I support the right of the company to do what they want, but that doesn't prohibit me from disagreeing with how the exercise that right. I just think their decision to cancel Rogan is ethically and morally wrong, my issue is not with the legality of the move.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> If I consider myself "left" I should still be able to criticize the "left".
And...most people on the left do that. A lot.
> The problem is the mob cancels anyone critical
“Cancels” is just bullshit. Virtually every person that has supposedly been “cancelled” still has a prominent platform and large and devoted audience; what they've done is been criticized and lost some audience and goodwill because certain of their ideas have competed poorly in the marketplace of ideas.
> That's a great way to send teammates to another team.
Just because you consider yourself on someone else's “team” doesn't mean they see you that way, and just because you see yourself as, e.g., “left”, doesn't mean everyone else on the “left” is part of the same team.
Anarchists and Libertarian Socialists see themselves as on the “left”.
Lenin-/Stalin-/Maoists see themselves as on the “left”.
They aren’t, even approximately, the same team.
And neither is the same team as, say, Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists, also on the “left”, though sometimes people in those groups may have a temporary, transitory, tactical alignment of interests.
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.
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?
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.
