7 ms·

> Information overload forces you to do selection. And that's not "censorship". If you, a consumer, are making the decision then it's not censorship. If some c

by slibhb 5y ago

> Information overload forces you to do selection. And that's not "censorship". If you, a consumer, are making the decision then it's not censorship. If some company, government, organization, school, etc is making the decision then it is censorship. Sometimes, perhaps, censorship is called for. And censorship is only illegal if the government is involved. But in general, legal or not, censorship is bad. People should be allowed to say what they think and whether they have a platform should be decided by whether other people want to listen. What disturbs me about the Joe Rogan situation is that Rogan is not an alt-right deplorable. He's not scary or mean, he exudes youthful exuberance and curiosity. He's thoughtful, un-ideological and he's a good conversationalist. The attempt to brand him as a deplorable is genuinely creepy. As far as the article goes, I don't think we're close to any dystopia. These are growing pains as the media opens up. I'm optimistic.

LightG 5y ago
So, you're saying that if I, as the CEO of a private company choose, for example, to host certainn people or certain products on my platform, it's censorship? Strongly disagree. At the government level, I might agree - but not with private companies.
- _ea1k 5y ago
  If those choices are made purely because some popular opinions are popular but outside the overton window of your particular political party, then there's a problem.
- slibhb 5y ago
  Whether it's a government or private company has no bearing on whether it's censorship. It has bearing on whether the censorship is illegal. In other words, private companies are allowed to censor but that doesn't magically make it something other than censorship.
  - alxjrvs 5y ago
    no, but it does materially differ from censorship of a state. No one is making Joe Rogan illegal. They are mad Spotify is paying for his nonsense. If Spotify stopped paying him, nothing would materially change for his listeners. Unless Spotify went so far as to ban his Libsyn from their systems, they'd still be able to listen, for free, on Spotify. Even if they did that weird action, people would be able to listen from any number of podcatchers. It's meaningless.
    - darebak 5y ago
      Until private companies decide to remove some individual from payment processing services, and private cloud providers stopped hosting their content and so on. When nearly everything is private, so is censorship.
      - awb 5y ago
        That’s a slippery slope argument. We also break up monopolies, so no one company can control the fate of their consumers, partners, contractors, etc. I’m sure you’ve seen the signs at local shops saying they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. It’s an inconvenience if you get kicked out but you don’t have a right to the provider of your choosing in the US unless you were denied solely based on your status in a “protected class” (race, gender, over 65, etc.). It’s the free market at work and if it’s not working other solutions will pop up if there’s enough demand.
        darebak 5y ago
        But didn't this slope actually become slippery with that platform (I forgot the name) that was used by the January 6th participants?
        awb 5y ago
        Parler? Yeah they had a single hosting provider (AWS) and were in two app stores (Apple & Android). I believe the app could still be installed directly on phones through downloading, just not through the app stores. And they had to find a new hosting provider: https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/1/19/bb-parler-moves-to-hosting-service-owned-by-russians-after-ban https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/1/19/bb-parler-moves-... So yeah, they (and their users) were inconvenienced, but they agreed to the terms and conditions of these providers. It's kind of like if you have a restaurant and you violate the terms of your lease (or your lease has no guarantee of future occupancy). The landlord can kick you out, and it'll be a huge inconvenience to move. I think the lesson is that if you want to do something a little edgy, self-host or find an off-shore host with terms and conditions you're comfortable with. Or, if this keep happening enough, new hosting companies will start up that have fewer terms and conditions. But the big providers are going to be the most strict and care the least about your unique situation and your infinitesimal contribution to their bottom line.
cma 5y ago
The web is mostly unusable without censoring spam.
- kordlessagain 5y ago
  And Joe Rohan isn’t a book, or a library. He’s a personality, a bit like an animated gif.
Kye 5y ago
Joe Rogan's perception troubles come from having little in the way of standards. He'll have on Penn Jillette one day, then someone who thinks Penn Jillette is a self-censoring, goose-stepping, party line fascist for making his podcast intro nonbinary-inclusive. It's ideological whiplash to someone who observes through an ideological lens. If you want to really 100% understand where someone you don't otherwise like or agree with is coming from, then three or more unedited hours of that person essentially talking without interruption is a great service. Personally, I haven't found that useful. The summary usually matches the expansion. Tim Pool (for example) made a good point or two that time he was on with the Twitter people, but it didn't meaningfully change what I think of him.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ProofByAccident 5y ago
>If you, a consumer, are making the decision then it's not censorship. If some company, government, organization, school, etc is making the decision then it is censorship. That seems too strong, what about curation or editorial discretion? The NYT deciding not to publish my op-ed screed about the lizard people isn't censorship, it's just how you run a good news agency.
awb 5y ago
Ok, at some point we’re the boy who cried wolf with shouting “Censorship!” at everything. > Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship “Suppress” is different from “restrict”. Suppression is “ to end or stop (something) by force” or “ to keep (something) secret : to not allow people to know about or see (something)” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suppress https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suppress Please, let’s use “censorship” as the word was intended: to mean the total restriction of content. That’s why it’s usually governments who do it. Private companies can typically only do it if they have the exclusive rights to something and refuse to publish it. If someone is dropped from a platform, they’ve been de-platformed but by no definition of the word have they been censored. In order for Spotify to actually “censor” Rogan they would have to not publish his content while also not allowing it to be distributed in any form, anywhere else, ever. Presumably either party could cancel the contract and then Rogan would have numerous other platforms to publish on. So in some sense Rogan is self-censoring at best if he continues to honor his Spotify contract. Also, his podcast is only 1 medium. He could presumably still publish short form video/audio content outside of Spotify, or publish a book without their consent with any content of his choosing. Censorship by the definition of the word would mean banning content across all mediums, which Spotify does not have the authority to do. In any event, if he really wants to share information with the public Spotify alone cannot censor him and prevent him from doing that. All they can do is restrict access to his podcast. In this scenario, I think “restrict” or “inhibit” are more accurate and less provocative descriptions of what could happen.
- skissane 5y ago
  > Please, let’s use “censorship” as the word was intended: to mean the total restriction of content. In a faraway land, a new law has just been enacted: all public criticism of the government is now a crime. However, the law contains an exception – it will not apply in designated Official Government Criticism Zones, which will be established in convenient locations throughout the country. Would you say that, since government-critical content is not being totally restricted – it will remain legally permitted in government-designated locations – it isn't being censored?
carapace 5y ago
I was a fan of Joe Rogan going back to News Radio. The thing that turned me off him was seeing a clip where he's hanging out with this other comedian (I forget the guy's name) who is boasting about how he used to deny female comedians stage time at a comedy club he managed unless they gave him a blowjob. Rogan's laughing at this in the clip. That's "genuinely creepy" in my view.
- slibhb 5y ago
  I wouldn't say I'm a fan, frankly I do not understand how people can sit through 3 hour interviews. He's just clearly a nice guy who means well, he's not dangerous or extreme, and his vibe is very anti-establishment.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- darebak 5y ago
  That's a bit, it didn't actually happen, like most bits that comedians perform.
  - carapace 5y ago
    I'd love to believe that, I'd be glad to find out I was mistaken. Do you have a link to, like, a video of Joe Rogan or Joey Diaz (I looked it up) saying that it was a bit? The search results I'm getting are all media outrage pieces.

by slibhb 5y ago

LightG 5y ago

So, you're saying that if I, as the CEO of a private company choose, for example, to host certainn people or certain products on my platform, it's censorship? Strongly disagree. At the government level, I might agree - but not with private companies.

_ea1k 5y ago
If those choices are made purely because some popular opinions are popular but outside the overton window of your particular political party, then there's a problem.
slibhb 5y ago
Whether it's a government or private company has no bearing on whether it's censorship. It has bearing on whether the censorship is illegal. In other words, private companies are allowed to censor but that doesn't magically make it something other than censorship.
- alxjrvs 5y ago
  no, but it does materially differ from censorship of a state. No one is making Joe Rogan illegal. They are mad Spotify is paying for his nonsense. If Spotify stopped paying him, nothing would materially change for his listeners. Unless Spotify went so far as to ban his Libsyn from their systems, they'd still be able to listen, for free, on Spotify. Even if they did that weird action, people would be able to listen from any number of podcatchers. It's meaningless.
  - darebak 5y ago
    Until private companies decide to remove some individual from payment processing services, and private cloud providers stopped hosting their content and so on. When nearly everything is private, so is censorship.
    - awb 5y ago
      That’s a slippery slope argument. We also break up monopolies, so no one company can control the fate of their consumers, partners, contractors, etc. I’m sure you’ve seen the signs at local shops saying they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. It’s an inconvenience if you get kicked out but you don’t have a right to the provider of your choosing in the US unless you were denied solely based on your status in a “protected class” (race, gender, over 65, etc.). It’s the free market at work and if it’s not working other solutions will pop up if there’s enough demand.
      - darebak 5y ago
        But didn't this slope actually become slippery with that platform (I forgot the name) that was used by the January 6th participants?
        awb 5y ago
        Parler? Yeah they had a single hosting provider (AWS) and were in two app stores (Apple & Android). I believe the app could still be installed directly on phones through downloading, just not through the app stores. And they had to find a new hosting provider: https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/1/19/bb-parler-moves-to-hosting-service-owned-by-russians-after-ban https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/1/19/bb-parler-moves-... So yeah, they (and their users) were inconvenienced, but they agreed to the terms and conditions of these providers. It's kind of like if you have a restaurant and you violate the terms of your lease (or your lease has no guarantee of future occupancy). The landlord can kick you out, and it'll be a huge inconvenience to move. I think the lesson is that if you want to do something a little edgy, self-host or find an off-shore host with terms and conditions you're comfortable with. Or, if this keep happening enough, new hosting companies will start up that have fewer terms and conditions. But the big providers are going to be the most strict and care the least about your unique situation and your infinitesimal contribution to their bottom line.

cma 5y ago

The web is mostly unusable without censoring spam.

kordlessagain 5y ago
And Joe Rohan isn’t a book, or a library. He’s a personality, a bit like an animated gif.

Kye 5y ago

Joe Rogan's perception troubles come from having little in the way of standards. He'll have on Penn Jillette one day, then someone who thinks Penn Jillette is a self-censoring, goose-stepping, party line fascist for making his podcast intro nonbinary-inclusive. It's ideological whiplash to someone who observes through an ideological lens. If you want to really 100% understand where someone you don't otherwise like or agree with is coming from, then three or more unedited hours of that person essentially talking without interruption is a great service. Personally, I haven't found that useful. The summary usually matches the expansion. Tim Pool (for example) made a good point or two that time he was on with the Twitter people, but it didn't meaningfully change what I think of him.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ProofByAccident 5y ago

>If you, a consumer, are making the decision then it's not censorship. If some company, government, organization, school, etc is making the decision then it is censorship. That seems too strong, what about curation or editorial discretion? The NYT deciding not to publish my op-ed screed about the lizard people isn't censorship, it's just how you run a good news agency.

awb 5y ago

Ok, at some point we’re the boy who cried wolf with shouting “Censorship!” at everything. > Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship “Suppress” is different from “restrict”. Suppression is “ to end or stop (something) by force” or “ to keep (something) secret : to not allow people to know about or see (something)” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suppress https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suppress Please, let’s use “censorship” as the word was intended: to mean the total restriction of content. That’s why it’s usually governments who do it. Private companies can typically only do it if they have the exclusive rights to something and refuse to publish it. If someone is dropped from a platform, they’ve been de-platformed but by no definition of the word have they been censored. In order for Spotify to actually “censor” Rogan they would have to not publish his content while also not allowing it to be distributed in any form, anywhere else, ever. Presumably either party could cancel the contract and then Rogan would have numerous other platforms to publish on. So in some sense Rogan is self-censoring at best if he continues to honor his Spotify contract. Also, his podcast is only 1 medium. He could presumably still publish short form video/audio content outside of Spotify, or publish a book without their consent with any content of his choosing. Censorship by the definition of the word would mean banning content across all mediums, which Spotify does not have the authority to do. In any event, if he really wants to share information with the public Spotify alone cannot censor him and prevent him from doing that. All they can do is restrict access to his podcast. In this scenario, I think “restrict” or “inhibit” are more accurate and less provocative descriptions of what could happen.

skissane 5y ago
> Please, let’s use “censorship” as the word was intended: to mean the total restriction of content. In a faraway land, a new law has just been enacted: all public criticism of the government is now a crime. However, the law contains an exception – it will not apply in designated Official Government Criticism Zones, which will be established in convenient locations throughout the country. Would you say that, since government-critical content is not being totally restricted – it will remain legally permitted in government-designated locations – it isn't being censored?

carapace 5y ago

I was a fan of Joe Rogan going back to News Radio. The thing that turned me off him was seeing a clip where he's hanging out with this other comedian (I forget the guy's name) who is boasting about how he used to deny female comedians stage time at a comedy club he managed unless they gave him a blowjob. Rogan's laughing at this in the clip. That's "genuinely creepy" in my view.

slibhb 5y ago
I wouldn't say I'm a fan, frankly I do not understand how people can sit through 3 hour interviews. He's just clearly a nice guy who means well, he's not dangerous or extreme, and his vibe is very anti-establishment.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
darebak 5y ago
That's a bit, it didn't actually happen, like most bits that comedians perform.
- carapace 5y ago
  I'd love to believe that, I'd be glad to find out I was mistaken. Do you have a link to, like, a video of Joe Rogan or Joey Diaz (I looked it up) saying that it was a bit? The search results I'm getting are all media outrage pieces.