3 ms·

Yea, I understand your point and I don't think Joe Rogan has been completely "deplatformed". I'm sure it's still possible to find the books after a book burning

Yea, I understand your point and I don't think Joe Rogan has been completely "deplatformed". I'm sure it's still possible to find the books after a book burning, or more, book burning doesn't mute the author so you could find them and reap their content via conversation. My point is that his content is being censored to some degree. In addition, it seems more damaging to only censor some of his content because most people won't even know what they are missing and why. I'm not pulling for Joe Rogan in particular. I used to listen to some of his podcasts when it was on youtube. But, I'm absolutely against this type of corporate censorship by content stewards. Yes, I think every business has and should have the right, but I don't like seeing it and choose to push back wherever I can.

awb 5y ago
> My point is that his content is being censored to some degree. To the degree that's it's no longer called censorship. Just like an author sells the rights of their books to a publisher. The publisher can publish or not, it's their choice. If you don't want to give someone that kind of control, write it into the contract that they give up the rights to anything not published within 1 week of creation for example. But it isn't censorship if you willingly sell the rights to your content and then are retroactively unhappy with their use (or non-use) of it. At that point it's the publisher's decision and it's just called content curation. Rogan got $100M and in exchange he apparently gave up rights. He thought it was a fair deal at the time, maybe he still does. It's just business.
- seandoe 5y ago
  You're missing my point. Call it anything you like. I'm not saying Spotify doesn't have the right to do whatever is in that contract (which I assume is anything they want) with the content. By the same token, that doesn't mean I have to approve of them doing it. I'm a paying customer. They'd probably like to keep receiving my monthly payment. I think they're spineless. I guess for now I'll just complain a bit to the ether and if they start removing content I actually listen to, I'll drop them. Imagine if they started removing hip-hop from their catalog? All that misogynistic, violent, gangsta shit a lot of us listen to. They won't, because currently it isn't in the cross-hairs of the politically woke (I guess it had it's time in the 90's. I'm glad it wasn't completely censored/banned like many politically woke of the time wanted). But we'll see how things play out in the future. The fact that self-claimed liberals can't at least acknowledge the danger of censoring (or whatever the hell you want to call it) content for political reasons is... disappointing.
  - awb 5y ago
    > can't at least acknowledge the danger of censoring (or whatever the hell you want to call it) content for political reasons is... disappointing. Because it’s not. It’s the wrong word for it. If Barnes and Noble decides to stop carrying a book but you can buy it on Amazon, the book isn’t being censored. You are still free to buy it. And you’re free to start your own book shop that sells it. Censorship isn’t the right to not be slightly inconvenienced. Censorship is the total suppression of access to content. Private, non-monopolistic companies are under no obligation to indulge your specific content preferences. And yes, Spotify adds and removes artists and podcasts all the time as they curate their catalog. Also, Rogan sold the rights to his content! If you don’t want to give up control about what is available where, don’t sell it. You can’t sell a painting and then complain about where it’s hung, or not hung. The buyer can burn it if they want. When you sell you give up control. I’m any event I don’t think the right or the left needs to play this game of who can claim they’re being repressed the most. By the time something is actually censored, the rights wouldn’t have been sold and you won’t be able to find it or access it anywhere and then I’ll 100% call it censorship. Until then it’s just a race to be the victim.
    - seandoe 5y ago
      We're talking past each other. I agree with you 100%, irregardless of my point above.

awb 5y ago

> My point is that his content is being censored to some degree. To the degree that's it's no longer called censorship. Just like an author sells the rights of their books to a publisher. The publisher can publish or not, it's their choice. If you don't want to give someone that kind of control, write it into the contract that they give up the rights to anything not published within 1 week of creation for example. But it isn't censorship if you willingly sell the rights to your content and then are retroactively unhappy with their use (or non-use) of it. At that point it's the publisher's decision and it's just called content curation. Rogan got $100M and in exchange he apparently gave up rights. He thought it was a fair deal at the time, maybe he still does. It's just business.

seandoe 5y ago
You're missing my point. Call it anything you like. I'm not saying Spotify doesn't have the right to do whatever is in that contract (which I assume is anything they want) with the content. By the same token, that doesn't mean I have to approve of them doing it. I'm a paying customer. They'd probably like to keep receiving my monthly payment. I think they're spineless. I guess for now I'll just complain a bit to the ether and if they start removing content I actually listen to, I'll drop them. Imagine if they started removing hip-hop from their catalog? All that misogynistic, violent, gangsta shit a lot of us listen to. They won't, because currently it isn't in the cross-hairs of the politically woke (I guess it had it's time in the 90's. I'm glad it wasn't completely censored/banned like many politically woke of the time wanted). But we'll see how things play out in the future. The fact that self-claimed liberals can't at least acknowledge the danger of censoring (or whatever the hell you want to call it) content for political reasons is... disappointing.
- awb 5y ago
  > can't at least acknowledge the danger of censoring (or whatever the hell you want to call it) content for political reasons is... disappointing. Because it’s not. It’s the wrong word for it. If Barnes and Noble decides to stop carrying a book but you can buy it on Amazon, the book isn’t being censored. You are still free to buy it. And you’re free to start your own book shop that sells it. Censorship isn’t the right to not be slightly inconvenienced. Censorship is the total suppression of access to content. Private, non-monopolistic companies are under no obligation to indulge your specific content preferences. And yes, Spotify adds and removes artists and podcasts all the time as they curate their catalog. Also, Rogan sold the rights to his content! If you don’t want to give up control about what is available where, don’t sell it. You can’t sell a painting and then complain about where it’s hung, or not hung. The buyer can burn it if they want. When you sell you give up control. I’m any event I don’t think the right or the left needs to play this game of who can claim they’re being repressed the most. By the time something is actually censored, the rights wouldn’t have been sold and you won’t be able to find it or access it anywhere and then I’ll 100% call it censorship. Until then it’s just a race to be the victim.
  - seandoe 5y ago
    We're talking past each other. I agree with you 100%, irregardless of my point above.