That is extremely unlikely to be true. The guests don't own the copyright, so they can't leverage that. Also, some of the guests are protesting this on Twitter.
1,292 karma · joined September 20, 2021
〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰〰
Censorship is now a taboo word? That's pretty ironic.
You could argue that in this particular case censorship probably won't even be effective. Rogan is seen as a something of a censorship martyr by quite a few people now, Streisand effect and all.
Also, there's the fact that most of the removed episodes have nothing to do with Covid-19.
Corporate censorship. [1]
> At some point you have to look in the mirror.
I don't appreciate your personal attack. You are not arguing in good faith, and I'm done responding to you.
If that's your framing, you should also grant that we can also protest whatever the fuck we want. This is a trite and unfruitful line of argument.
That is broadly correct, though not all of them are equally biased. However, journalistic objectivity [1] is something we could demand them to strive for. I'm not sure if the press have always been like this.
> Likewise, it’s not particularly noteworthy that WSJ and Fox News have a conservative bias.
Most of the US mainstream outlets are biased in a particular direction. I've said the before here, but you can see that by taking any reasonable list of major outlets [1], and checking their biases [2][3].
> If we are to get up in arms about something, it should be because they are being deceptive (or worse, publishing false information), not because they are merely biased.
Paltering is also a form of deception, and you could argue that it is quite pervasive and pernicious. I think Mother Jones, and many other outlets, are guilty of that.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_objectivity
[2]: e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_media_in_the_United_State...
Generic straw mans are not conducive to good faith arguments, HN or elsewhere.
To be fair, your comment is objectively more generic and closer to a "copy-paste objection" than the GP's.
I have no idea how the press were in nineteen umpties, but it seems clear to me that the reporting by Mother Jones is pretty biased, and they have their fair share of polemic-level opinion pieces.
Do you think they would cover the recent removal of To Kill A Mockingbird (which is ironically a book they do mention in the article) from the curriculum by a Washington school board [1] in the same way? I don't think so. I searched their website, and it looks like they haven't covered it at all.
[1]: https://www.newsweek.com/schools-drop-kill-mockingbird-requi...
Also, I apologize for being a little bit too harsh in my previous comment.
This is HN, and one might hope we can do better than BuzzFeed. In fact, Brave probably would want you to use a VPN, they sell their own VPN service after all [2].
[1]: https://support.brave.com/hc/en-us/articles/360026648512-How...
P(doing something nasty | "Great question") > P(doing something nasty)[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber-hose_cryptanalysis
The original reporting this is based on is by Blacklock’s Reporter [1] which looks like a better source, but unfortunately it's behind a login/paywall.
[1]: https://www.blacklocks.ca/205000-ballots-not-counted/
---
PS: I found this older article [2] which covers the same issue. Apparently, if my understanding is correct, this number (~1/6 of the mail-in ballots) is much better than the 2019 election [3]. I guess that is something you could expect. Also, I'm not sure what a cancelled ballot means. Does it include the case when someone simply forgets to return the ballot?
[2]: https://www.mapleridgenews.com/news/1-in-6-mail-in-ballots-n...
[3]: Ibid. "Elections Canada says there is typically a gap between the number of mail-in ballots that go out and the number that come back every year. In the 2019 federal election, only 55 per cent of the domestic mail-in ballots and 61 per cent of international mail-in ballots were returned on time. The remainder were either returned late or not at all."
That's bad enough though. They are making "woke cuts" [1] to old shows, lest their viewers question the universality of cultural norms by being exposed to an unfiltered version of the past.
Sure, the unaltered versions are probably accessible somewhere, but that doesn't make what they doing "not censorship" and ok. It would be like saying that the Hogwarts Library wasn't censored because you could find the banned books in the Restricted Section or elsewhere. At least Hogwarts had the defence of being something of a high school.
[1]: The Telegraph: BBC makes 'woke cuts' to archives, including Dad's Army https://archive.is/Y5nJw
I share the feeling that better nutrition is probably not as much of a significant factor in developed countries. For what it's worth, we are more obese than our ancestors.
Our World in Data has this nice chart of life expectance by age in England and Wales [1]. I have this pet hypothesis that a good chunk of the increase in the life expectancy of the younger people in that chart is due to vaccination and better hygiene. And, for older ages, the a good chunk of increase is due to advances in surgery.
The effect of antibiotics is probably more uniform across the ages. It is note-worthy that penicillin was discovered in 1928, so the increase in life expectancy before then can't be due to antibiotics.
I have no expertise in this area, so you should take all of this with a pinch of salt. The Our World in Data chart is really cool though. That steep fall and rebounce due to the Spanish flu, and the contrast with COVID-19 with respect to affect on different age-groups is also interesting. [2]
[1]: https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy#it-is-not-only-ab...
[2]: I think comparing the naming of the diseases also tells us something about how society has changed.
I very much disagree. We could be a bit more accurate/pedantic by saying "he's trying to mount pressure to remove Rogan's podcast from Spotify" instead, but that doesn't change much.
> not be on a platform with people he perceived as ultra-shitty & socially-ruinous.
I cancelled my Spotify a long time ago, but I don't think it's much of a social platform. If you don't want to interact with Rogan, you simply can. I think you could even mute an artist, so Spotify wouldn't even suggest their content to you.
There is. Rogan is not trying to remove Neil Young's music from anywhere.
I've heard this unfruitful line of argument too often recently. Besides being unfruitful, I think it is based on a subtle fallacy/diversion.
The idea of free expression reasonably includes the right to criticize the principle itself. For example, in the US, you absolutely have the legal right to criticize the First Amendment. However, by doing so you would rightly be labelled as being against free expression.
If you like free expression, I think you should be cheering for Spotify and Rogan in this case.
I found an example of what you were referring to though (thanks to @shankr linking to a relevant Twitter thread). [1]
[1]: https://www.granburyisd.org/site/default.aspx?PageType=3&Dom...
[1]: https://www.granburyisd.org/site/default.aspx?PageType=3&Dom...
In the sense of removing books from bookstores, Amazon did ban a broad category of books. [2]
In the sense of literally burning books, I'm don't know of any recent instances in the US by either side. But I know of one example in Canada. [3]
[1]: https://www.newsweek.com/schools-drop-kill-mockingbird-requi...
[2]: WSJ: "Amazon Won’t Sell Books Framing LGBTQ+ Identities as Mental Illnesses" https://archive.fo/v5rWn
[3]: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/book-burning-at-ontario...
Do you have a source reporting that schools are actually removing books in response to this particular inquiry? It seems that they shouldn't be. (I am aware of other instances of books being explicitly removed from school libraries or curricula by the school boards.)
What makes me skeptical is that I'm not sure in what situation physically removing a bunch of books from the shelves would be cheaper/easier than retrieving records about them.