Hacker News Reader

Comment by AmazingTurtle | Hacker News Reader

Yeah I've encountered people that tell me "it's their choice if they leave spotify if rogan wasn't censored" like that wasn't a prime example of cancel culture. The worse thing is that they think they are in the right. Eventually you if you can convince them that its censorship, they will counter that there was nothing wrong with censoring people "[... because of x]". No reason or whatsoever legitimates censorship in my opinion.

I also get cancelled on several forums on a regular basis when I say bad things about pharmaceutical companies or against government etc. even if it's completely neutral. I've seen all reasons already to censor me: - insults - conspiracy - talking about controversial topics in general

none of those were true, ever..

View on HN

It’s not censorship, nobody is saying he can’t go and do his podcast on his own site. Those artists just don’t want to be associated with him. They don’t want to be earning Spotify money that goes to Rogan. I respect their actions completely.

Also “cancel culture” is mostly not a bad thing, it’s more like “consequence culture”. The people who find themselves “cancelled” almost always still end up with large platforms.

I do think that there is a certain mob aspect to it which is... uncomfortable. And when the affected people don't really have agency unlike in this case (i.e. some 20-something posts something dumb on social media that embarrasses their employer and they get fired because that's the easiest thing for their company to do), that's even more uncomfortable.

But ultimately individuals can't and shouldn't be prevented from doing anything they want within the bounds of law.

That's incorrect. No matter where Rogan hosts his content, these people will go after him. They've pressured AWS, CloudFlare and others before too, with some success.

I'm surprised to see these talking points still being repeated. They were plausible a few years ago, but now? Just silly.

> The people who find themselves “cancelled” almost always still end up with large platforms.

Survivorship bias. Most of the people who get cancelled just disappear. They don't have FU money or a big following. We only keep hearing about the few who are too big to cancel.

Plus you're not taking into account how much of a chilling effect all of this has. Many people are now self censoring. That has a regressive effect on society. We can't progress without free and open exchange of ideas.

The ones who “just disappear” aren’t actually losing much. If they don’t have a platform in the first place then how much does getting cancelled actually matter? That’s why I’m talking about the popular ones.

I don’t buy the idea that the supposed “chilling effect” is a bad thing. If “self censoring” means there are fewer people spreadinf misinformation, then I’m all for it.

This is not "political censorship" this is "corporate censorship", at least be precise about what you are saying. It's absolutely within their right to self censor their product.

>The worse thing is that they think they are in the right.

Are you suggesting that I, as a consumer, am in the wrong for choosing which companies I do business with?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com