That is extremely unlikely to be true. The guests don't own the copyright, so they can't leverage that. Also, some of the guests are protesting this on Twitter.
I'm sure the motivation of many book burners of the past was also to save the would-be readers from eternal hell. Possible good motivations don't justify censorship.
You could argue that in this particular case censorship probably won't even be effective. Rogan is seen as a something of a censorship martyr by quite a few people now, Streisand effect and all.
Also, there's the fact that most of the removed episodes have nothing to do with Covid-19.
No, it's not representative of how free speech would look like. "The coven of the witches" problem arises in part because of all the witch-hunting going on.
Forgive me but what are you protesting exactly? You are certainly free to do whatever you want, I'm not the thought police.
But maybe take a second, step back, and think about what you are outraged about... A private enterprise retracting publication of their IP.
Outrageous! Imagine if TV shows or movies were removed from Netflix! Or if someone bought Vine and shut it down. Or if part of a Wikipedia page were ever edited.
Nothing was intended as a personal attack. I just don't understand the outrage.
And how is this corporate censorship? There exists a private contract between two parties, money changed hands. I have no evidence that Spotify is overstepping their bounds here. They can remove any content any time. It's not an open platform. To even get content on their you have to form a contract with a distributor, who I imagine is under no obligation to actually distribute anything.
That doesn't change that this is a form of censorship. They have a legal right to do so but that doesn't change what it is.
Note that censorship doesn't have to be globally complete in order to qualify as such. If I kick guests out of my house for discussing certain topics that's an act of censorship. Possibly a well justified one depending on the scenario.
> I have seen this disingenuous copy-paste objection show up in every thread on this topic on HN
To be fair, your comment is objectively more generic and closer to a "copy-paste objection" than the GP's.
I have no idea how the press were in nineteen umpties, but it seems clear to me that the reporting by Mother Jones is pretty biased, and they have their fair share of polemic-level opinion pieces.
Do you think they would cover the recent removal of To Kill A Mockingbird (which is ironically a book they do mention in the article) from the curriculum by a Washington school board [1] in the same way? I don't think so. I searched their website, and it looks like they haven't covered it at all.
It might also be simply that the press has limited resources, and being composed of human beings, cannot be expected to operate with perfect ideological consistency.
I don't think that's the reason. Hanlon's razor is just a heuristic, we shouldn't blindly and naively apply it to everything. I think you can see how biased Mother Jones is by taking the headlines on their front page, and trying to rewrite them as someone attempting to be impartial would.
There’s no question that Mother Jones has an editorial bias; every periodical does. I’m not sure what the point of complaining about that is. Likewise, it’s not particularly noteworthy that WSJ and Fox News have a conservative bias.
If we are to get up in arms about something, it should be because they are being deceptive (or worse, publishing false information), not because they are merely biased or guilty of omission.
> every periodical does. I’m not sure what the point of complaining about that is.
That is broadly correct, though not all of them are equally biased. However, journalistic objectivity [1] is something we could demand them to strive for. I'm not sure if the press have always been like this.
> Likewise, it’s not particularly noteworthy that WSJ and Fox News have a conservative bias.
Most of the US mainstream outlets are biased in a particular direction. I've said the before here, but you can see that by taking any reasonable list of major outlets [1], and checking their biases [2][3].
> If we are to get up in arms about something, it should be because they are being deceptive (or worse, publishing false information), not because they are merely biased.
Paltering is also a form of deception, and you could argue that it is quite pervasive and pernicious. I think Mother Jones, and many other outlets, are guilty of that.
Bias is only complained about when people passive-aggressively bring their politics into a situation to warp the subject and distract.
There is no such thing as "unbiased" reporting, just as it is impossible to "eliminate racism" or "eliminate rape". Journalists aren't robots. Anyone who tells you they're "unbiased" is either a liar or a fool. Reasonable and accurate reporting, without word weaseling or playing favorites, is honest journalism.
Let's just pretend the Holocaust didn't happen. Moonbeams, rainbows, and sunshine all the time. Oh and definitely don't teach the Armenian Genocide, WW1, WW2, The Trail of Tears, or slavery because that would hurt someones feewlings.
Because learning about it can swiftly disabuse children of dangerous, facile notions like "an all-powerful government is always and everywhere an unalloyed good". This is necessary if you actually want to raise an educated citizenry, which is the foundation of effective democracy.
Are you suggesting that teaching children history is a bad idea? If so, why?
(Also, what does English have to do with anything? We can teach both English and history to children in the same day. I and my peers were taught both when I was in school. Oh, and math and science, too.)
We are talking about this particular event being reported in Mother Jones, not some other, hypothetical, counterfactual event that you're trying to redirect the topic to.
You still haven’t really answered the question as to what the exact problem is, and why. You obviously have a problem with this situation, but if it’s only that the book is being studied in English class instead of history class, that frankly sounds like a pretty weak basis.
Nobody is putting words in your mouth. I’m responding directly to your own comment above:
> Why "teach" the Holocaust? Why make young children carry the burden of a monstrous time in history? How does it make them better at English?
Since you’re unwilling to explain the rationale behind your objection, it’s reasonable to conclude you’re just trolling and are wasting everyone’s time.
Can't reply to your deeper comments on this thread, but in the meeting minutes they decide they'll replace Maus with a different text about the Holocaust. So it's not really a debate about whether 8th graders should be taught the Holocaust in ELA, but how they should be taught.
I can’t help but wonder if they are really going to replace Maus with something “better” (and if so, how they would make that judgment). I wouldn’t be surprised if they keep kicking that can down the road until the school board is replaced.
Come on, what kind of clickbait is that? So Brave has an opt-in option to see ads [1], and they have some measures to protect against fraud. They are simply being honest about the fact that using a VPN would increase the chance of being marked as suspicious for the purpose of paying you to see ads.
This is HN, and one might hope we can do better than BuzzFeed. In fact, Brave probably would want you to use a VPN, they sell their own VPN service after all [2].
I don't know, but Brendan Eich (Brave's CEO) [1] is pretty active on Twitter, and I think he used to answer the questions people asked. You could try asking him there. Let us know if you get an answer.
Also, I apologize for being a little bit too harsh in my previous comment.
