4 ms·

So, “canceling” means continuing to afford the canceled party a platform now? I thought you folks were concerned/concern trolling regarding tech deplatforming p

So, “canceling” means continuing to afford the canceled party a platform now? I thought you folks were concerned/concern trolling regarding tech deplatforming people wholesale, which is something Spotify has pointedly not done here. If HN flags a single comment I made, am I canceled? What do I do, join Gab for this indignity? Write a polemic about how my rights to use someone else’s platform to share thoughts they don’t want to condone is a grave affront to me, because I have a right to inflict myself on you and you must allow me to do so if you operate technology? It’s really painful to see people draw moral and ethical lines over episodes of a guy bullshitting into a microphone being removed. It’d be nice if your ire and indignation were directed at an issue that would objectively improve the world, like exploitation of children, food inequality and starvation, the actual horrors of tech instead of the ones you’ve attached to, or anything but the plight a millionaire making yet more millions to talk out loud.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
uejfiweun 5y ago
I think censorship is morally and ethically wrong, and no amount of left wingers screaming "save the kids" like you is going to change my mind.
- bwartledorp2 5y ago
  - uejfiweun 5y ago
    I think censorship is morally and ethically wrong. I'm center right, I voted for Biden, I don't have a "team". I find it mostly sad and amusing that you think insulting me for defending Rogan will get you anywhere... on a thread about Rogan. Christ almighty. And yes, I'm feeling a bit baited that I even bothered responding to your throwaway troll bullshit.
    - bwartledorp3 5y ago
    - lovich 5y ago
      > I don't have a "team" That’s kind of hard to believe when you brought up “leftists” when no one had discussed political associations
      - uejfiweun 5y ago
        If I'm on a team it's team anti-censorship because I think it's morally and ethically wrong. You can feel free to believe me or not believe me, but by my observations it's really only the far left that is defending this censorship.
        lovich 5y ago
        Alright so this is a tangent from the main conversation, and I want to keep it separate from the censorship talk. I think by definition you can’t define/identify a side, and then place yourself in opposition to them and not be on a team? You may not have been on a team prior to the issue coming up or you might only be on the team temporarily for that issue, but it’s still two sides and you picked one, right?
        uejfiweun 5y ago
        Yeah, that's fair. Certainly in terms of debates about specific issues, picking a side amounts to "joining a team". What I was trying to refer to by "not being on a team" was more along the lines that I am not a Democratic or Republican ideologue or spin doctor, I will vote based on the issues rather than blind adherence to a specific party. I suppose a better phrasing would be that I am on a "side" of the debate but I am not on a specific "team" in terms of national party politics.
      - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
        Not necessarily disagreeing with your sentiment but... One can dispute and critique their own "team". As a matter of fact the inability to self critique is what lead us to this current state of unnecessary tribalism. If I consider myself "left" I should still be able to criticize the "left". The problem is the mob cancels anyone critical so we're now eating ourselves alive and pushing away anyone that does not toe the party line verbatim. That's a great way to send teammates to another team.
- sbuk 5y ago
  Why is censorship a “left wing” thing? Right wing states have been banning books and movies for decades in the name of “thinking of the children”. The cognitive dissonance is startling.
  - uejfiweun 5y ago
    Well, it's the left that pushing to cancel Rogan, no question. I am also certainly opposed to right wing censorship in any forms, but that's not really what is being discussed here. This just seems like whataboutism.
    - sbuk 5y ago
      > This just seems like whataboutism. Much like your original comment, and it doesn’t change that you targeted a political side that you blatantly disagree with. Your statement would be better made without the needless political slant, which as I point out, the other side have done it far more egregiously and in public institutions, such as libraries and schools. To call this ‘censorship’ I believe is wrong: 1. It’s scientifically proven to be false. Misinformation, be it intended or otherwise brings its own moral and ethical issues. 2. Private companies have the right to choose what they publish/sell on their platform. Preventing them from doing so is also a suppression of free speech. 3. Everyone has a right to an opinion, and to voice that opinion. No-one has an inalienable right to have that opinion published, agreed with or disseminated by any platform they choose. If anyone has taken choice away, it’s Rogan. Rogan chose to sell exclusivity to his catalog for a very handsome some. Along with that, he chose to forgo certain rights - one being which podcasts Spotify choose to make available.
calumetregion 5y ago
"It’s really painful to see people draw moral and ethical lines over episodes of a guy bullshitting into a microphone being removed. It’d be nice if your ire and indignation were directed at an issue that would objectively improve the world, like exploitation of children, food inequality and starvation..." The free expression of ideas is more important than what you listed here. And see if you can figure out why it is directly related to said issues.
- RupertHandjob 5y ago
  MSNBC and CNN yelling fake "Russiagate" is harmful too. Nobody is asking them to be cancelled! CNN just hired a guy that made book about fake Saddam Hussein and Al-qaeda connection. CNN and others where saying Irak has WDM. That's proved to be a bold faced lie. Nobody is asking them to be banned in the cancel culture circles. It's weird that one podcast host can be the root of evil, but selling a WAR with fake lies is nothing. EDIT: WAR definitely kills people
inglor_cz 5y ago
Not the OP, but a world in which IT giants do delete speech they don't like might be the same world in which the actual horrors such as starvation, violence or civil wars do not get enough attention because a discreet request from the implicated government is enough to take the incriminating content down. Look, for example, at the way that the Indian government used to strong-arm Twitter into obedience.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

uejfiweun 5y ago

I think censorship is morally and ethically wrong, and no amount of left wingers screaming "save the kids" like you is going to change my mind.

bwartledorp2 5y ago
- uejfiweun 5y ago
  I think censorship is morally and ethically wrong. I'm center right, I voted for Biden, I don't have a "team". I find it mostly sad and amusing that you think insulting me for defending Rogan will get you anywhere... on a thread about Rogan. Christ almighty. And yes, I'm feeling a bit baited that I even bothered responding to your throwaway troll bullshit.
  - bwartledorp3 5y ago
  - lovich 5y ago
    > I don't have a "team" That’s kind of hard to believe when you brought up “leftists” when no one had discussed political associations
    - uejfiweun 5y ago
      If I'm on a team it's team anti-censorship because I think it's morally and ethically wrong. You can feel free to believe me or not believe me, but by my observations it's really only the far left that is defending this censorship.
      - lovich 5y ago
        Alright so this is a tangent from the main conversation, and I want to keep it separate from the censorship talk. I think by definition you can’t define/identify a side, and then place yourself in opposition to them and not be on a team? You may not have been on a team prior to the issue coming up or you might only be on the team temporarily for that issue, but it’s still two sides and you picked one, right?
        uejfiweun 5y ago
        Yeah, that's fair. Certainly in terms of debates about specific issues, picking a side amounts to "joining a team". What I was trying to refer to by "not being on a team" was more along the lines that I am not a Democratic or Republican ideologue or spin doctor, I will vote based on the issues rather than blind adherence to a specific party. I suppose a better phrasing would be that I am on a "side" of the debate but I am not on a specific "team" in terms of national party politics.
    - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
      Not necessarily disagreeing with your sentiment but... One can dispute and critique their own "team". As a matter of fact the inability to self critique is what lead us to this current state of unnecessary tribalism. If I consider myself "left" I should still be able to criticize the "left". The problem is the mob cancels anyone critical so we're now eating ourselves alive and pushing away anyone that does not toe the party line verbatim. That's a great way to send teammates to another team.
sbuk 5y ago
Why is censorship a “left wing” thing? Right wing states have been banning books and movies for decades in the name of “thinking of the children”. The cognitive dissonance is startling.
- uejfiweun 5y ago
  Well, it's the left that pushing to cancel Rogan, no question. I am also certainly opposed to right wing censorship in any forms, but that's not really what is being discussed here. This just seems like whataboutism.
  - sbuk 5y ago
    > This just seems like whataboutism. Much like your original comment, and it doesn’t change that you targeted a political side that you blatantly disagree with. Your statement would be better made without the needless political slant, which as I point out, the other side have done it far more egregiously and in public institutions, such as libraries and schools. To call this ‘censorship’ I believe is wrong: 1. It’s scientifically proven to be false. Misinformation, be it intended or otherwise brings its own moral and ethical issues. 2. Private companies have the right to choose what they publish/sell on their platform. Preventing them from doing so is also a suppression of free speech. 3. Everyone has a right to an opinion, and to voice that opinion. No-one has an inalienable right to have that opinion published, agreed with or disseminated by any platform they choose. If anyone has taken choice away, it’s Rogan. Rogan chose to sell exclusivity to his catalog for a very handsome some. Along with that, he chose to forgo certain rights - one being which podcasts Spotify choose to make available.

calumetregion 5y ago

"It’s really painful to see people draw moral and ethical lines over episodes of a guy bullshitting into a microphone being removed. It’d be nice if your ire and indignation were directed at an issue that would objectively improve the world, like exploitation of children, food inequality and starvation..." The free expression of ideas is more important than what you listed here. And see if you can figure out why it is directly related to said issues.

RupertHandjob 5y ago
MSNBC and CNN yelling fake "Russiagate" is harmful too. Nobody is asking them to be cancelled! CNN just hired a guy that made book about fake Saddam Hussein and Al-qaeda connection. CNN and others where saying Irak has WDM. That's proved to be a bold faced lie. Nobody is asking them to be banned in the cancel culture circles. It's weird that one podcast host can be the root of evil, but selling a WAR with fake lies is nothing. EDIT: WAR definitely kills people

inglor_cz 5y ago

Not the OP, but a world in which IT giants do delete speech they don't like might be the same world in which the actual horrors such as starvation, violence or civil wars do not get enough attention because a discreet request from the implicated government is enough to take the incriminating content down. Look, for example, at the way that the Indian government used to strong-arm Twitter into obedience.