701–710 of 1001 posts
I'm mildly surprised that someone's started this github all the way back last summer, and now it's finally become politically relevant. I guess someone's got an app out there somewhere for everything
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…
Of course they are free to do what they want. But if they do something unethical, like removing content for political reasons, I'm also free to criticize them and for example demand a refund if they lured me into a subscription by claiming I would be able to listen to Joe Rogan. Also, you are making wild assumptions about the contract between Joe Rogan and Spotify. Maybe there's a clause in there that they will not o…
I did a rough tally of the 70 removed episodes: Comedian: 45, Political Commentator/Media Personality: 8, Brian Redban: 5, Health/Fitness: 2, Scientist: 2, Author: 2, Musician: 1, Pornstar: 1, (MMA) Fight Companion: 1, Giorgio Tsoukalos, Kevin Smith, Cliffy B & Johnny Cristo (can't even figure out who these last two are)
rather than debate the meaning of IP, free markets, or the first amendment, we should he focusing on us - the people. our communites.
why is it that companies think its advantageous to silence people like this? it must be following the money. spotify is following the zeitgeist. the fact that everyone would rather erase this content because its existence is unbearable is a warning side. engendering disgust is a half step from dehumanization, and dehumanization is a half step from death.
I'm really confused -- why does anyone care so much to delete these episodes? What is so important to be gained by deleting episodes like this?
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. 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. I don't think this is some irreconcilable gotcha. I support the free market as a tool when it delivers on the benefits that it can provide. Those are increasing choice and decreasing costs through increased competition and commoditiz…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
imagine if someone could tell you what you can't not publish on your own website this is the new "freedom of speech" sentiment
> what you can't not publish Is this double negative intentional? Freedom of speech has never meant the right to force platforms to broadcast your message. Nobody is violating JR’s free speech, Spotify is just acting within the framework of the agreement they made with JR. Whether that involves only the podcast itself or limits on what he can say regarding their interactions, we don’t know because the deal is not pub…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. I don't think this is some irreconcilable gotcha. I support the free market as a tool when it delivers on the benefits that it can provide. Those are increasing choice and decreasing costs through increased competition and commoditiz…
> I support the free market as a tool when it delivers on the benefits that it can provide... If problems show up I'm happy to have legislation introduced to tackle those Then that's not the "free market" that you support, just "markets."