Hacker News Reader

Comment by jakelazaroff | Hacker News Reader

X is the private corporation forecasting that it would lose too much money if it continued broadcasting those episodes.

There’s also a step 0, which is the private corporation predicting it would make a lot of money if it could exclusively broadcast Joe Rogan.

View on HN

The White House explicitly called on Spotify to take further action against Rogan.

Have people not seen this? I don't understand all the meta conversation about free markets when this is cut and dry 1A violation.

https://news.yahoo.com/white-house-urges-spotify-further-202...

Your hypothesis is that the popular outcry against JR, and the associated potential monetary losses, was not actually the reason Spotify did this.

Rather, you believe the action was because the white house said generally that they could do more. Like, that vague statement which didn't even mention episode removal, forced Spotify to do this, not the money.

That hypothesis seems unlikely.

The White House publicly called for the suppression of 1A protected speech, and the company obliged.

That the company can draw from other potential motivations to justify that action is irrelevant to 1A.

>The White House publicly called for the suppression of 1A protected speech

No, they didn't. This is false.

>That the company can draw from other potential motivations to justify that action is irrelevant to 1A.

That you don't personally believe the actual reason they did this to be relevant is itself irrelevant.

So if it's profitable for Youtube and Twitter to push for a war and ban all dissenting voices you wouldn't feel there's a need to discuss whether or not that's a good thing, you'd instead have an argument about whether or not private companies should be able to do that?

There are far more interesting issues at hand and if you pretend this is a discussion about the legalities of this behaviour instead of a question about where idiotic self-harming nonsense like this leads our society you're being deliberately obtuse.

The difference between this and YouTube/Twitter is that those two aren't paying a hundred million dollars to publish content like that.

Anyway, I'm not pretending anything; I'm just answering GP's question.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com