> Is it not obvious that this would have been bad?
But what you're describing isn't some historical hypothetical nor is the current situation some brand-new phenomenon; it's literally how "content" has worked for more or less the entirety of human history. There in fact was no easily available gay content in the 1950s because society and culture demanded it not be available in the relatively small number of places available at the time where content could be consumed. Not only was gay content censored in the 1950s, but it was censored far more effectively than anything today since people had much more limited ways of obtaining content. Forget having to find a less popular podcast platform, if you were shut out of the handful of TV networks, radio stations, and newspapers, basically the only way you could have a voice is handing out leaflets on a street corner.
If the concern is that people be able to express unpopular ideas to a wide audience, we are in a far, far better place than we were at any point in history. Sure, there aren't unlimited platforms that allow you to easily reach millions and millions of people, but a few decades ago even wildly popular content would struggle to find that kind of audience and most things that were even mildly alternative would struggle to reach an audience at all.
I think the reason some people interpret the current state of affairs as some horrific free speech backsliding, even though all available evidence suggests people in general have more of a voice than ever, is that the voices that attract negative attention now are different. Historically it was usually content that was too "liberal" (for lack of a better word) that was censored, as with your gay content example. Now though, viewpoints associated with the more conservative[1] parts of society are suddenly facing unpopularity and it feels like a new thing simply because it involves people who aren't used to being on the receiving end of that kind of soft-censorship or whatever you want to call it.
My intent is not to take a specific position on whether such soft-censorship is good or bad, but if we're going to productively discuss the topic it seems like treating it as a brand new phenomenon is unlikely to get us to a useful place. In particular because in misdiagnosing the problem, we end up going down a path that's less about free expression and more about conservative ideas being entitled to a platform.
[1] Since I'm sure someone will object to this characterization, I realize Joe Rogan is generally not considered a conservative. However the views he's expressed that have caused the current Spotify trouble are definitely associated with conservatives in America.
But what you're describing isn't some historical hypothetical nor is the current situation some brand-new phenomenon; it's literally how "content" has worked for more or less the entirety of human history. There in fact was no easily available gay content in the 1950s because society and culture demanded it not be available in the relatively small number of places available at the time where content could be consumed. Not only was gay content censored in the 1950s, but it was censored far more effectively than anything today since people had much more limited ways of obtaining content. Forget having to find a less popular podcast platform, if you were shut out of the handful of TV networks, radio stations, and newspapers, basically the only way you could have a voice is handing out leaflets on a street corner.
If the concern is that people be able to express unpopular ideas to a wide audience, we are in a far, far better place than we were at any point in history. Sure, there aren't unlimited platforms that allow you to easily reach millions and millions of people, but a few decades ago even wildly popular content would struggle to find that kind of audience and most things that were even mildly alternative would struggle to reach an audience at all.
I think the reason some people interpret the current state of affairs as some horrific free speech backsliding, even though all available evidence suggests people in general have more of a voice than ever, is that the voices that attract negative attention now are different. Historically it was usually content that was too "liberal" (for lack of a better word) that was censored, as with your gay content example. Now though, viewpoints associated with the more conservative[1] parts of society are suddenly facing unpopularity and it feels like a new thing simply because it involves people who aren't used to being on the receiving end of that kind of soft-censorship or whatever you want to call it.
My intent is not to take a specific position on whether such soft-censorship is good or bad, but if we're going to productively discuss the topic it seems like treating it as a brand new phenomenon is unlikely to get us to a useful place. In particular because in misdiagnosing the problem, we end up going down a path that's less about free expression and more about conservative ideas being entitled to a platform.
[1] Since I'm sure someone will object to this characterization, I realize Joe Rogan is generally not considered a conservative. However the views he's expressed that have caused the current Spotify trouble are definitely associated with conservatives in America.