5 ms·

Predictably, people break out the C-word. Every business decides what they sell and what they don't. Do they also complain about censorship and shout at the man

Predictably, people break out the C-word. Every business decides what they sell and what they don't. Do they also complain about censorship and shout at the manager of a shoe store for not selling books? Spotify decided they don't want to sell those episodes of JR. That's not censorship, it's business, and it's very different than if it's done by the government.

finite_jest 5y ago
> Predictably, people break out the C-word. Censorship is now a taboo word? That's pretty ironic.
xdennis 5y ago
> Do they also complain about censorship and shout at the manager of a shoe store for not selling books? No. Censorship is the suppression of speech. If you don't sell a book because you don't think it fits your store, or you don't think it's profitable, that's not censorship. But if you refuse to carry a book SPECIFICALLY because you don't like the message, then that IS censorship. Some forms of censorship are illegal, and some forms are legally required. But that doesn't mean that it's not censorship just because you agree with that's being censored.
- archagon 5y ago
  That just dilutes the definition to the point of being meaningless. You will find very few bookstores with a section devoted to extremist treatises and manifestos. That is not censorship in any conventional sense of the word.
  - iqanq 5y ago
    Extremist treatises and manifestos by definition don't sell well so they are a bad example.
    - archagon 5y ago
      Hardly a given. Mein Kampf is a bestseller.
      - istinetz 5y ago
        And it is sold in bookstores - at least in all the big bookstores I've been to.
- Spivak 5y ago
  I really don't know if a HN thread is the place for like an abstract take, but I really dislike these "absolutist" definitions. You take a high-impact, emotionally charged word with a well defined meaning in its cultural context, rip it out of that context, apply the naive detached dictionary definition, and then end run around and shove it back into that high-impact context to your rhetorical benefit, where it would never be used naturally, because it "follows" from the naive definition. In this case, sure, "censorship" is literally the suppression of speech but it's a much bigger idea than that. It's this huge institutional power dynamic. And so if you want to define it as something smaller where say white people getting in trouble for saying the n word is censorship then that's fine but then the word loses all the impact because if that's what you consider censorship then almost everyone is going to be in favor of it to some degree. It's not this inherently evil dystopian thing anymore. But then rhetorically you rely that fact that impact is "sticky" so when you say "well this thing I don't like is censorship oOoOoOooO and my line of reasoning supports that" you're kind of betting that the reader doesn't take notice that in the universe you've constructed censorship is pretty benign.
  - peteradio 5y ago
    > It's not this inherently evil dystopian thing anymore. If that is the point where you begin to care, then it's probably much too late.
  - tagoregrtst 5y ago
    Taken broadly always was the commonly used definition of censorship, and progressives understood that until they got the power to censor what they don’t like through their economic power. Then they redefined censorship to be only if the government does it. Thats having your cake and eating it too.
- ausbah 5y ago
  how is it suppression if the material is easily available via other sources? like say other book stores?
- kstrauser 5y ago
  If I owned I book store, I would not sell “The Turner Diaries” (unless maybe if I knew that the person who wanted to buy it was a researcher studying racist literature). Even if it were profitable, I wouldn’t want to make money from helping spread that garbage. If you consider that censorship, then you’ve gone a long way toward convincing me that your definition of censorship is an OK thing to do.
d110af5ccf 5y ago
> That's not censorship, it's business No, it most certainly is censorship. It is also business. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. I'd also note that it is completely legal, but that I (personally) think that such practices are harmful. > shout at the manager of a shoe store for not selling books? A shoe store? That's not a good analogy. I wouldn't complain that Spotify doesn't offer downloads of popular software, would I? Would people complain if Barnes & Noble suddenly pulled a number of "controversial" books from their shelves after public outcry?
symlinkk 5y ago
Why do you think censorship only applies when governments do it
JPKab 5y ago
The White House verbally stated they wanted Spotify to take action. When a government tells a company to act, there is always an implicit "or else". That is defacto censorship.
charlieyu1 5y ago
Government outsourcing censorship to businesses doesn’t make it less wrong.
- sofixa 5y ago
  Was any government involved in any way here?
  - gassius 5y ago
    If the spokewoman that asked spotify to "do more" works in the White House, then yes
  - salawat 5y ago
    White House announced to Spotify that "more could be done" about Rogan. 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...
- Dumblydorr 5y ago
  Do you believe censorship is wrong all cases? What about a biologist providing instructions on how to add lethal mutations to viruses? Or a physicist giving detailed instructions about how to construct dirty nuclear bombs? There is certain knowledge that is unsafe to be widely disseminated, would you be against the censorship of said content? I mention this because arguably, allowing covid to proliferate means thousands of deaths, long COVID syndrome, and potential for new mutations to arise. These misinformed hucksters are largely out to make their own names and make money, not to educate or because their carefully chosen speech is their "right". Should we allow any financially motivated snake oil salesmen to spew whatever trash he likes into our society, even if it kills one thousand people indirectly?
  - charlieyu1 5y ago
    You just gave two very poor examples. Anyone who have any ability to add lethal mutation are probably biologists anyway. And instructions to construct nuclear bombs are probably on somewhere on the Internet anyway, but I’m not going to worry at all, it is close to impossible to buy the raw materials without some sorts of licenses.
0xy 5y ago
Predictably, the people desperately trying to redefine "censorship" from its dictionary definition show up. Censorship is not inherently a government action, your post is contrary to the actual definition. [1] [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/censorship https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/censorsh...
xupybd 5y ago
Being from Australasia, the C-word is a very specific and different word.
- Handytinge 5y ago
  Absolutely what I thought, I haven't seen anyone across this saga being called a cunt!
- darknavi 5y ago
  Cangaroo?
Dumblydorr 5y ago
Looked up the definition of censorship: the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. Some definitions have narrowed it's purposes to just "offensive", this one was slightly broader. Given this meaning, Spotify's action is on the line of security and safety. JRE is taking heat for misinformation about covid, specifically about vaccines and alternative treatments, as well as his history of having platformed Alex Jones. I'd say preventing snake oil salesmen from selling their products in your market due to safety concerns is a valid employment of censorship. People could actually die due to believing some of these extreme guests. Obviously, legally there is zero problem here since a private company can do as it wishes, freedom of speech doesn't give the freedom to dictate to companies what they must sell.
- spadros 5y ago
  In Canada your freedom of speech as a broadcaster or entertainer is limited to non-harmful, intentionally ignorant, or violence provoking language. So it’s not censorship here to take someone off the radio for spreading slander and lies that could get someone hurt, like Joe has been on his podcast. It’s considered protecting others safety and our charter of rights. Stopping someone from spreading ignorance and hate is not censorship. That’s not what one imagines when they think of censorship. This is not stopping someone from saying things arbitrarily.
notapenny 5y ago
Predictably, people who are fine with censorship try to frame it as just business. A shoe store not selling books is your argument? Really? Spotify didn't decide they don't want to offer those episodes, they decided to do so after media started labelling Rogan as spreading misinformation and accused him of all the popular isms. Music has discretionary labels, removing it because its message is inconvenient to you is a different thing. This is reactionary and a really bad look for Spotify.
meatsauce 5y ago
No. It is censorship. 100%. And there are no excuses. The new thought gestapo must be stopped.

finite_jest 5y ago

> Predictably, people break out the C-word. Censorship is now a taboo word? That's pretty ironic.

xdennis 5y ago

> Do they also complain about censorship and shout at the manager of a shoe store for not selling books? No. Censorship is the suppression of speech. If you don't sell a book because you don't think it fits your store, or you don't think it's profitable, that's not censorship. But if you refuse to carry a book SPECIFICALLY because you don't like the message, then that IS censorship. Some forms of censorship are illegal, and some forms are legally required. But that doesn't mean that it's not censorship just because you agree with that's being censored.

archagon 5y ago
That just dilutes the definition to the point of being meaningless. You will find very few bookstores with a section devoted to extremist treatises and manifestos. That is not censorship in any conventional sense of the word.
- iqanq 5y ago
  Extremist treatises and manifestos by definition don't sell well so they are a bad example.
  - archagon 5y ago
    Hardly a given. Mein Kampf is a bestseller.
    - istinetz 5y ago
      And it is sold in bookstores - at least in all the big bookstores I've been to.
Spivak 5y ago
I really don't know if a HN thread is the place for like an abstract take, but I really dislike these "absolutist" definitions. You take a high-impact, emotionally charged word with a well defined meaning in its cultural context, rip it out of that context, apply the naive detached dictionary definition, and then end run around and shove it back into that high-impact context to your rhetorical benefit, where it would never be used naturally, because it "follows" from the naive definition. In this case, sure, "censorship" is literally the suppression of speech but it's a much bigger idea than that. It's this huge institutional power dynamic. And so if you want to define it as something smaller where say white people getting in trouble for saying the n word is censorship then that's fine but then the word loses all the impact because if that's what you consider censorship then almost everyone is going to be in favor of it to some degree. It's not this inherently evil dystopian thing anymore. But then rhetorically you rely that fact that impact is "sticky" so when you say "well this thing I don't like is censorship oOoOoOooO and my line of reasoning supports that" you're kind of betting that the reader doesn't take notice that in the universe you've constructed censorship is pretty benign.
- peteradio 5y ago
  > It's not this inherently evil dystopian thing anymore. If that is the point where you begin to care, then it's probably much too late.
- tagoregrtst 5y ago
  Taken broadly always was the commonly used definition of censorship, and progressives understood that until they got the power to censor what they don’t like through their economic power. Then they redefined censorship to be only if the government does it. Thats having your cake and eating it too.
ausbah 5y ago
how is it suppression if the material is easily available via other sources? like say other book stores?
kstrauser 5y ago
If I owned I book store, I would not sell “The Turner Diaries” (unless maybe if I knew that the person who wanted to buy it was a researcher studying racist literature). Even if it were profitable, I wouldn’t want to make money from helping spread that garbage. If you consider that censorship, then you’ve gone a long way toward convincing me that your definition of censorship is an OK thing to do.

d110af5ccf 5y ago

> That's not censorship, it's business No, it most certainly is censorship. It is also business. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. I'd also note that it is completely legal, but that I (personally) think that such practices are harmful. > shout at the manager of a shoe store for not selling books? A shoe store? That's not a good analogy. I wouldn't complain that Spotify doesn't offer downloads of popular software, would I? Would people complain if Barnes & Noble suddenly pulled a number of "controversial" books from their shelves after public outcry?

symlinkk 5y ago

Why do you think censorship only applies when governments do it

JPKab 5y ago

The White House verbally stated they wanted Spotify to take action. When a government tells a company to act, there is always an implicit "or else". That is defacto censorship.

charlieyu1 5y ago

Government outsourcing censorship to businesses doesn’t make it less wrong.

sofixa 5y ago
Was any government involved in any way here?
- gassius 5y ago
  If the spokewoman that asked spotify to "do more" works in the White House, then yes
- salawat 5y ago
  White House announced to Spotify that "more could be done" about Rogan. 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...
Dumblydorr 5y ago
Do you believe censorship is wrong all cases? What about a biologist providing instructions on how to add lethal mutations to viruses? Or a physicist giving detailed instructions about how to construct dirty nuclear bombs? There is certain knowledge that is unsafe to be widely disseminated, would you be against the censorship of said content? I mention this because arguably, allowing covid to proliferate means thousands of deaths, long COVID syndrome, and potential for new mutations to arise. These misinformed hucksters are largely out to make their own names and make money, not to educate or because their carefully chosen speech is their "right". Should we allow any financially motivated snake oil salesmen to spew whatever trash he likes into our society, even if it kills one thousand people indirectly?
- charlieyu1 5y ago
  You just gave two very poor examples. Anyone who have any ability to add lethal mutation are probably biologists anyway. And instructions to construct nuclear bombs are probably on somewhere on the Internet anyway, but I’m not going to worry at all, it is close to impossible to buy the raw materials without some sorts of licenses.

0xy 5y ago

Predictably, the people desperately trying to redefine "censorship" from its dictionary definition show up. Censorship is not inherently a government action, your post is contrary to the actual definition. [1] [1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/censorship https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/censorsh...

xupybd 5y ago

Being from Australasia, the C-word is a very specific and different word.

Handytinge 5y ago
Absolutely what I thought, I haven't seen anyone across this saga being called a cunt!
darknavi 5y ago
Cangaroo?

Dumblydorr 5y ago

Looked up the definition of censorship: the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. Some definitions have narrowed it's purposes to just "offensive", this one was slightly broader. Given this meaning, Spotify's action is on the line of security and safety. JRE is taking heat for misinformation about covid, specifically about vaccines and alternative treatments, as well as his history of having platformed Alex Jones. I'd say preventing snake oil salesmen from selling their products in your market due to safety concerns is a valid employment of censorship. People could actually die due to believing some of these extreme guests. Obviously, legally there is zero problem here since a private company can do as it wishes, freedom of speech doesn't give the freedom to dictate to companies what they must sell.

spadros 5y ago
In Canada your freedom of speech as a broadcaster or entertainer is limited to non-harmful, intentionally ignorant, or violence provoking language. So it’s not censorship here to take someone off the radio for spreading slander and lies that could get someone hurt, like Joe has been on his podcast. It’s considered protecting others safety and our charter of rights. Stopping someone from spreading ignorance and hate is not censorship. That’s not what one imagines when they think of censorship. This is not stopping someone from saying things arbitrarily.

notapenny 5y ago

Predictably, people who are fine with censorship try to frame it as just business. A shoe store not selling books is your argument? Really? Spotify didn't decide they don't want to offer those episodes, they decided to do so after media started labelling Rogan as spreading misinformation and accused him of all the popular isms. Music has discretionary labels, removing it because its message is inconvenient to you is a different thing. This is reactionary and a really bad look for Spotify.

meatsauce 5y ago

No. It is censorship. 100%. And there are no excuses. The new thought gestapo must be stopped.