6 ms·

This argument is so tired. You’re saying they have the right to censor, so say it. The counter argument is that censorship is bad in all its forms. It’s one I

This argument is so tired. You’re saying they have the right to censor, so say it. The counter argument is that censorship is bad in all its forms. It’s one I and many others support.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
almost_usual 5y ago
So big government needs to dictate how the free market works? Seems very “free”.
- enchiridion 5y ago
  Where did I say that? I can personally object to something without invoking the government to action.
  - almost_usual 5y ago
    So let the shareholders decide what’s best for Spotify.
    - enchiridion 5y ago
      Ya sure. But there are literally decision makers who frequent this forum, so if I object to something for sound reasons it’s worth saying so.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - atoav 5y ago
    So if the government can force spotify to publish all opinions, why should they not be able to force you to do the same on your blog? In the status quo private people and companies are allowed to not accept contributions on their websites. This is not censorship, this is their right as runners of a plattform. Joe rogan can always go and create his own if he finds that no one wants to publish him. I don't see how enabling the government to force people to publish speech they don't want to say isn't 100% worse than what we have now. It reminds me of stories from the soviet union.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - magpi3 5y ago
      If the government has tried to "force" Spotify to take down or produce content, then the government is in the wrong and Spotify is spineless for not fighting back. We have the Constitution for a reason in the U.S. The government would not have a leg to stand on. But that's not what happened. Spotify is taking down content for financial reasons. They don't like the heat they are getting from the press, musicians, and yes maybe perhaps the government. And companies have always made editorial decisions for financial reasons.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - atoav 5y ago
        You misread my comment, I am not of the opinion that this is actually the case.
- patrick451 5y ago
  They already do that. Try telling a black man he can't come into your store. Try posting a job add that says "White Anglo Saxon Protestant Men only".
  - timeon 5y ago
    It seems to me that lot of 'loosing free speech' is about loosing racist privileges.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    Indeed. And this happened after a very specific carve-out to understood freedom of association law via the Civil Rights Act. And with good reason! But it was controversial then and in some circles it still is. The CRA curtailed the freedoms of many to give greater freedom to all in the form of equal treatment regardless of [insert full list of inherent traits here], not just under the law, but in business also. Prior to it, all the discriminations you listed were legal. If you think we should further carve into people's freedoms to associate (or, in this case, freedom of the press to publish or refrain from publishing Rogan) in the interests of broader freedom, what should that law look like and on what underlying philosophy should it be based?
  - magpi3 5y ago
    You're allowed to say anything you want, but you are not allowed to discriminate based on race, and if such signs in the window would cause a reasonable person to think you are discriminating based on race, then yes they must be taken down. There are obviously limits to free speech and there always have been. Can I perjure myself in front of a jury? Can I yell "fire" in a crowded theater? Each of these actions would have a consequence, and it is the act of knowingly provoking that consequence that is prohibited, not the act of speech itself.
    - wincy 5y ago
      If there's a fire, or you think there's a fire, I'd say you have a moral obligation to yell "fire in a crowded theater". It's probably the worst example as this was the metaphor was by the government when people were passing out anti war flyers opposing the draft during WWI. These same people were tried and convicted under the espionage and sedition acts. The judges unanimously sided with the government. If I think there's a fire, or a problem, damn straight I'm going to speak up, and this definitely feels like Spotify is taking down things "the public", no court even required how great, find distasteful in the moment.
MattPalmer1086 5y ago
No, parent is saying it's not censorship. If you see it as censorship, then say so, but don't claim the parent did.
johoho234 5y ago
> This argument is so tired. You’re saying they have the right to censor, so say it I think it's just a strange choice of word. Joe Rogan has the right to publish his podcasts uncensored. So he's not really being censored in the "free speech" sense. He still has the freedom to put his content uncensored on the internet for all to listen too if they choose. Spotify has the right to choose what they publish or don't publish. I think talking about censorship and free speech seems beyond the point to me, since I don't see any of those rights being taken away. And since I don't see the premise being true, I can't really take seriously the argument. Instead, if you're just against the people who are saying that Joe Rogan is misleading and being harmful to society, and that by promoting and publishing his content, Spotify is also doing similar harm and thus they choose to boycott the companies products then discuss that. If you think people are making a baseless fuss about the harmful effects of his podcast on society and the efforts to fight COVID then bring that up instead. > The counter argument is that censorship is bad in all its forms. It’s one I and many others support I just want to point out that's not a counter-argument, that's a conclusion, and the argument for it is missing. If you want to make a point to the conclusion you need to explain the premise that you use to arrive there.
- roenxi 5y ago
  I don't really agree with the "all censorship is bad" argument either. The counterarguments are too obvious - every viable community on the internet has a moderator team or equivalent. And it isn't really a question of whether this can be done. Spotify have done it and nobody is pointing to a broken law. There isn't anything interesting here legally or technically speaking (and that is proper - Spotify should control what is accessible on Spotify). The problem here is Spotify are screwing up their editorial responsibilities. Joe Rogan has reached the sort of critical mass where he gets to decide what is in the public's interest to talk about. These faceless censors at Spotify aren't qualified to do that, or qualified to decide what is and isn't misinformation. They are acting foolishly outside their wheelhouse of creating platforms. They are screwing up by taking down interesting and entertaining content, making decisions that is going to get a very large audience upset with them. They pay Rogan because he is better at this sort of decision than they are. This is a poor follow up.
throwaway6734 5y ago
How do you feel about gan generated videos of child pornography?
simonh 5y ago
It's not censorship, it's just a publication strategy. It's editorialising content they bought and paid for, whether they publish their own property or not is up to them.
- barney54 5y ago
  When the government asks Spotify to censor Rogan, and Spotify does, that’s censorship. https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-surgeon-general-suggests-joe-rogan-podcast-should-be-censored-big-tech-has-important-role-to-play https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-surgeon-general-suggest...
  - tsol 5y ago
    The government didn't ask Spotify, the surgeon General suggested Spotify should do take it down on MSNBC. Totally different, and if they want to take the governments suggestion that isn't government enforced censorship even if it leaves a bad taste in your mouth
    - docmars 5y ago
      The Surgeon General isn't a position elected by the People, and to have them making strong suggestions (or threats) around speech that is regarded as highly controversial (i.e. both opposing sides are large and have valid stances) is repulsive, when behind the scenes _and_ publicly there is legal and monetary coercion happening to put the likes of Spotify in jeopardy if they don't bend to a single political narrative.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > When the government asks Spotify to censor Rogan Political appointees making public statements isn’t the government asking anyone to do anything.
    - docmars 5y ago
      It has that effect though. It comes from an official position that represents the views of an elected leader, and by extension, has the weight of it being a mandate or statement with enough public attention to see or expect change. While it may not be in legal terms, many see it as an opportunity to greenlight the bypassing of legal/legislative procedures, especially by those who consider the current administration(s) political allies. As an example, Jen Psaki has stated in the past that they are working with social media to "handle disinformation", and the likes of wokie Zuckerberg wouldn't hesitate to operate outside of Congress or courts to satisfy the whims of his masters.
magpi3 5y ago
Before the internet, if I wrote a letter to the editor of a magazine or comic book, the editor obviously made the decision whether to publish my letter or not. Was this censorship? No, of course not. And no one complained about it. It wasn't my magazine after all. Of course, I could just start my own magazine if I want to publish my own content, but that would obviously be ridiculously cost prohibitive. And this was the norm for magazines, radio, TV. There was always strong editorial control by corporations. Boom comes the internet, and all of that goes away. As long as you can convince your web host to host you, you can say what you like. But now podcasts and content creators are making deals with big corporations again, and those corporations have the right to make the same decisions the magazine editors did. It's not censorship. It's how things have always been. You can always build your own website, and the government will not interfere. There is your freedom of speech. Your web host might, but even that hasn't been an obstacle for extreme left/right wing sites, at least not so far. Worse comes to worse you can seed your content on bittorrent.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- docmars 5y ago
  > Worse comes to worse you can seed your content on bittorrent. At the expense of huge barriers of entry for people to discover that content, or even care bothering with the hoops you would have to jump through to find something you're interested in, to the less tech savvy. This is partly why the removal of content after its publication due to political pressure and threats of coercion is fundamentally the problem that needs to be addressed. Whether it's semantically "censorship" or not is debatable, but the ill effects it has on society are irrefutable, by communicating: 1. these views need to be taken down. 2. these views need to be silenced. 3. the consumers of this information are "domestic terrorists" or "completely stupid", as readily communicated by major pundits on the Left, and at times, by our own leaders (Biden, Trudeau). 4. the 100,000+ global outspoken doctors who agree with these controversial views are fringe, misguided, deserving of losing their licenses, etc. ... All 4 reek of condescension and political bias in a way that damages and divides society to the extent that massive psychological harm is inflicted on millions of people seeking good information who want to be left alone, and risks enforcing a single stream of thought where panels of experts or public dialogue are discouraged. That should alarm anyone who trusts the scientific method as a means to find answers and provide honest insight into something as imperative as a pandemic.
dahart 5y ago
> The counter argument is that censorship is bad in all its forms. That’s a platitude, not an argument. And being absolutist is being sadly ignorant of the realities of public speech. Censorship is not just sometimes good, it’s also sometimes required by law. There is a fairly long list of things that are explicitly illegal to say and are exceptions to US freedom of speech laws, including: libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, state secrets, non-disclosure agreements, personal private information, and, last but not least: lies. Censorship is required by the GDPR, for example, when dealing with Personally Identifying Information (PII). Because the freedoms to speak publicly can conflict with our own freedoms privately, some kinds of censorship are beneficial to people including you. Commercial speech is specifically exempted from US Freedom of Speech laws. You can spend time getting upset over legal private censorship all you want, but it isn’t a Freedom of Speech issue, and it doesn’t amount to a meaningful moral or principled stand. Our courts have already established through two hundred years or argument and precedent that our principles are that cash corrupts speech and should not be a protected category.

This argument is so tired. You’re saying they have the right to censor, so say it. The counter argument is that censorship is bad in all its forms. It’s one I and many others support.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

almost_usual 5y ago

So big government needs to dictate how the free market works? Seems very “free”.

enchiridion 5y ago
Where did I say that? I can personally object to something without invoking the government to action.
- almost_usual 5y ago
  So let the shareholders decide what’s best for Spotify.
  - enchiridion 5y ago
    Ya sure. But there are literally decision makers who frequent this forum, so if I object to something for sound reasons it’s worth saying so.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- atoav 5y ago
  So if the government can force spotify to publish all opinions, why should they not be able to force you to do the same on your blog? In the status quo private people and companies are allowed to not accept contributions on their websites. This is not censorship, this is their right as runners of a plattform. Joe rogan can always go and create his own if he finds that no one wants to publish him. I don't see how enabling the government to force people to publish speech they don't want to say isn't 100% worse than what we have now. It reminds me of stories from the soviet union.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - magpi3 5y ago
    If the government has tried to "force" Spotify to take down or produce content, then the government is in the wrong and Spotify is spineless for not fighting back. We have the Constitution for a reason in the U.S. The government would not have a leg to stand on. But that's not what happened. Spotify is taking down content for financial reasons. They don't like the heat they are getting from the press, musicians, and yes maybe perhaps the government. And companies have always made editorial decisions for financial reasons.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - atoav 5y ago
      You misread my comment, I am not of the opinion that this is actually the case.
patrick451 5y ago
They already do that. Try telling a black man he can't come into your store. Try posting a job add that says "White Anglo Saxon Protestant Men only".
- timeon 5y ago
  It seems to me that lot of 'loosing free speech' is about loosing racist privileges.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Indeed. And this happened after a very specific carve-out to understood freedom of association law via the Civil Rights Act. And with good reason! But it was controversial then and in some circles it still is. The CRA curtailed the freedoms of many to give greater freedom to all in the form of equal treatment regardless of [insert full list of inherent traits here], not just under the law, but in business also. Prior to it, all the discriminations you listed were legal. If you think we should further carve into people's freedoms to associate (or, in this case, freedom of the press to publish or refrain from publishing Rogan) in the interests of broader freedom, what should that law look like and on what underlying philosophy should it be based?
- magpi3 5y ago
  You're allowed to say anything you want, but you are not allowed to discriminate based on race, and if such signs in the window would cause a reasonable person to think you are discriminating based on race, then yes they must be taken down. There are obviously limits to free speech and there always have been. Can I perjure myself in front of a jury? Can I yell "fire" in a crowded theater? Each of these actions would have a consequence, and it is the act of knowingly provoking that consequence that is prohibited, not the act of speech itself.
  - wincy 5y ago
    If there's a fire, or you think there's a fire, I'd say you have a moral obligation to yell "fire in a crowded theater". It's probably the worst example as this was the metaphor was by the government when people were passing out anti war flyers opposing the draft during WWI. These same people were tried and convicted under the espionage and sedition acts. The judges unanimously sided with the government. If I think there's a fire, or a problem, damn straight I'm going to speak up, and this definitely feels like Spotify is taking down things "the public", no court even required how great, find distasteful in the moment.

MattPalmer1086 5y ago

No, parent is saying it's not censorship. If you see it as censorship, then say so, but don't claim the parent did.

johoho234 5y ago

> This argument is so tired. You’re saying they have the right to censor, so say it I think it's just a strange choice of word. Joe Rogan has the right to publish his podcasts uncensored. So he's not really being censored in the "free speech" sense. He still has the freedom to put his content uncensored on the internet for all to listen too if they choose. Spotify has the right to choose what they publish or don't publish. I think talking about censorship and free speech seems beyond the point to me, since I don't see any of those rights being taken away. And since I don't see the premise being true, I can't really take seriously the argument. Instead, if you're just against the people who are saying that Joe Rogan is misleading and being harmful to society, and that by promoting and publishing his content, Spotify is also doing similar harm and thus they choose to boycott the companies products then discuss that. If you think people are making a baseless fuss about the harmful effects of his podcast on society and the efforts to fight COVID then bring that up instead. > The counter argument is that censorship is bad in all its forms. It’s one I and many others support I just want to point out that's not a counter-argument, that's a conclusion, and the argument for it is missing. If you want to make a point to the conclusion you need to explain the premise that you use to arrive there.

roenxi 5y ago
I don't really agree with the "all censorship is bad" argument either. The counterarguments are too obvious - every viable community on the internet has a moderator team or equivalent. And it isn't really a question of whether this can be done. Spotify have done it and nobody is pointing to a broken law. There isn't anything interesting here legally or technically speaking (and that is proper - Spotify should control what is accessible on Spotify). The problem here is Spotify are screwing up their editorial responsibilities. Joe Rogan has reached the sort of critical mass where he gets to decide what is in the public's interest to talk about. These faceless censors at Spotify aren't qualified to do that, or qualified to decide what is and isn't misinformation. They are acting foolishly outside their wheelhouse of creating platforms. They are screwing up by taking down interesting and entertaining content, making decisions that is going to get a very large audience upset with them. They pay Rogan because he is better at this sort of decision than they are. This is a poor follow up.

throwaway6734 5y ago

How do you feel about gan generated videos of child pornography?

simonh 5y ago

It's not censorship, it's just a publication strategy. It's editorialising content they bought and paid for, whether they publish their own property or not is up to them.

barney54 5y ago
When the government asks Spotify to censor Rogan, and Spotify does, that’s censorship. https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-surgeon-general-suggests-joe-rogan-podcast-should-be-censored-big-tech-has-important-role-to-play https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-surgeon-general-suggest...
- tsol 5y ago
  The government didn't ask Spotify, the surgeon General suggested Spotify should do take it down on MSNBC. Totally different, and if they want to take the governments suggestion that isn't government enforced censorship even if it leaves a bad taste in your mouth
  - docmars 5y ago
    The Surgeon General isn't a position elected by the People, and to have them making strong suggestions (or threats) around speech that is regarded as highly controversial (i.e. both opposing sides are large and have valid stances) is repulsive, when behind the scenes _and_ publicly there is legal and monetary coercion happening to put the likes of Spotify in jeopardy if they don't bend to a single political narrative.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > When the government asks Spotify to censor Rogan Political appointees making public statements isn’t the government asking anyone to do anything.
  - docmars 5y ago
    It has that effect though. It comes from an official position that represents the views of an elected leader, and by extension, has the weight of it being a mandate or statement with enough public attention to see or expect change. While it may not be in legal terms, many see it as an opportunity to greenlight the bypassing of legal/legislative procedures, especially by those who consider the current administration(s) political allies. As an example, Jen Psaki has stated in the past that they are working with social media to "handle disinformation", and the likes of wokie Zuckerberg wouldn't hesitate to operate outside of Congress or courts to satisfy the whims of his masters.

magpi3 5y ago

Before the internet, if I wrote a letter to the editor of a magazine or comic book, the editor obviously made the decision whether to publish my letter or not. Was this censorship? No, of course not. And no one complained about it. It wasn't my magazine after all. Of course, I could just start my own magazine if I want to publish my own content, but that would obviously be ridiculously cost prohibitive. And this was the norm for magazines, radio, TV. There was always strong editorial control by corporations. Boom comes the internet, and all of that goes away. As long as you can convince your web host to host you, you can say what you like. But now podcasts and content creators are making deals with big corporations again, and those corporations have the right to make the same decisions the magazine editors did. It's not censorship. It's how things have always been. You can always build your own website, and the government will not interfere. There is your freedom of speech. Your web host might, but even that hasn't been an obstacle for extreme left/right wing sites, at least not so far. Worse comes to worse you can seed your content on bittorrent.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
docmars 5y ago
> Worse comes to worse you can seed your content on bittorrent. At the expense of huge barriers of entry for people to discover that content, or even care bothering with the hoops you would have to jump through to find something you're interested in, to the less tech savvy. This is partly why the removal of content after its publication due to political pressure and threats of coercion is fundamentally the problem that needs to be addressed. Whether it's semantically "censorship" or not is debatable, but the ill effects it has on society are irrefutable, by communicating: 1. these views need to be taken down. 2. these views need to be silenced. 3. the consumers of this information are "domestic terrorists" or "completely stupid", as readily communicated by major pundits on the Left, and at times, by our own leaders (Biden, Trudeau). 4. the 100,000+ global outspoken doctors who agree with these controversial views are fringe, misguided, deserving of losing their licenses, etc. ... All 4 reek of condescension and political bias in a way that damages and divides society to the extent that massive psychological harm is inflicted on millions of people seeking good information who want to be left alone, and risks enforcing a single stream of thought where panels of experts or public dialogue are discouraged. That should alarm anyone who trusts the scientific method as a means to find answers and provide honest insight into something as imperative as a pandemic.

dahart 5y ago

> The counter argument is that censorship is bad in all its forms. That’s a platitude, not an argument. And being absolutist is being sadly ignorant of the realities of public speech. Censorship is not just sometimes good, it’s also sometimes required by law. There is a fairly long list of things that are explicitly illegal to say and are exceptions to US freedom of speech laws, including: libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, state secrets, non-disclosure agreements, personal private information, and, last but not least: lies. Censorship is required by the GDPR, for example, when dealing with Personally Identifying Information (PII). Because the freedoms to speak publicly can conflict with our own freedoms privately, some kinds of censorship are beneficial to people including you. Commercial speech is specifically exempted from US Freedom of Speech laws. You can spend time getting upset over legal private censorship all you want, but it isn’t a Freedom of Speech issue, and it doesn’t amount to a meaningful moral or principled stand. Our courts have already established through two hundred years or argument and precedent that our principles are that cash corrupts speech and should not be a protected category.