18 ms·

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 com

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.

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.