> 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

> 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.