Spotify Is Defending Alex Jones' Appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience”
buzzfeednews.com
buzzfeednews.com
There is a non-trivial cohort of people who think "It's on <Joe Rogan, Fox News, etc.>, so it can't be completely wrong."
Actually, yes it can. It can be on CNN and be completely wrong--the probabilities are lower because people get fired over that, but it still can be wrong.
And this is before we even get into the whole "There are equally valid sides to an argument" problem in the media. No, no there aren't always two valid sides, and sometimes there's a dozen valid sides.
I'm not sure how we should deal with this.
Mainstream journalists and politicians can say all the lies they want, because they're usually not considered lies by whoever is in charge of the medium (Twitter, Spotify?, the government?).
Fringe movements don't have the popularity to pass off their lies as truth to the general population or the censor, they can only do it to their relatively small group of followers.
In the end, you end up with: popular lies are accepted, unpopular lies are censored. Sometimes unpopular truths get censored too.
Censorship is a problem itself, but a much bigger problem is biased censorship.
In previous feedback to Spotify I’ve asked for a ‘hide podcasts’ option in the iPhone app. It’s unwanted clutter I don’t use.
Time to redirect the money I pay to the artists I listen to. What systems would others recommend?
[0]:https://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2019/oct/31/b...
[1]:soundiiz.com
While the sheer arrogance and borderline solipsism do bring a smile to ones face, they are completely impractical.
Why would you expect Spotify to be this child-safe website?
But the families of the Sandy Hook children faced harassment after Jones spewed his crap, and his talk against vaccines and masks on Rogan, who has 190 million downloads per month, is going to make misinformation worse, make public health worse, and cost lives. This is not a joke or some bad rap lyrics. These conspiracies threaten people's safety from the virus and from him riling up extremists. I'm not paying a company that enables this.
"However, we do not tolerate hate content on Spotify – content that expressly and principally promotes, advocates, or incites hatred or violence against a group or individual based on characteristics, including, race, religion, gender identity, sex, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, veteran status, or disability."
Given that Jones own InfoWars podcast is already banned on the platform, I think where the line is, is pretty clear.
EDIT: Replying to child comments: The First Amendment only applies to the government; full stop. If a bakery can refuse service to a gay couple, and a restaurant can remove you for not following dress code, any private business can refuse you service. Period. You have freedom of speech and they have freedom of association. Those are both First Amendment rights. The right to refuse business is right there next to the right to spout off at the mouth.
Those freedoms enabled the best and worst behavior and let people make of it as they will. Laws usually concern themselves with the ways people abuse others: fraud, various kinds of violence, theft, breach of contract, etc. Regulations exist for industries where the risk of damage to many people exists: chemical waste disposal, lending laws, food labeling laws. If the industry needs regulation then that's what we should push for. My interpretation has always been that the constitution establishes what basic expectations of freedoms and restrictions we should have, and laws set the boundaries on where my freedom ends and yours begins.
Unless of course he's violating any (or lots of) the exceptions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
As spotify is not the american government it doesn't really apply here.
In addition even if they were the american government, that would only apply in america, which is in fact, not the entire world.
Giving him the platform seems like exactly what Spotify wants to do, and since we all reached the consensus that private corporations are free to do whatever they want with their platforms, I don't understand what the issue is.
Either that or we could just stop being dishonest and admit that we just want to censor people we don't agree with.
And if people start a campaign to tell people to "Delete Spotify", that seems to be in the realm of acceptability too? Just like people are saying "Delete Uber" because they're taking money from that Saudi "Journalist Chopper" Prince.
If the campaign is to get the government to create a law to muzzle Spotify, then there is an issue...
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CG54ZTvAdQC/?igshid=jh0r3qewcih...
Spotify should have kept to music.
I can only imagine how people that do agree with his more unconventional views view those doing the deplatforming, but they're definitely not helping them by doing it. You're just insulating them from opposing views and making them angry at you. It feels to me like its vindictive, coming from a place of genuine hate. Thats not good no matter what the stated intentions are.