Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Your hypothesis is that the popular outcry against JR, and the associated potential monetary losses, was not actually the reason Spotify did this.

Rather, you believe the action was because the white house said generally that they could do more. Like, that vague statement which didn't even mention episode removal, forced Spotify to do this, not the money.

That hypothesis seems unlikely.



The White House publicly called for the suppression of 1A protected speech, and the company obliged.

That the company can draw from other potential motivations to justify that action is irrelevant to 1A.


>The White House publicly called for the suppression of 1A protected speech

No, they didn't. This is false.

>That the company can draw from other potential motivations to justify that action is irrelevant to 1A.

That you don't personally believe the actual reason they did this to be relevant is itself irrelevant.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: