4 ms·

> I don't really understand why anyone who claims to be a proponent of a free market economy has an issue with a private corporation deciding what type of conte

> I don't really understand why anyone who claims to be a proponent of a free market economy has an issue with a private corporation deciding what type of content they want to broadcast. 1. The private corporation “decided” it wanted to broadcast JRE 2. X happened 3. Private corporation decided it didn’t want to broadcast some JRE episodes People are interested to in what X is

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jakelazaroff 5y ago
X is the private corporation forecasting that it would lose too much money if it continued broadcasting those episodes. There’s also a step 0, which is the private corporation predicting it would make a lot of money if it could exclusively broadcast Joe Rogan.
- michael_j_ward 5y ago
  The White House explicitly called on Spotify to take further action against Rogan. Have people not seen this? I don't understand all the meta conversation about free markets when this is cut and dry 1A violation. https://news.yahoo.com/white-house-urges-spotify-further-202312829.html https://news.yahoo.com/white-house-urges-spotify-further-202...
  - ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
    Your hypothesis is that the popular outcry against JR, and the associated potential monetary losses, was not actually the reason Spotify did this. Rather, you believe the action was because the white house said generally that they could do more. Like, that vague statement which didn't even mention episode removal, forced Spotify to do this, not the money. That hypothesis seems unlikely.
    - michael_j_ward 5y ago
      The White House publicly called for the suppression of 1A protected speech, and the company obliged. That the company can draw from other potential motivations to justify that action is irrelevant to 1A.
      - ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
        >The White House publicly called for the suppression of 1A protected speech No, they didn't. This is false. >That the company can draw from other potential motivations to justify that action is irrelevant to 1A. That you don't personally believe the actual reason they did this to be relevant is itself irrelevant.
- Dwelve 5y ago
  So if it's profitable for Youtube and Twitter to push for a war and ban all dissenting voices you wouldn't feel there's a need to discuss whether or not that's a good thing, you'd instead have an argument about whether or not private companies should be able to do that? There are far more interesting issues at hand and if you pretend this is a discussion about the legalities of this behaviour instead of a question about where idiotic self-harming nonsense like this leads our society you're being deliberately obtuse.
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    The difference between this and YouTube/Twitter is that those two aren't paying a hundred million dollars to publish content like that. Anyway, I'm not pretending anything; I'm just answering GP's question.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jakelazaroff 5y ago

X is the private corporation forecasting that it would lose too much money if it continued broadcasting those episodes. There’s also a step 0, which is the private corporation predicting it would make a lot of money if it could exclusively broadcast Joe Rogan.

michael_j_ward 5y ago
The White House explicitly called on Spotify to take further action against Rogan. Have people not seen this? I don't understand all the meta conversation about free markets when this is cut and dry 1A violation. https://news.yahoo.com/white-house-urges-spotify-further-202312829.html https://news.yahoo.com/white-house-urges-spotify-further-202...
- ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
  Your hypothesis is that the popular outcry against JR, and the associated potential monetary losses, was not actually the reason Spotify did this. Rather, you believe the action was because the white house said generally that they could do more. Like, that vague statement which didn't even mention episode removal, forced Spotify to do this, not the money. That hypothesis seems unlikely.
  - michael_j_ward 5y ago
    The White House publicly called for the suppression of 1A protected speech, and the company obliged. That the company can draw from other potential motivations to justify that action is irrelevant to 1A.
    - ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
      >The White House publicly called for the suppression of 1A protected speech No, they didn't. This is false. >That the company can draw from other potential motivations to justify that action is irrelevant to 1A. That you don't personally believe the actual reason they did this to be relevant is itself irrelevant.
Dwelve 5y ago
So if it's profitable for Youtube and Twitter to push for a war and ban all dissenting voices you wouldn't feel there's a need to discuss whether or not that's a good thing, you'd instead have an argument about whether or not private companies should be able to do that? There are far more interesting issues at hand and if you pretend this is a discussion about the legalities of this behaviour instead of a question about where idiotic self-harming nonsense like this leads our society you're being deliberately obtuse.
- jakelazaroff 5y ago
  The difference between this and YouTube/Twitter is that those two aren't paying a hundred million dollars to publish content like that. Anyway, I'm not pretending anything; I'm just answering GP's question.