5 ms·

More insidious than the removal, is how Spotify conceals it. We shouldn't need a 3rd party website - the episode titles should remain in the list, among those n

More insidious than the removal, is how Spotify conceals it. We shouldn't need a 3rd party website - the episode titles should remain in the list, among those not removed, but tagged with a big red CENSORED, along with a specific reason for the removal. If they want to censor, fine - but don't lie by omission about it.

polack 5y ago
Probably because most people actually don't give a shit and that it would be really user hostile to list a lot of content that actually don't exist (on the platform). If you cant play it then don't bloat up the GUI with it, it's as simple as that.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
culi 5y ago
What other platform does something like this? The closest thing I could think of is how Google will have a message at the bottom warning that some results were removed due to DMCA violations
kgarten 5y ago
Nobody is censored here ... Spotify decided that they don't want to distribute them anymore. Rogan can say what he wants. Even the missing episodes are still on archive.org and other places. Is a movie/show season is no longer listed on Netflix because of some rights issues also censoring in your opinion? There are some albums not visible in some countries on Spotify. For the longest time, i could not listen to the metal versions of Ghibli songs in Japan (they are offline, online several times already, potentially due to rights issues): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXB35-cYVMU&list=PLmsGXAySkDRzkBHww4tUIcwHodSEFzpED https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXB35-cYVMU&list=PLmsGXAySkD... My spotify playlist was suddenly empty /filled again. Is that censorship? As a result, I payed for the albums and canceled my spotify account. Edit: clarity + totoro example
- jevoten 5y ago
  There is no sharp line between censorship, curation, and mere omission for unrelated reasons (e.g. limited shelf space, or unawareness by the curator that a work even exists). But this example falls close enough to the censorship side that it can be called as such. Because if this doesn't qualify, then it would take a literal government ban to count as censorship, which is a uselessly narrow criterion in our corporate-dominated society. Edit: To elaborate: To suppress a work, government censorship is simply not necessary. If Amazon refuses to list it, Youtube removes it and Google downranks it, Spotify and Netflix drop it, or Twitter or Facebook ban it, then it'll reach 1% or less of its audience than if it were treated generically (ironically this doesn't apply so much to Joe Rogan, since he already has an established audience. But it does for less known creators). Notice I've only listed 6 companies.
  - niemandhier 5y ago
    I agree, but I would limit this reasoning to co,panties that essentially are infrastructure although policy makers refuse to treat them as such ( Google etc). Spotify imho is not in this category.
  - piva00 5y ago
    It's always been like for platforms before the internet, no? I couldn't just publish whatever I wanted in print, there was always curation and editing. I couldn't spread whatever words I wanted on NYT, I'd have to write and publish on my own, people are still allowed that, there's no right to use media vehicles to project your voice.
    - jevoten 5y ago
      You are correct that nothing illegal happened, no legal rights were violated (except possibly Rogan's contract, which is irrelevant to a discussion about principles). You may even be correct that it has always been like this - yes, media are far more consolidated than in the past*, but new entrants to the media landscape (Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc..), while even more consolidated, don't control their platforms as strictly as traditional media, so it's hard to judge if dissenting speech is more or less suppressed than in the past. But that doesn't make it not censorship, or morally justify concealing it. *In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called "alarmist" for pointing this out [..] In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth. - https://www.corporations.org/media/ https://www.corporations.org/media/
qqq111 5y ago
montag 5y ago
Yeah, definitely a user-hostile experience. You can see this dark pattern everywhere. Amazon hides items that are out of stock by default, which is especially annoying if you attempt grocery shopping on Amazon Fresh. If I can boil it down to a UX maxim, it would go something like, "The absence of a positive is no substitute for a negative".

polack 5y ago

Probably because most people actually don't give a shit and that it would be really user hostile to list a lot of content that actually don't exist (on the platform). If you cant play it then don't bloat up the GUI with it, it's as simple as that.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

culi 5y ago

What other platform does something like this? The closest thing I could think of is how Google will have a message at the bottom warning that some results were removed due to DMCA violations

kgarten 5y ago

Nobody is censored here ... Spotify decided that they don't want to distribute them anymore. Rogan can say what he wants. Even the missing episodes are still on archive.org and other places. Is a movie/show season is no longer listed on Netflix because of some rights issues also censoring in your opinion? There are some albums not visible in some countries on Spotify. For the longest time, i could not listen to the metal versions of Ghibli songs in Japan (they are offline, online several times already, potentially due to rights issues): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXB35-cYVMU&list=PLmsGXAySkDRzkBHww4tUIcwHodSEFzpED https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXB35-cYVMU&list=PLmsGXAySkD... My spotify playlist was suddenly empty /filled again. Is that censorship? As a result, I payed for the albums and canceled my spotify account. Edit: clarity + totoro example

jevoten 5y ago
There is no sharp line between censorship, curation, and mere omission for unrelated reasons (e.g. limited shelf space, or unawareness by the curator that a work even exists). But this example falls close enough to the censorship side that it can be called as such. Because if this doesn't qualify, then it would take a literal government ban to count as censorship, which is a uselessly narrow criterion in our corporate-dominated society. Edit: To elaborate: To suppress a work, government censorship is simply not necessary. If Amazon refuses to list it, Youtube removes it and Google downranks it, Spotify and Netflix drop it, or Twitter or Facebook ban it, then it'll reach 1% or less of its audience than if it were treated generically (ironically this doesn't apply so much to Joe Rogan, since he already has an established audience. But it does for less known creators). Notice I've only listed 6 companies.
- niemandhier 5y ago
  I agree, but I would limit this reasoning to co,panties that essentially are infrastructure although policy makers refuse to treat them as such ( Google etc). Spotify imho is not in this category.
- piva00 5y ago
  It's always been like for platforms before the internet, no? I couldn't just publish whatever I wanted in print, there was always curation and editing. I couldn't spread whatever words I wanted on NYT, I'd have to write and publish on my own, people are still allowed that, there's no right to use media vehicles to project your voice.
  - jevoten 5y ago
    You are correct that nothing illegal happened, no legal rights were violated (except possibly Rogan's contract, which is irrelevant to a discussion about principles). You may even be correct that it has always been like this - yes, media are far more consolidated than in the past*, but new entrants to the media landscape (Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc..), while even more consolidated, don't control their platforms as strictly as traditional media, so it's hard to judge if dissenting speech is more or less suppressed than in the past. But that doesn't make it not censorship, or morally justify concealing it. *In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called "alarmist" for pointing this out [..] In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth. - https://www.corporations.org/media/ https://www.corporations.org/media/

qqq111 5y ago

montag 5y ago

Yeah, definitely a user-hostile experience. You can see this dark pattern everywhere. Amazon hides items that are out of stock by default, which is especially annoying if you attempt grocery shopping on Amazon Fresh. If I can boil it down to a UX maxim, it would go something like, "The absence of a positive is no substitute for a negative".