You can be OK funding differing points of view but not OK funding a specific differing point of view.
We were happy to let subject-matter experts help build the modern world, but then turn on them as we seek out the information that comports with the way we wish the world to be. It's good to be skeptical, but a very significant portion of the population has serious epistemic deficiencies.
Choosing to not patronize a business is not “taking the right away from people”, and to characterize it as such goes against the very ethos of consumerist-oriented postwar capitalist America.
It is crucial that platforms like Spotify provide a space for a diverse range of voices and perspectives, even if they may be controversial or unpopular, in order to foster open and honest dialogue and the exchange of ideas. As a consumer, one has the right to make their own decisions, but businesses also have the right to make their own editorial decisions without being pressured by consumers to conform to their moral or political views.
I do not see the irony.
> businesses also have the right to make their own editorial decisions without being pressured by consumers to conform to their moral or political views.
If consumers cannot voice their expression via consumer choices they will attempt to do it at the legislature, courts, or the ballot box, and I doubt that state regulation is something you’d prefer.
Free market choice is the purest form of American expression, outside of over-litigation, and the fact that you denounce it marks you as naive about the alternatives that people will pursue instead if they are denied such.
My point was that you can think Elon Musk is a jackass and not buy a Tesla even if you do think Jeff Bezos is a jackass and still shop at Amazon.
If you don't like it disconnect your internet, as you'd say.
I fail to see how Rogan threatens the stability of society. I mean, it's hilarious other than that you're actually serious about that. I'm far more afraid of censorship than I am of Rogan talking to some goofball. (BTW, you haven't even stated why Rogan threatens the stability of society or what he's done).
I think I'll keep my internet connection friend.
It says absolutely nothing about the "legacy news media". It just means that many people are incredibly gullible.
Joe Rogan does not have more credibility, but some people THINK he does, and that's the problem.
Who do you think people are more inclined to listen to, someone that treats their audience with respect, or someone that calls a broad swath of the population idiots?
Nobody. But I'm going to trust the opinions of people who are experts in their field much more than some comedian.
> or someone that calls a broad swath of the population idiots?
If you trust Joe more than the experts, then well, if the shoe fits...