> This argument is so tired. You’re saying they have the right to censor, so say it
I think it's just a strange choice of word. Joe Rogan has the right to publish his podcasts uncensored. So he's not really being censored in the "free speech" sense. He still has the freedom to put his content uncensored on the internet for all to listen too if they choose.
Spotify has the right to choose what they publish or don't publish.
I think talking about censorship and free speech seems beyond the point to me, since I don't see any of those rights being taken away. And since I don't see the premise being true, I can't really take seriously the argument.
Instead, if you're just against the people who are saying that Joe Rogan is misleading and being harmful to society, and that by promoting and publishing his content, Spotify is also doing similar harm and thus they choose to boycott the companies products then discuss that. If you think people are making a baseless fuss about the harmful effects of his podcast on society and the efforts to fight COVID then bring that up instead.
> The counter argument is that censorship is bad in all its forms. It’s one I and many others support
I just want to point out that's not a counter-argument, that's a conclusion, and the argument for it is missing. If you want to make a point to the conclusion you need to explain the premise that you use to arrive there.
I don't really agree with the "all censorship is bad" argument either. The counterarguments are too obvious - every viable community on the internet has a moderator team or equivalent. And it isn't really a question of whether this can be done. Spotify have done it and nobody is pointing to a broken law. There isn't anything interesting here legally or technically speaking (and that is proper - Spotify should control what is accessible on Spotify).
The problem here is Spotify are screwing up their editorial responsibilities. Joe Rogan has reached the sort of critical mass where he gets to decide what is in the public's interest to talk about. These faceless censors at Spotify aren't qualified to do that, or qualified to decide what is and isn't misinformation. They are acting foolishly outside their wheelhouse of creating platforms. They are screwing up by taking down interesting and entertaining content, making decisions that is going to get a very large audience upset with them.
They pay Rogan because he is better at this sort of decision than they are. This is a poor follow up.
I agree that many outlets are screwing up their editorial policies, and Spotify definitely doesn't seem to be putting any effort into that regard. But I think Joe Rogan also screwed up his editorial responsibilities to some extent. He said it himself, that he doesn't research the topics beforehand, he just begins thinking about things on the spot as the interview unfolds and that he doesn't present the opposite views or make clear what level of disagreement the topic has.
He seems to have higher standards than conventional news. It is reliatively rare to see Rogan asserting something that he has to know is false (apart from the obvious things like those long-form ads at the start of the podcast).
Going straight to politics, which is what really upsets people about Rogan, the standard here is people who spent multiple years of sustained campaigning confidently speculating that the US president is in league with the Russians. Or people before that who spent years onfidently speculating that the president was a Muslim trying to institute the Sharia in Texas or something crazy like that. I don't really remember the sillyness that far back in the Obama years. Joe Rogan at least has credentialed guests and lets them talk off-narritive. In that CNN horse-paste interview he had a CNN guy on who could have challenged him back or defended the position.
Rogan has much, much higher standards than what has traditionally been done for politics. He's probably doing better than traditional news reporting in other areas too.
Agreed. I see this as a result of Spotify avoiding risks:
1. to not lose as many customers as possible who are outraged with Rogan — maybe they did the math based on advertising profiling.
2. to not lose Joe Rogan, one of the most popular shows they have, and thus, customers/users.
3. to not spark further outrage from other popular artists who might leave.
4. to protect their name and brand.
5. to avoid being removed from the Apple App Store when Apple eventually lays the ban hammer down because "their app is spreading misinfo", just like the Alex Jones debacle that empowered Apple to assess app availability based on their political whims and agreement (abhorrent by the way). This goes for other platforms.
6. to avoid banks who manage their funds from canceling them for supporting a show, person, or stance the bank disagrees with.
We are truly in an ugly mess of global political wars where even the slightest wrong move in speech/expression will completely ruin a company or person's ability to survive—well, maybe survival isn't the issue, but undue harm is.
This is especially on the Left, who are too ready and willing to spark that ruin, viewing legal systems and power only as a tool to control their opposition, who has valid stances on myriad topics. On the Right, they complain a lot, but at least they aren't using any means necessary to actively change the fundamental course of people's lives, livelihood, and futures due to what boils down to a political disagreement in the realm of speech/expression.
We can't pretend that science is inherently fact just because it leads to forming facts later, when it has always been described as a a fallible process of discovery, leading to theories, which are either supported by evidence or amply refuted.
In this case, the doctors Rogan hosted, along with 100k+ other doctors globally have refuted the mainstream claims around vaccines and the handling of treatment — enough to require panels of discussion and enormous scrutiny towards the likes of Fauci and others who are claiming to "be science," in nothing other than pure dripping hubris and condescension towards anyone who dares to question them.
This is one problem we should be addressing, in addition to the censor-or-fail mentality affecting nearly every publishing platform.
> This is especially on the Left, who are too ready and willing to spark that ruin, viewing legal systems and power only as a tool to control their opposition, who has valid stances on myriad topics. On the Right, they complain a lot, but at least they aren't using any means necessary to actively change the fundamental course of people's lives
If you look politically, it is just as true, and historically much more so I feel from the American right, which has normally had the church and the puritans on its side, and has always fought to get sex, LGBTQ, minorities, and even science removed from popular channels of discourse.
Also, as someone who follows the science, I'm not seeing 100k+ researchers with published data refuting the science. Doctors are not all scientist. Most practitioners have their own belief system, often from their own daily biases. And in the medical science community, it turns out, those things are being investigated, but are still far from being unambiguous and evidence backed. The policy makers are taking risks one way or another, because they're having to make decisions with limited scientific analysis, data, and experiments.
When you think of scientific consensus, what do you think it means? It is a confidence score in the current state of data and experiment. It is an assessment of given what we know today, what is most likely true. You can take bets against it, because it is probabilities and not certainties, science is always probabilistic unlike religion. But if you're a policy maker, taking a bet against the current odds seem like a gamble you shouldn't be making.
Thus from my stance, this is all political, and science is doing the right thing, and most policy makers that follows scientific consensus are just playing it safe with the odds.
The people who are trying to discredit science and the consensus are taking political bets, they want to discredit things to gain power, in the off chance the consensus is wrong, they win big politically, in the many more likely odds they'd be wrong, most people won't notice and it won't make the news.
The effect of it all though, from my point of view, is actually that it is used once again by the right as a way to convince people science is wrong all along. Which goes back to my initial take, historically, the right has always tried to silence science, and this to me is just another attempt at discrediting its processes and misrepresenting it's propositions and stance. It's trying to get people to instead believe that the political leaders and key scientists that have become agent of politics are more trustworthy than science itself, and that they now should listen to them exclusively for the real truth.
That... doesn't make sense. They can choose to publish or not publish whatever they want in their paper. The top people at a newspaper are literally called editors, and they routinely make decisions about what goes in and what does not.
Happens all the time. Like, IIRC The Spectator (a hard-right wing publication) taking down a fawning article about Greece’s far-right Golden Dawn by Taki. Maybe I misremembered the specific piece, but I can’t find hide nor hair of it on the Spectator website, despite plenty of (broken) links to it from commentators.
It's not censorship, it's just a publication strategy. It's editorialising content they bought and paid for, whether they publish their own property or not is up to them.
The government didn't ask Spotify to censor Joe Rogan. The surgeon general didn't ask Spotify to censor Joe Rogan. Not even the extremely uncharitable, biased take in that trash you linked to goes so far as to claim that.
If the government had made a law making it illegal for Spotify to carry Joe Rogan, that would have been censorship. None of the conditions were even close.
Spotify is a private institution, and has the option of carrying content, or not, at their editorial discretion. You can disagree with their choice, and if you do, the proper redress is to put pressure on Spotify, not to claim it's government censorship, which it's not.
It has that effect though. It comes from an official position that represents the views of an elected leader, and by extension, has the weight of it being a mandate or statement with enough public attention to see or expect change.
While it may not be in legal terms, many see it as an opportunity to greenlight the bypassing of legal/legislative procedures, especially by those who consider the current administration(s) political allies.
As an example, Jen Psaki has stated in the past that they are working with social media to "handle disinformation", and the likes of wokie Zuckerberg wouldn't hesitate to operate outside of Congress or courts to satisfy the whims of his masters.
What utter piffle. Elected politicians and appointees complain about things in the press every single day, and have done for the entire history of democracy. That is not censorship, or attempted censorship, or anything remotely adjacent to it.
What if the political appointee publicly states they would like Spotify to censor Joe Rogan? Perhaps 'the government' is simply too ineffably abstract an entity to attach to any individual actor commonly regarded as comprising it.
The government didn't ask Spotify, the surgeon General suggested Spotify should do take it down on MSNBC. Totally different, and if they want to take the governments suggestion that isn't government enforced censorship even if it leaves a bad taste in your mouth
The Surgeon General isn't a position elected by the People, and to have them making strong suggestions (or threats) around speech that is regarded as highly controversial (i.e. both opposing sides are large and have valid stances) is repulsive, when behind the scenes _and_ publicly there is legal and monetary coercion happening to put the likes of Spotify in jeopardy if they don't bend to a single political narrative.
So if the government can force spotify to publish all opinions, why should they not be able to force you to do the same on your blog?
In the status quo private people and companies are allowed to not accept contributions on their websites. This is not censorship, this is their right as runners of a plattform. Joe rogan can always go and create his own if he finds that no one wants to publish him.
I don't see how enabling the government to force people to publish speech they don't want to say isn't 100% worse than what we have now. It reminds me of stories from the soviet union.
If the government has tried to "force" Spotify to take down or produce content, then the government is in the wrong and Spotify is spineless for not fighting back. We have the Constitution for a reason in the U.S. The government would not have a leg to stand on.
But that's not what happened. Spotify is taking down content for financial reasons. They don't like the heat they are getting from the press, musicians, and yes maybe perhaps the government. And companies have always made editorial decisions for financial reasons.
Indeed. And this happened after a very specific carve-out to understood freedom of association law via the Civil Rights Act. And with good reason! But it was controversial then and in some circles it still is. The CRA curtailed the freedoms of many to give greater freedom to all in the form of equal treatment regardless of [insert full list of inherent traits here], not just under the law, but in business also. Prior to it, all the discriminations you listed were legal.
If you think we should further carve into people's freedoms to associate (or, in this case, freedom of the press to publish or refrain from publishing Rogan) in the interests of broader freedom, what should that law look like and on what underlying philosophy should it be based?
You're allowed to say anything you want, but you are not allowed to discriminate based on race, and if such signs in the window would cause a reasonable person to think you are discriminating based on race, then yes they must be taken down.
There are obviously limits to free speech and there always have been. Can I perjure myself in front of a jury? Can I yell "fire" in a crowded theater? Each of these actions would have a consequence, and it is the act of knowingly provoking that consequence that is prohibited, not the act of speech itself.
If there's a fire, or you think there's a fire, I'd say you have a moral obligation to yell "fire in a crowded theater".
It's probably the worst example as this was the metaphor was by the government when people were passing out anti war flyers opposing the draft during WWI. These same people were tried and convicted under the espionage and sedition acts. The judges unanimously sided with the government.
If I think there's a fire, or a problem, damn straight I'm going to speak up, and this definitely feels like Spotify is taking down things "the public", no court even required how great, find distasteful in the moment.
> The counter argument is that censorship is bad in all its forms.
That’s a platitude, not an argument. And being absolutist is being sadly ignorant of the realities of public speech.
Censorship is not just sometimes good, it’s also sometimes required by law. There is a fairly long list of things that are explicitly illegal to say and are exceptions to US freedom of speech laws, including: libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, state secrets, non-disclosure agreements, personal private information, and, last but not least: lies.
Censorship is required by the GDPR, for example, when dealing with Personally Identifying Information (PII). Because the freedoms to speak publicly can conflict with our own freedoms privately, some kinds of censorship are beneficial to people including you.
Commercial speech is specifically exempted from US Freedom of Speech laws. You can spend time getting upset over legal private censorship all you want, but it isn’t a Freedom of Speech issue, and it doesn’t amount to a meaningful moral or principled stand. Our courts have already established through two hundred years or argument and precedent that our principles are that cash corrupts speech and should not be a protected category.
Before the internet, if I wrote a letter to the editor of a magazine or comic book, the editor obviously made the decision whether to publish my letter or not. Was this censorship? No, of course not. And no one complained about it. It wasn't my magazine after all.
Of course, I could just start my own magazine if I want to publish my own content, but that would obviously be ridiculously cost prohibitive. And this was the norm for magazines, radio, TV. There was always strong editorial control by corporations.
Boom comes the internet, and all of that goes away. As long as you can convince your web host to host you, you can say what you like.
But now podcasts and content creators are making deals with big corporations again, and those corporations have the right to make the same decisions the magazine editors did. It's not censorship. It's how things have always been.
You can always build your own website, and the government will not interfere. There is your freedom of speech. Your web host might, but even that hasn't been an obstacle for extreme left/right wing sites, at least not so far. Worse comes to worse you can seed your content on bittorrent.
> Worse comes to worse you can seed your content on bittorrent.
At the expense of huge barriers of entry for people to discover that content, or even care bothering with the hoops you would have to jump through to find something you're interested in, to the less tech savvy.
This is partly why the removal of content after its publication due to political pressure and threats of coercion is fundamentally the problem that needs to be addressed.
Whether it's semantically "censorship" or not is debatable, but the ill effects it has on society are irrefutable, by communicating:
1. these views need to be taken down.
2. these views need to be silenced.
3. the consumers of this information are "domestic terrorists" or "completely stupid", as readily communicated by major pundits on the Left, and at times, by our own leaders (Biden, Trudeau).
4. the 100,000+ global outspoken doctors who agree with these controversial views are fringe, misguided, deserving of losing their licenses, etc.
... All 4 reek of condescension and political bias in a way that damages and divides society to the extent that massive psychological harm is inflicted on millions of people seeking good information who want to be left alone, and risks enforcing a single stream of thought where panels of experts or public dialogue are discouraged.
That should alarm anyone who trusts the scientific method as a means to find answers and provide honest insight into something as imperative as a pandemic.
I am not American, I grew up in a country where everything Nazi is very much verboten (Austria, Germany). I was always quite curious about the American insistence on free speech.
Today I feel free speech is worse off in the US than it is over here, purely for cultural reasons.
Also: I thought the limits on the US idea of free speech was that things like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre would not be covered by free speech. But hasn't the internet created another kind of crowded theatre in which people can yell the online equivalent of "Fire!" to deal substantial damage to society?
I think censorship is a slippery slope and I am not at all for it — yet I wonder if what we see here is just the beginning of society figuring out how to deal with free speech in the web. Finding the borders of what can reasonably be allowed, because "everything" proofed to be an unacceptably destructive answer to most.
It's because the loudest advocates of free speech, for the most part, have always gotten away with being aggressive.
Scientific discussion, as faulty as it is, happened just fine behind the scenes. But people who have limited views of how things work think the smart-pants showing up on JRE is the real deal when most serious people know it's mostly hot air. (And of course compounded by multiple frustrations - which is totally understandable)
Not by accident: history will show that WWIII was fought largely on the internet, yet caused a death toll in excess of land wars thanks to the ability to weaponize health crises.
It's not strictly 'people' yelling fire to cause damage to society. It is nationstates, same as always, contriving TO damage competing nationstates in ingenious ways. Points for the ingenuity but these are still warlike acts. None of this happens in a vacuum, and so much of it would dry up and become irrelevant if not fed and directed from elsewhere.
> I guess the only long-term solution is having a large majority of the population with enough "mental defenses", being able to think for themselves.
Fully agree.
I think we miss over and over this element in the “free speech debate”. We tend to consider “free speech” merely as “allowing an individual to express him/herself” and I think is more complex than that. From my perspective, “freedom of speech” should be a stack formed always by three elements:
1. Freedom of speech itself
2. Intellectual humbleness from the speaker.
3. Critical thinking from the listeners.
Without those elements, I think we will not progress on the big scale on this matter and will fall over and over again in the same “back and forth” empty fight of “should/shouldn’t we allow this guy to podcast those things?”.
I don't feel there are many "unsayable" things in Austria and Germany. We still have a vibrant right wing here and the left wing is arguably more left than most things found in the US. They just are not allowed to display Nazi insignia.
In fact when it comes to sexuality and nudity europe feels a ton more free than the US when it comes to speech. We don't think a depiction of a female nipple that kids used to suck as kids will corrupt society for some weird religous reason for example. The US is incredibly prude and in that area censorship is rampant, yet nearly nobody complains here.
There is always soft censorship going on in any society — it is just not visible to those inside it if the big majority agrees. You don't need a central, authoritarian censorship for this you need people that have a common shared minimum standard of what they think is acceptable. Or aa you called it: enough "mental defenses"
I totally agree with you around regarding the way sexuality is treated here in the US, and think you're on the whole correct that socially we soft censor a whole lot.
But when you say "vibrant right wing" and they're "just...not allowed to display Nazi insignia", are you referring to the extreme right wing that're basically Nazis without the logos?
If so, given that they exist, what do you see as the point at all of having those bans on the iconography? It seems your society largely _does_ have the mental defenses that I agree with OP are necessary to combat the downsides of free speech writ large. So then why have those bans in place at all?
It is against the law to run around with a swastika and raise your hand and do the Hitler-Gruß, it is illegal to display a SS-flag. It is illegal even to own such insignia. Denying the holocaust can also be illegal etc.
Yet many of the German Nazis still have those at home, they can be shown in educational contexts or in museums etc. Forbidding something doesn't make it go away, it just shows where the free democratic society you live in draws the border.
Germany has been a democracy before the Nazis took over in the 20s and it is one again today. However many Germans are well aware that this could change again in the future. You might have heard about the paradoxon of intolerance: if you are tolerant to fascists, because tolerance is your highest value, one day they might come to power and create an intolerant society — therefor if maintaining a tolerant society is our goal we paradoxically have to show intolerance to those who want to abolish it.
This means Germans weigh the value of our democracy surviving fascist uprising higher than even freedom of speech.
This is true to any society, country or culture. I get why there's a stigma connected to Germany, but what happened there could easily have happened- or happen in the future - literally anywhere else. I don't see any society immune to this, and knowing this vulnerability is precisely the first foundation of defense against these extremes. I agree we can't be gullible about freedom by allowing it to become a tool serving evil.
at a population level, this total doesn't work. every IQ strata has their Joe Rogan - someone who speaks to their fear, hatred, and bias in a way that makes sense to them.
smart people are equally susceptible to propaganda and mind control as dumb people. But smart people think they are immune through "critical thinking".
FB has teams of social scientists with all the data in the world to run experiments on us. We are herd animals who think we are all rugged individualists.
Where "nazi-like" ideas are mostly everything that disagrees with a given narrative (particularly the mainstream narrative). Of course this comprises actual Nazis successors, but for the most part you just have the hammer to nail everything down that one does not agree with. It is in fact so widely used that it has its own fallacy: Reductio ad Hitlerum.
I like the safety/damage perspective you brought up. Feels like some powers have figured out how to sell seemingly any limit on liberty as an increase in safety. Seen in that way many other trends in US make sense - TSA since 9/11, complete absence of kids from all public spaces, mass surveillance, maybe even COVID restrictions. Too many important things are dangerous to make bubble wrapping the entire world a reasonable strategy.
> Also: I thought the limits on the US idea of free speech was that things like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre would not be covered by free speech. But hasn't the internet created another kind of crowded theatre in which people can yell the online equivalent of "Fire!" to deal substantial damage to society?
This is a very good point. Many extremists (left and right) are shouting "fascism!" or "communism!" and moving masses of people. The analogy works quite well.
It's not a very well thought of equivalence when the individual can't even yell "I think there might be a fire" without being censored, because platforms think (and most of the time they're right) that consumers are too stupid.
> Too bad only one side of the analogy gets banned.
Right wingers encourage and carry out violence against people, based on traits like race, otherness, etc. Left wingers mostly focus on property, fascists ("Antifa") and sometimes the police. Both kinds of violence are wrong to various degrees, but I can kinda understand that someone who formulates a threat of vandalism against corporate symbols will get banned less likely than someone who formulates violent threats against minorities or specific persons.
These two things are not the same, it is the difference between someone keying your mercedes and someone assaulting you in the street. One thing is shitty, but survivable, the other isn't.
This characterisation is not based on my feelings or the claims of either side, but backed by publications like the annual report on the protection of the constitution as it is made by the German Verfassungsschutz – an organization which can hardly be described as left leaning: https://www.verfassungsschutz.de/SharedDocs/publikationen/DE...
I only found the summary in english, the full (German) version has more fine grained statistics which support my characterisation.
It really didn't prove to be unacceptably destructive. That's an attempt to create a new narrative that sounds moderate and middle ground, but it's not based on anything. Free speech worked out just great and the internet went from nothing to a critical piece of everyone's lives in the span of about 20 years, on the back of more or less pure free speech policies. It's not an accident that the USA dominates internet services and Germany/Austria are left with 20th century industries like cars. That's the first amendment doing its job.
No. He could have continued distribution the same way he was prior. He also could have self distributed. He didn’t need a distribution platform because Podcasts don’t require it. Just an RSS feed.
Why isn't anyone who think they have something to say that might be bad for business or controversial not just self-publish? It's normal that distributors and publications would be unsure about publishing controversial stuff that could be bad PR and bad for business, so self-publishing seems like the way to go.
Irrelevant in terms of what values should be exemplified.
Not to mention you don't know the contract. The only public knowledge about the contract comes from Rogans description orbit, which contradicts what you're saying.
If anything, Joe Rogan is giving up his free speech. No one is taking it.
Anyone can make a podcast and put it out. Zero stopping them other than maybe money to buy a device to record and send it.