16 ms·

Free speech has nothing to do with it. Spotify paid him a $100M to provide a product according to their terms. The idea that this is a free speech issue is rid

by enkid 5y ago

Free speech has nothing to do with it. Spotify paid him a $100M to provide a product according to their terms. The idea that this is a free speech issue is ridiculous and makes no sense. If it was a matter of access to the content, what you should be arguing for is not having an exclusive contract with Spotify, but use one of the million other services that allows anyone to download the episode.

sneak 5y ago
Free speech doesn't always mean an issue with the government. Free speech can be seen as the opposite of censorship. This is plainly censorship (within Spotify's rights, but still censorship) and while nobody's 1A rights have been violated, it's still affecting someone's ability to publish to their audience. That's not a legal issue, but a moral one.
- enkid 5y ago
  Spotify already paid him $100M to make his podcast inaccessible to people. Where was the concern then? If Spotify limiting Joe Rogan from post the podcast to other services was not a concern then, why is Spotify limiting what it hosts now a concern? I see no possible philosophical distinction, but if you have potential justifications, please feel free to share.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- wyattpeak 5y ago
  I think that the fact that's he's been contracted for exclusivity really changes the nature of the free speech argument. Rogan is functionally being hired to Spotify to produce content. I don't expect the ability to freely express myself when representing my employer. I think it's a very different situation, simply sharing your content on a platform, where I think free speech is much more relevant, vs. being contracted to produce content for a platform, where I think it stands to reason that you're expected to produce what the platform want.
- kelseyfrog 5y ago
  Morals don't make money. Spotify has one responsibility and that's to it's shareholders. Companies that put morals over profits lose to those that don't.
lukifer 5y ago
Free speech is not limited to First Amendment protection of censorship by the state. It can also be inhibited by chilling effects, self-censorship, market power, taboos, etc. But I think the motivation for "free speech maximalism", from the perspective of a tech platform, is more strategy than principle: if you're in a position to make a decision as to who or what to silence, you are going to be subject to constant pressure from all directions, rightly or wrongly. Sticking to your guns and enforcing a limited and specific scope (illegality, ToS violations) is a "bright line" policy. Holding to it consistently means not having to constantly justify and take heat for tough gray-area decisions, which is a losing game anyway, since you won't be able to appease everyone no matter what you do.

by enkid 5y ago

sneak 5y ago

Free speech doesn't always mean an issue with the government. Free speech can be seen as the opposite of censorship. This is plainly censorship (within Spotify's rights, but still censorship) and while nobody's 1A rights have been violated, it's still affecting someone's ability to publish to their audience. That's not a legal issue, but a moral one.

enkid 5y ago
Spotify already paid him $100M to make his podcast inaccessible to people. Where was the concern then? If Spotify limiting Joe Rogan from post the podcast to other services was not a concern then, why is Spotify limiting what it hosts now a concern? I see no possible philosophical distinction, but if you have potential justifications, please feel free to share.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
wyattpeak 5y ago
I think that the fact that's he's been contracted for exclusivity really changes the nature of the free speech argument. Rogan is functionally being hired to Spotify to produce content. I don't expect the ability to freely express myself when representing my employer. I think it's a very different situation, simply sharing your content on a platform, where I think free speech is much more relevant, vs. being contracted to produce content for a platform, where I think it stands to reason that you're expected to produce what the platform want.
kelseyfrog 5y ago
Morals don't make money. Spotify has one responsibility and that's to it's shareholders. Companies that put morals over profits lose to those that don't.

lukifer 5y ago

Free speech is not limited to First Amendment protection of censorship by the state. It can also be inhibited by chilling effects, self-censorship, market power, taboos, etc. But I think the motivation for "free speech maximalism", from the perspective of a tech platform, is more strategy than principle: if you're in a position to make a decision as to who or what to silence, you are going to be subject to constant pressure from all directions, rightly or wrongly. Sticking to your guns and enforcing a limited and specific scope (illegality, ToS violations) is a "bright line" policy. Holding to it consistently means not having to constantly justify and take heat for tough gray-area decisions, which is a losing game anyway, since you won't be able to appease everyone no matter what you do.