Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive multi-year deal

Post by herostratus101 » Tue, May 19, 2020, 10:36 PM UTC

JohnTHaller wrote: post #165

whitehouse3 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure OP would disagree with you. He made a separate point: > So if Joe is moving off of YouTube because he doesn't like the censorship, he's not getting anything better with Spotify.

Every platform censors to at least some degree or they wouldn't continue existing as a platform. What matters to most folks is the degree of censorship. As YouTube is beholden to advertisers, it's kind of akin to cable TV in terms of what will and won't be shown.

Post by busymom0 » Tue, May 19, 2020, 10:37 PM UTC

paulgb wrote: post #168

mythrwy wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alex Jones is a much less serious threat then 2 or 3 large companies deciding what can discourse can be promulgated. (not a Jones supporter. nor can I imagine how anyone would be)

My point is that they don't get to decide that, though. They decide whether they will pay for hosting, but they can't stop him from paying for his own hosting elsewhere. Likewise, if the WSJ decides not to publish my letter to the editor, they aren't violating my freedom of speech, they are just deciding not to amplify it.

Post by herostratus101 » Tue, May 19, 2020, 10:38 PM UTC

omgwtfbyobbq wrote: post #164

mythrwy wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alex Jones is a much less serious threat then 2 or 3 large companies deciding what can discourse can be promulgated. (not a Jones supporter. nor can I imagine how anyone would be)

I think the bigger threat is us enabling 2 to 3 large companies to the degree where their decisions can affect discourse. Alex Jones is a thoughtless jerk though, and can still find/provide his own hosting/distribution.

Post by CydeWeys » Tue, May 19, 2020, 10:38 PM UTC

herostratus101 wrote: post #180

gkoberger wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “Right to Free Speech” just means the government can’t impede. Nobody is required to give him a platform, though.

This is a fairly cheap argument. Presumably the reasons why it's bad for the government to ban speech are also largely applicable to platforms that are almost universally used to discover new viewpoints.

Post by aeturnum » Tue, May 19, 2020, 10:39 PM UTC

ravenstine wrote: post #171

paulgb wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Spotify was the one who conspired with Facebook, Apple and Google to ban Alex Jones and others Alex Jones has a right to free speech, but if he's going to claim Sandy Hook was a hoax causing grieving parents to be harassed, nobody owes it to him to give him a platform. He can pay his own hosting fees.

YouTube: You can pay your own hosting fees. Namecheap: Your users can find you at your IP address. AWS: You can run your own server hardware. Intel: You can build your own CPU. Electric Co.: You can generate your own electricity. VISA: You can take payments in cash. Hospital: You can use your own butterfly strips and an ibuprofen.