Hacker News Reader

Comment by basisword | Hacker News Reader

There clearly could have been an attempt at compromise. Spotify have removed/not stocked Rogan content before. Spotify will have rules for the content it serves and there could have been a discussion on the robustness of these.

View on HN

I don't see a reasonable compromise to make here, here's why:

There is nothing wrong with what Rogan has been criticized by Young for; other than many people including Young being ideologically possessed in the opposite direction.

Disagreement is not grounds for censorship.

In any case, it was Young who issued an ultimatum. His music or Joe's podcast, off the platform. There is no room for a compromise there - this is a rude and violent threat.

What Young is doing is not "violent" nor "terrorism". I think you know what those words really mean.

Not calling Young a terrorist, I'm using the term "don't negotiate with terrorists" loosely - the point is, when two peers in a network end up in a situation where one is making a violent ultimatum about both of them, the moral high ground is automatically biased in favor of the victim of this ultimatum, not the one who threatened it.

The principle of "don't negotiate with terrorists" is applicable far beyond literal terrorism and I think it's exactly the moral calculus necessary for Spotify to reach the conclusion they did. Network members who think they can yield violent ultimatums to control the administrating entity are toxic to all of their peers.

Spotify is not treating Young and Rogan as peers; only one of them has received an exclusive multimillion contract and extensive promotion, and it isn't Young. Spotify have taken an active decision to promote Rogan, and it is entirely correct that they face consequences for that decision.

Not all violence is physical. Violence is what you use to force people to change their behavior. There are many forms. Verbal, psychological, social, economic.

I agree with you that it's not terrorism, however.

Violence is a word that is ambiguous for sure. I would still say that it is a long road from most definitions of violence to Neil Young saying that he will remove his music from Spotify if you let Rogan host his podcast there. I mean most negotiation in some way or another uses force but that does not mean it is violence.

It's not disagreement, you are being flippant here. Rogan is promoting alternative facts, such that are life threatening to those who believe them.

Facts are not stories you can agree or disagree on.

I think your beliefs of what is factual and false regarding COVID are actually the opposite of reality.

You likely think the same of me.

If you could magically be granted "objective" factual understanding, your point would be right, and I would agree with you. But you haven't been, in reality you do not know the facts for certain, neither do any of the 270 doctors/etc who wrote that letter trying to censor Joe, neither does Joe, neither does Robert Malone or any other heterodox intellectual on the topic, and neither does Fauci or any other orthodox intellectual on the topic.

Besides mathematics/logical fundamentals, nobody knows facts for sure. Outside of physics we aren't even quite sure. To pretend that you know the facts, and that you know Joe and his guests are wrong, and that their falsehoods are dangerous --- this is altogether delusional, quite frankly. You may very well be right, but you do not know that you are, you cannot know that you are. The subject matter is too complicated.

My apologies for the harsh words. This is how it is.

---

Edit: and no, I am not being flippant. I am being objective.

You are promoting censorship?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com