Good ideas do not require the censorship of bad ideas.
You decide whether you want to continue paying your premium plan. Spotify will acquire the content it believes is best for all users. You do not control their decisions just because you pay the subscription.
You have no idea what you're talking about, which is what's so fucked up about this whole situation. This is all a dystopian cliche. Opinions are not misinformation, and looking at opposing evidence and arguments is not misinformation. It never was, and never will be. The only people who ever claimed such things are historically disgraced totalitarians.
Misinformation comes from states and organizations with ulterior motives who twist and hide the truth for their own gain. It's about power.
Crying out about how "dangerous" it is to have a real discussion that you don't like is ridiculously absurd. Are you saying adults are too stupid to think for themselves, or should not be allowed to take calculated risks? Do you have some kind of proof that having discussions is bad for individuals and/or communities in some way?
There are six in here: https://www.insider.com/joe-rogan-podcast-episodes-that-spre...
Further support of the first in that list: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rogan-dont-need-to-worry-v...
Further support of the fifth: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/aug/31/joe-rogan/...
A separate 7th item: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/26/joe-rogan/...
prohobo, you may wish to read the links for concrete answers to your request. The how is answered very directly, especially considering the bottom three links are all fact-checking sites that explain the how and the why.
But if you don't care to, we can move on.
What they do is make arguments against their points, many of which aren't verifiable or are just opinions.
I'm all for removing things that are empirically and logically "dangerous misinformation", but we have to actually prove it empirically and logically first. Can you do that?
I think the officials are so afraid that any discussion of nuance [1] would frighten people away from the vaccines that they simply avoid talking about it entirely, and sometimes call to outright suppress any such discussions as "misinformation" and label these people as "anti-vaxx".
[1] https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/uk-now-reports-myoca...
2) Prove it's dangerous: either for individuals or communities.
Proving something incorrect is proving proving the negative. That’s not how people engage in good faith argumentation.
I’ll add, a traditional definition of “incorrect information” would primarily focus on factual accuracy over motivation.
Why is it necessary to prove intentionality to prove incorrectness?
All of this is before we acknowledge that you will never accept something as proven false, as proven intentional, or as proven harmful.
Your standard is meaningless because it’s both incoherent and unmeetable.
It’s also characteristic of arguments like this and why the ‘bullshit asymmetry’ concept exists. Trying to meet it is a distraction that simply serves to give your argument credibility because people engage with it in trying (hopelessly) to meet your asymmetric epistemically standards.
Explain what the danger is, and how it is manifesting.
And intentionality is absolutely relevant to this, considering we are essentially judging a conversation between two people. Does the same conversation in a bar constitute misinformation? When does it go from conversation to declaration? When does opinion become misinformation?
I'm not currently interested in whether what they're saying is true or not, I'm interested in whether it can be considered misinformation in spirit of the meaning of the word. If their intention is to discuss something sincerely, then it's not misinformation - it's opinion.