling this a speech issue is short sighted. Would we really want to further limit what right holders are allowed to do with their property?
nprz 5y ago
> No governmental agency stepped in and told Spotify what to do Yes they did. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/joe-rogan-spotify-covid-white-house-b2005488.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
- paulcole 5y ago
  Not particularly interested in debating whether “told” equals “forced” in this context. I suspect you understood my intention.
  - salawat 5y ago
    I question whether you actually realize the size of metaphorical gun barrel that company would be potentially looking down given the public's attitude on tech companies at the moment. Government is one of those things where even the appearance of impropriety is as nad as the actual thing. That crossed the line into blatant quid-pro-quo.
    - paulcole 5y ago
      Someone putting a literal gun to my head is much different from someone saying that someone else is putting a metaphorical gun to my head.
      - salawat 5y ago
        And yet both have the same outcome. One is compelled at great ost to oneself to comply or otherwise suffer greater, possibly terminal (for that case) future harm. I'm sorry, but no, I don't buy your assertion. Being in a position of power over someone or something and dropping a line like that is as good as an outright threat of violence, no matter how badly people don't want others to consider it as such because it makes their lives easier, and conscience lighter.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
d110af5ccf 5y ago
> > Pro speech people don't like this > I’m “pro speech” and I love this! Then I don't think you're as pro speech as you seem to think you are. You clearly appear to be in favor of protections against the government curtailing your speech. However you do not appear to value the principle of free speech very highly or you would be against both people attempting to pressure Spotify and also Spotify picking and choosing content. Yes, they clearly have a legal and moral right to do so. However, exercising that right clearly runs counter to the principles of free speech.
- paulcole 5y ago
  > However you do not appear to value the principle of free speech very highly or you would be against both people attempting to pressure Spotify and also Spotify picking and choosing content We can go round and round all day, but the idea that someone can’t voice their opinion against someone else and that someone can’t pick and choose what they want to promote feels very anti-pro-speech to me.

TOMDM 5y ago

Exactly, if you want to take issue with Spotify's decision that's fine, but calling this a speech issue is short sighted. Would we really want to further limit what right holders are allowed to do with their property?

nprz 5y ago

> No governmental agency stepped in and told Spotify what to do Yes they did. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/joe-rogan-spotify-covid-white-house-b2005488.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...

paulcole 5y ago
Not particularly interested in debating whether “told” equals “forced” in this context. I suspect you understood my intention.
- salawat 5y ago
  I question whether you actually realize the size of metaphorical gun barrel that company would be potentially looking down given the public's attitude on tech companies at the moment. Government is one of those things where even the appearance of impropriety is as nad as the actual thing. That crossed the line into blatant quid-pro-quo.
  - paulcole 5y ago
    Someone putting a literal gun to my head is much different from someone saying that someone else is putting a metaphorical gun to my head.
    - salawat 5y ago
      And yet both have the same outcome. One is compelled at great ost to oneself to comply or otherwise suffer greater, possibly terminal (for that case) future harm. I'm sorry, but no, I don't buy your assertion. Being in a position of power over someone or something and dropping a line like that is as good as an outright threat of violence, no matter how badly people don't want others to consider it as such because it makes their lives easier, and conscience lighter.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]

d110af5ccf 5y ago

> > Pro speech people don't like this > I’m “pro speech” and I love this! Then I don't think you're as pro speech as you seem to think you are. You clearly appear to be in favor of protections against the government curtailing your speech. However you do not appear to value the principle of free speech very highly or you would be against both people attempting to pressure Spotify and also Spotify picking and choosing content. Yes, they clearly have a legal and moral right to do so. However, exercising that right clearly runs counter to the principles of free speech.

paulcole 5y ago
> However you do not appear to value the principle of free speech very highly or you would be against both people attempting to pressure Spotify and also Spotify picking and choosing content We can go round and round all day, but the idea that someone can’t voice their opinion against someone else and that someone can’t pick and choose what they want to promote feels very anti-pro-speech to me.