4 ms·

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-

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.
  - simonh 5y ago
    What utter piffle. Elected politicians and appointees complain about things in the press every single day, and have done for the entire history of democracy. That is not censorship, or attempted censorship, or anything remotely adjacent to it.
- camelite 5y ago
  What if the political appointee publicly states they would like Spotify to censor Joe Rogan? Perhaps 'the government' is simply too ineffably abstract an entity to attach to any individual actor commonly regarded as comprising it.
drunkpotato 5y ago
The government didn't ask Spotify to censor Joe Rogan. The surgeon general didn't ask Spotify to censor Joe Rogan. Not even the extremely uncharitable, biased take in that trash you linked to goes so far as to claim that. If the government had made a law making it illegal for Spotify to carry Joe Rogan, that would have been censorship. None of the conditions were even close. Spotify is a private institution, and has the option of carrying content, or not, at their editorial discretion. You can disagree with their choice, and if you do, the proper redress is to put pressure on Spotify, not to claim it's government censorship, which it's not.

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.
- simonh 5y ago
  What utter piffle. Elected politicians and appointees complain about things in the press every single day, and have done for the entire history of democracy. That is not censorship, or attempted censorship, or anything remotely adjacent to it.
camelite 5y ago
What if the political appointee publicly states they would like Spotify to censor Joe Rogan? Perhaps 'the government' is simply too ineffably abstract an entity to attach to any individual actor commonly regarded as comprising it.

drunkpotato 5y ago

The government didn't ask Spotify to censor Joe Rogan. The surgeon general didn't ask Spotify to censor Joe Rogan. Not even the extremely uncharitable, biased take in that trash you linked to goes so far as to claim that. If the government had made a law making it illegal for Spotify to carry Joe Rogan, that would have been censorship. None of the conditions were even close. Spotify is a private institution, and has the option of carrying content, or not, at their editorial discretion. You can disagree with their choice, and if you do, the proper redress is to put pressure on Spotify, not to claim it's government censorship, which it's not.