5 ms·

I wonder if it's podcasts that need to be more decentralized, or if any platform that distributes and monetizes free content (like FTA TV in the good ol'days) n

I wonder if it's podcasts that need to be more decentralized, or if any platform that distributes and monetizes free content (like FTA TV in the good ol'days) needs some dedicated code of conduct they must abide by - because at the moment it looks like it's a cluster fuck. Like if they're not up to standard, then they must have a paywall. I'm not blaming JRE here, Joe Rogan has an entertainment show and people are free to watch it - or not. I'm blaming Spotify, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, etc, that try to paddle their own view of the world by removing content at will. So if they want to have that approach, go for it, but they must be pay walled. Idk, was just a random thought I had because I'm bored of the whole decentralization subject simply because some corporations abuse their power position built on free distribution of content.

im3w1l 5y ago
Spotify doesn't want to peddle a world view. They are themselves under pressure. Goes to show that if there is a centralized system, then even with the best intentions it leads to repression. They are too dangerous to exist.
threeseed 5y ago
The problems with comments like this is that you assume that your right to be exposed to objectionable content usurps the rights of people who don’t and the company itself. Even though people like you are an insignificant minority. Spotify is not abusing anything. They are simply exercising their freedom to choose what content they want to host and be liable for.
- eertami 5y ago
  Also on a human level, Spotify is not some abstract system - it is a company run by real people that feel the real effects of vaccine misinformation, and would probably rather it not cause any more harm if they can avoid it.
- libertine 5y ago
  >The problems with comments like this is that you assume that your right to be exposed to objectionable content usurps the rights of people who don’t and the company itself. How can someone have a right not to be exposed to something they will have to willfully look for and have actions for such exposure? That's why I say: if the problem is the possibility of exposure (the absurdity), just paywall the damn thing, then no one can "trip over" a 3 hour podcast and sit around to listen to it. >They are simply exercising their freedom to choose what content they want to host and be liable for. Well that content was published and had views/listeners, so at some point in time that content was up to standard. If they are going to be liable for it, they should be liable since the day it was published. That's why I thought of the idea of doing it under a pay wall, so only users that are actively paying for will be subject to that content censorship. Or simply don't publish content until it's vetted and approved. Another idea: have space for contrarian points of views within the video/podcast.
- yucky 5y ago
  This is backwards. If content is available, and you don't want to be exposed to it, then you just don't view/listen to it. If you want the content and it is not available, well then you just can't have it.
hcnews 5y ago
1. Content published on Internet sites like spotify, youtube get millions of viewers within a matter of hours. 2. Many humans aren't smart enough to critically think about all topics. This wasn't a problem in pre-internet era since the radius of influence was quite limited. 3. So, it makes sense for some kind of checks and balances to exist unless ofcourse we want the society to crumble under the idea of pure free speech. 4. As a member of the society, I would want experts to exist who are competent and want to help the people. Similarly I would want people to listen to the experts on their matters of expertise rather than a celebrity who has no incentive to help people. 5. Usually this isn't a problem in a society where people aren't antagonistic but US in this case has a very bad recent history. Note that most countries in the world support sensible speech (i.e. free speech minus hate+mass disinformation speech). PS: This is most likely the minority view on HN but hey not all of us are US citizens bred through 100s of years of 2-sided fights.
- libertine 5y ago
  I think you have it all upside down, and it's a huge mess to make sense of it because it sounds like you want an elite of experts to dictated what circulates in the public sphere. If that's your take, I admit I might have got it wrong, but it would be a recipe for disaster imo. You have public broadcasts that have the objective to inform the people, it's called the "News", with journalists that have an ethics code. Remember journalists are not copywriters, or entertainers, or celebrities - they have a duty and an important role in the society. At least it used to mean something at some point in time. Now, if people are looking to inform themselves on other sources, maybe you should question first if the news are doing a proper job. In a lot of places, I don't think they are, maybe the US is one of them. When you have different news channels that pretty much openly support different political views, you're already splitting up and dividing people. If people are looking for Joe Rogan to be informed, the problem isn't Joe Rogan, or the people who go there to be informed, but the ones who should have been informing people all along and failed to the point of people not caring, or worst, not believing it. It would be easy to label those who don't believe the news as "nuts", which in fact is the common label. When in reality those "nuts" at some point in time were fooled, or misinformed by those organizations - which probably didn't take responsibility for it, and never owned up to their mistakes.

im3w1l 5y ago

Spotify doesn't want to peddle a world view. They are themselves under pressure. Goes to show that if there is a centralized system, then even with the best intentions it leads to repression. They are too dangerous to exist.

threeseed 5y ago

The problems with comments like this is that you assume that your right to be exposed to objectionable content usurps the rights of people who don’t and the company itself. Even though people like you are an insignificant minority. Spotify is not abusing anything. They are simply exercising their freedom to choose what content they want to host and be liable for.

eertami 5y ago
Also on a human level, Spotify is not some abstract system - it is a company run by real people that feel the real effects of vaccine misinformation, and would probably rather it not cause any more harm if they can avoid it.
libertine 5y ago
>The problems with comments like this is that you assume that your right to be exposed to objectionable content usurps the rights of people who don’t and the company itself. How can someone have a right not to be exposed to something they will have to willfully look for and have actions for such exposure? That's why I say: if the problem is the possibility of exposure (the absurdity), just paywall the damn thing, then no one can "trip over" a 3 hour podcast and sit around to listen to it. >They are simply exercising their freedom to choose what content they want to host and be liable for. Well that content was published and had views/listeners, so at some point in time that content was up to standard. If they are going to be liable for it, they should be liable since the day it was published. That's why I thought of the idea of doing it under a pay wall, so only users that are actively paying for will be subject to that content censorship. Or simply don't publish content until it's vetted and approved. Another idea: have space for contrarian points of views within the video/podcast.
yucky 5y ago
This is backwards. If content is available, and you don't want to be exposed to it, then you just don't view/listen to it. If you want the content and it is not available, well then you just can't have it.

hcnews 5y ago

1. Content published on Internet sites like spotify, youtube get millions of viewers within a matter of hours. 2. Many humans aren't smart enough to critically think about all topics. This wasn't a problem in pre-internet era since the radius of influence was quite limited. 3. So, it makes sense for some kind of checks and balances to exist unless ofcourse we want the society to crumble under the idea of pure free speech. 4. As a member of the society, I would want experts to exist who are competent and want to help the people. Similarly I would want people to listen to the experts on their matters of expertise rather than a celebrity who has no incentive to help people. 5. Usually this isn't a problem in a society where people aren't antagonistic but US in this case has a very bad recent history. Note that most countries in the world support sensible speech (i.e. free speech minus hate+mass disinformation speech). PS: This is most likely the minority view on HN but hey not all of us are US citizens bred through 100s of years of 2-sided fights.

libertine 5y ago
I think you have it all upside down, and it's a huge mess to make sense of it because it sounds like you want an elite of experts to dictated what circulates in the public sphere. If that's your take, I admit I might have got it wrong, but it would be a recipe for disaster imo. You have public broadcasts that have the objective to inform the people, it's called the "News", with journalists that have an ethics code. Remember journalists are not copywriters, or entertainers, or celebrities - they have a duty and an important role in the society. At least it used to mean something at some point in time. Now, if people are looking to inform themselves on other sources, maybe you should question first if the news are doing a proper job. In a lot of places, I don't think they are, maybe the US is one of them. When you have different news channels that pretty much openly support different political views, you're already splitting up and dividing people. If people are looking for Joe Rogan to be informed, the problem isn't Joe Rogan, or the people who go there to be informed, but the ones who should have been informing people all along and failed to the point of people not caring, or worst, not believing it. It would be easy to label those who don't believe the news as "nuts", which in fact is the common label. When in reality those "nuts" at some point in time were fooled, or misinformed by those organizations - which probably didn't take responsibility for it, and never owned up to their mistakes.