5 ms·

This is not an attack on free speech, this is free market economics at work. Spotify is free to promote and profit from whomever they please, and other creative

This is not an attack on free speech, this is free market economics at work. Spotify is free to promote and profit from whomever they please, and other creative artists are free to take their work elsewhere. Market demand will determine the outcome. The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law ..."; it says only what the *gov't* can and cannot do

jdkee 5y ago
The White House openly called for private actors to censor speech. See https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/psaki-big-tech-should-censor-more-misinformation-but-we-believe-in-freedom-of-speech https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/psaki-big-tech-should-c...
- vcgnjxfc444 5y ago
- abofh 5y ago
  There is a difference between calling out misinformation and censoring free speech. It's even in the article you posted, biased that it may be. The government is not saying you can't publish misinformation, but that a responsible actor should acknowledge when it's publishing it.
  - nostrebored 5y ago
    Misinformation is a meaningless word. Authorities are wrong all of the time. Misinformation requires belief in a heterodoxy. Heterodoxy is ascientific.
TearsInTheRain 5y ago
You either believe in free speech or you dont. It shouldn't matter who is infringing on it
- aembleton 5y ago
  If you have a blog, can you give me login details to publish whatever I like on there?
  - TearsInTheRain 5y ago
    Spotify directly says that they are not a publisher. Platforms that mute certain voices are censors
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - dreinhardt 5y ago
    Yes of course because I believe in free speech and any form of access control on broadcasting means is CENSORSHIP like in the PRC. /s
  - slimsag 5y ago
    Spotify uses Cloudflare, right? I think Cloudflare should just block the pages. Or maybe we petition those hosting Spotify servers & ISPs to ban the pages. Actually, should spotify be resolvable by any DNS server hosted by a company? Huh, or maybe there is a line to draw in the sand that isn't so strict? Nah /s
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      This argument hinges on whether one believes internet access is a right, and if it is, what form that right takes. Neither is a settled question, though the world community tends to be leaning towards "yes" as the answer to the first and is busying itself with the mucky process of answering the second.
      - dns_snek 5y ago
        UN answered those questions in 2016. https://www.article19.org/data/files/Internet_Statement_Adopted.pdf https://www.article19.org/data/files/Internet_Statement_Adop...
thatjoeoverthr 5y ago
Privatized censorship is censorship. We were discussing censorship. We are not discussing your particular government. This may surprise many Americans but people are not always talking about the US government.
- z3c0 5y ago
  This chain is about "free speech", not censorship, and "free speech" alludes to the first amendment of the US constitution. You're replying to somebody talking about free speech, who was replying to somebody likewise talking about free speech. You seem like you just wanted to condescend some Americans - a very tired trope on this site.
  - thatjoeoverthr 5y ago
    Derailing free speech with US-centric legalisms is a tired trope on all sites.
- magpi3 5y ago
  But if you use the word too liberally, it loses its meaning. Corporations have always editorialized their content. Now that's censorship? Or to put it more simply: would you consider parents who tell their children not to curse or risk punishment censorship? Or how about at school? How about requiring a dress code at a restaurant or school? Is this all censorship? We have to be clear. Corporations editorializing has always been called editorializing, even when they do so at the government's behest, which has happened historically when the government feels publishing something could threaten national security or might create a panic. Or when a journalist is trying to curry favor with a politician. It's only censorship when a government authority figure threatens punishment.
- pschastain 5y ago
  Are TOS censorship?
- Scea91 5y ago
  Even more relevant in this case because Spotify is based in Sweden.
ByteJockey 5y ago
Your argument means that this is not a violation of the first amendment. It's not an argument about free speech. The first amendment and free speech are different things.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
kolanos 5y ago
And when the U.S. Surgeon General calls for Joe Rogan to be censored? [0] [0]: https://www.outkick.com/u-s-surgeon-general-calls-for-big-tech-government-to-censor-joe-rogan-podcast/ https://www.outkick.com/u-s-surgeon-general-calls-for-big-te...
- tsol 5y ago
  It's optional whether it's followed. They're not threatening Spotify, and if Spotify chooses to listen to them it's their choice

jdkee 5y ago

The White House openly called for private actors to censor speech. See https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/psaki-big-tech-should-censor-more-misinformation-but-we-believe-in-freedom-of-speech https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/psaki-big-tech-should-c...

vcgnjxfc444 5y ago
abofh 5y ago
There is a difference between calling out misinformation and censoring free speech. It's even in the article you posted, biased that it may be. The government is not saying you can't publish misinformation, but that a responsible actor should acknowledge when it's publishing it.
- nostrebored 5y ago
  Misinformation is a meaningless word. Authorities are wrong all of the time. Misinformation requires belief in a heterodoxy. Heterodoxy is ascientific.

TearsInTheRain 5y ago

You either believe in free speech or you dont. It shouldn't matter who is infringing on it

aembleton 5y ago
If you have a blog, can you give me login details to publish whatever I like on there?
- TearsInTheRain 5y ago
  Spotify directly says that they are not a publisher. Platforms that mute certain voices are censors
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dreinhardt 5y ago
  Yes of course because I believe in free speech and any form of access control on broadcasting means is CENSORSHIP like in the PRC. /s
- slimsag 5y ago
  Spotify uses Cloudflare, right? I think Cloudflare should just block the pages. Or maybe we petition those hosting Spotify servers & ISPs to ban the pages. Actually, should spotify be resolvable by any DNS server hosted by a company? Huh, or maybe there is a line to draw in the sand that isn't so strict? Nah /s
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    This argument hinges on whether one believes internet access is a right, and if it is, what form that right takes. Neither is a settled question, though the world community tends to be leaning towards "yes" as the answer to the first and is busying itself with the mucky process of answering the second.
    - dns_snek 5y ago
      UN answered those questions in 2016. https://www.article19.org/data/files/Internet_Statement_Adopted.pdf https://www.article19.org/data/files/Internet_Statement_Adop...

thatjoeoverthr 5y ago

Privatized censorship is censorship. We were discussing censorship. We are not discussing your particular government. This may surprise many Americans but people are not always talking about the US government.

z3c0 5y ago
This chain is about "free speech", not censorship, and "free speech" alludes to the first amendment of the US constitution. You're replying to somebody talking about free speech, who was replying to somebody likewise talking about free speech. You seem like you just wanted to condescend some Americans - a very tired trope on this site.
- thatjoeoverthr 5y ago
  Derailing free speech with US-centric legalisms is a tired trope on all sites.
magpi3 5y ago
But if you use the word too liberally, it loses its meaning. Corporations have always editorialized their content. Now that's censorship? Or to put it more simply: would you consider parents who tell their children not to curse or risk punishment censorship? Or how about at school? How about requiring a dress code at a restaurant or school? Is this all censorship? We have to be clear. Corporations editorializing has always been called editorializing, even when they do so at the government's behest, which has happened historically when the government feels publishing something could threaten national security or might create a panic. Or when a journalist is trying to curry favor with a politician. It's only censorship when a government authority figure threatens punishment.
pschastain 5y ago
Are TOS censorship?
Scea91 5y ago
Even more relevant in this case because Spotify is based in Sweden.

ByteJockey 5y ago

Your argument means that this is not a violation of the first amendment. It's not an argument about free speech. The first amendment and free speech are different things.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

kolanos 5y ago

And when the U.S. Surgeon General calls for Joe Rogan to be censored? [0] [0]: https://www.outkick.com/u-s-surgeon-general-calls-for-big-tech-government-to-censor-joe-rogan-podcast/ https://www.outkick.com/u-s-surgeon-general-calls-for-big-te...

tsol 5y ago
It's optional whether it's followed. They're not threatening Spotify, and if Spotify chooses to listen to them it's their choice