691–700 of 1001 posts
Now spotify has complied with the government's wishes. We're now beyond "but it's a private company...", and indeed into censorship.
Glen Greenwald did a great piece on this topic a couple of days ago: https://rumble.com/vtyr34-democrats-are-pressuring-companies...
I don't really understand why anyone who claims to be a proponent of a free market economy has an issue with a private corporation deciding what type of content they want to broadcast. JR sold his catalog of intellectual property (podcast episodes) of his own free will and was paid very well for it: about $100M from what I can gather. What Spotify chooses to do with it is completely up to them, even if they bought it…
> I don't really understand why anyone who claims to be a proponent of a free market economy has an issue with a private corporation deciding what type of content they want to broadcast. 1. The private corporation “decided” it wanted to broadcast JRE 2. X happened 3. Private corporation decided it didn’t want to broadcast some JRE episodes People are interested to in what X is
There’s also a step 0, which is the private corporation predicting it would make a lot of money if it could exclusively broadcast Joe Rogan.
I don't really understand why anyone who claims to be a proponent of a free market economy has an issue with a private corporation deciding what type of content they want to broadcast. JR sold his catalog of intellectual property (podcast episodes) of his own free will and was paid very well for it: about $100M from what I can gather. What Spotify chooses to do with it is completely up to them, even if they bought it…
I'll try to explain why I have an issue with what is happening here. Yes, I agree with almost everything you said. However, the issue is that platforms are consolidated. Depending on your chosen format of content, there are only 2-3 viable platforms to reach people - and for some types of content, only one. And if those very small number of platforms decide to, or are pressured to, delist content or a content creator…
It's not like Spotify is sending hit squads out to shake down artists that don't join the racket, or harass studios and sites that host content they disagree with.
There is a lot you can do with a big microphone, but perhaps the Internet isn't and never will be the utopia that people imagined it would be. In a different world where large tech companies were completely hands off and governments embraced a speech free for all, many people will still feel that they don't fit in mainstream spaces and will need to find another forum.
Predictably, people break out the C-word. Every business decides what they sell and what they don't. Do they also complain about censorship and shout at the manager of a shoe store for not selling books? Spotify decided they don't want to sell those episodes of JR. That's not censorship, it's business, and it's very different than if it's done by the government.
Being from Australasia, the C-word is a very specific and different word.
I don't really understand why anyone who claims to be a proponent of a free market economy has an issue with a private corporation deciding what type of content they want to broadcast. JR sold his catalog of intellectual property (podcast episodes) of his own free will and was paid very well for it: about $100M from what I can gather. What Spotify chooses to do with it is completely up to them, even if they bought it…
Platforms are contracted by their users, they are not simply homeowners with private property. Too many companies these days get away with code and content changes without proper accountability, and things are regularly hidden to cover tracks... It's making the Internet very toxic now, and the blanket statements don't apply any more, people should always be held accountable for what they do and say in the course of making money at all levels, that's the only real thing protecting us from becoming slaves to corporate interests.
I don't really understand why anyone who claims to be a proponent of a free market economy has an issue with a private corporation deciding what type of content they want to broadcast. JR sold his catalog of intellectual property (podcast episodes) of his own free will and was paid very well for it: about $100M from what I can gather. What Spotify chooses to do with it is completely up to them, even if they bought it…
You can but it needs to be handled through the free market. One shouldn't be asking any government to step in and make some person or company do something.
In Russia they used to justify their brand of censorship with the argument that "that's what they are doing in the US too"; often these claims are exaggerated and not strictly true, but now you have given them yet another argument for strengthening their Russian brand of authoritarianism. Sad story that there seems to be some kind of convergence between the east and the west; it seems like the shit is flowing both wa…
How does a private corporation action equate to government level censorship in the US?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is not that private companies doing whatever they wish to do with his content. Spotify in normal times would have no incentives to delete those episodes. It seems the governments in US are enforcing censorship through private sector in the name of disinformation. I urge you to see the recent comments from White House press secy, congressional hearings and so on who insist private sector do more of the dir…
I'm very confused as to how you think the government is involved with this issue. Is Neil Young a government official? Or is it empirically false to claim that Joe Rogan is actively peddling false information that is directly impacting people by way of, ya know, dying? I think this is a simple example of the people with wallets using said wallets to indicate what they will and won't tolerate.
"White House press secretary Jen Psaki called on music and podcast streaming giant Spotify to do “more” in the fight against Covid-19 misinformation on Tuesday.
At her daily press briefing, President Joe Biden’s top spokeswoman was asked about a decision by the company to add disclaimers linking to Covid-19 information hubs to any piece of content that includes discussion of the pandemic, vaccines, or Covid-19 itself. She responded that the change was a good step, but that the company could take steps (if it wanted) to actively prohibit content that contained misinformation that experts have warned is prolonging the pandemic and leading to more deaths."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
I don't really understand why anyone who claims to be a proponent of a free market economy has an issue with a private corporation deciding what type of content they want to broadcast. JR sold his catalog of intellectual property (podcast episodes) of his own free will and was paid very well for it: about $100M from what I can gather. What Spotify chooses to do with it is completely up to them, even if they bought it…
In reality there is political risk for highly public decisions. Politicians do have power. They can call you before Congress under oath without any evidence of legal wrongdoing by anyone. They can start costly antitrust investigations. They can start costly audits. Anywhere along the way, if you make the slightest misstep (or even if you don't), they accuse you of perjury or lying to a federal official or obstruction of justice. Or maybe they just don't "protect" you as well as they might from various unfortunate events.
Moreover, there's a pattern of governments harnessing the power of private companies to various purposes through this kind of coercion. If you are a CEO with a comfortable life do you really want to test the ideal that it can't happen in the U.S.?