A producer, dissastified with other arrangements by his commercial vending platform and switching outlet is not censorship.
US First Ammendment rights prohibit the actions of government. They do not license, endorse or sanction the agency of people to contest messaging or choice of platform.
Nice FP, even unto the Subject. But I still think it's a better poll than most of the recent efforts. (And who did you bribe or wrestle to get the Fine-Structure Constant"?)
My take is rather more complicated than the Yes/No/Depends options. My basic answer is more like "No, but..." I do think there need to be limits on insane speech, but the "Depends" option is too vacuous. On top of the foundation of my "No" answer, I think there should be an easy way to assess and ignore the noisy fools, rage farmers, and
Hmm... Good point, though I think it's hard to assess the "focal" quality of "productive" FPs. I kind of like the opening jokes, though you don't see many of them these years. Some decent jokes, but few jokes that "trigger" broad and interesting discussions.
(Scare quotes expressing my concern about lack of clarity.)
Boycotts can be a form of censorship, if the goal of the boycott is to have a piece of media removed from publication. People don’t understand censorship. Like you claiming it has to be the result of government action. Where did you get that idea? Why does it even matter if a work is being censored by the government or by some other entity or group of people? At the end of the day, if you can’t listen to the podcast does it matter who is stopping you from doing it? Not really.
When bags of lettuce are making people sick, we pull them from the shelves.
When a drug causes horrific birth defects, we ban it.
Why can't we do the same for a radio program that kills people? If nothing else, why can't we make the host liable for the harm caused by their content?
The constitution prohibits laws abridging the freedom of speech, so that would need to be changed before you can start pulling radio shows off the air. But, form a practical standpoint, defective drugs or spoiled food literally kill people. When you say a radio program kills people, you (probably) don't mean that literally. What you are probably saying is that the information they include is leading people to make harmful decisions. That is far too subjective to be worthwhile in preventing people from makin
The constitution prohibits laws abridging the freedom of speech, so that would need to be changed before you can start pulling radio shows off the air
LOL! No.
We have a ton of rules restricting speech. From libel laws to perjury, we love sensible rules restricting speech. We have restrictions on advertising, even what things can be advertised. We even have rules dictating the specific phrasing you can use on packages of cheese.
In the real world, people know the risks they are taking and they don't simply accept whatever they've been told.
LOL! You're hopelessly naive. People are stupid and blindly believe whatever anyone with a confident smile tells them. There are people taking viagra, hormone replacement therapy pills to protect themselves against a virus tha
It's also a false premise, at least of we're talking about Spotify as the "censor", because Spotify is the publisher of their podcasts. They can be sued if a guest on their podcast defames someone, so they must have a system in place to prevent that. If they avoid publishing lies that hurt people's reputations, why shouldn't they also avoid publishing lies that kill people?
Many publishers try not to publish false statements, so why shouldn't Spotify?
Censorship is still censorship even if it is not performed by the government, government censorship is illegal censorship. A mob of people trying to silence speech that they do not like through boycotts is still censorship.
And where does this poll specify anything with regards to the U.S.A. constitution?
Why do U.S.A. citizens so often bring up their constitution and own cultural interpretations of things in discussions that have nothing to do with it. — It isn't about the U.S.A. constitution nor is it about what they call “freedom of speech”; it's about censorship.
The word “censorship” in English has never meant from the government only, and certainly not from the U.S.A. government only. That is
First, Vivek Murthy is not "the government". He is the Surgeon General, a position which is not in charge of any part of the US government that has the ability to implement any type of control over the media whatsoever.
But second, he didn't call for government censorship. Read your own link. Ignore the clickbait headline, and what he specifically said was "This not just about what the government can do,” he said, “this is about companies and individuals recognizing that the only way we get pa
First, Vivek Murthy is not "the government". He is the Surgeon General,
He is literally a state actor, appointed by elected officials. He is a government entity and part of the federal government. You're arguing semantics.
This is not semantics. He is a person employed by the government, but the fact that he's employed by the government does not mean he is the government. The part is not the whole.
And I notice you cleverly left out the end of that sentence, which was
...a position which is not in charge of any part of the US government that has the ability to implement any type of control over the media whatsoever.
His random statements to the press are not the policy of the government. Turns out that even people employed by the government still have free speech: he was asked for his opinion of media, and he gave it.
But second, he didn't call for government censorship.
He is calling for private industry to deny to individuals what is unacceptable to him and other government entities.
He did nothing of the kind. He was asked what coul
that's close. That's actually the White House Press Secretary, not the Surgeon General. And urging that the companies "do something"!
Why, saying companies should “be responsible and be vigilant to ensure the American people have accurate information about something as significant as Covid-19. That certainly includes Spotify” is clearly a coded message for "we need to implement government censorship in the United States."
Or, it is if you already believe that the government wants to implement censo
No, censorship is okay. We accept tons of censorship in our daily life. We even self-censor. We even happily allow censorship by the state. We have tons of laws regulating various kinds of speech. We even have rules against lying! You're okay with the overwhelming majority of these things.
Stop pretending anything less that perfect freedom of expression is somehow a bad thing. You don't believe it yourself.
You started with "a boycott is not censorship" and arrived two posts later at "anyway, fascists must be censored"
Not agreeing with the definition of Gavin McInnes to be a fascist, because I have zero idea who this guy is or what hes thinking about. But I say yes, people talk with fascists. That is what a free society is about. That is what freedom of speech is about.
The truth must beat falsehoods in debates and arguments. That is the basic assumption of our society and the only way this society can work the way it does. We assume and hope that the truth exists in the first place and that we can mututally agree on something that is true through a debate.
You claim the opposite. By demanding censorship of those you deem to be fascists, you implicitly concede say that you cannot beat a fascist in an argument about what is true and what isn't, and worse, you say that NO ONE ON YOUR SIDE can do that, either.
Please allow me a few questions to clarify that:
Do you think fascism is objectively and subjectively, morally wrong? Do you think that it is impossible for ANY antifascist to convince a neutral audience of this in a debate with a fascist and therefore, censorship is the best way to handle that? How do you know that fascism is wrong if neither you nor any other smart antifascist can prove that in a debate? Do you think, censorship, one of the hallmarks of a fascist society, is an acceptable and necessary tool to fight fascism?
And above all: How will you convince society that fascism is wrong when you are actively encouraging society to use fascist methods?
Someone farther up north talked about Multidimensional Earned Public Reputation which sounds to me like social credit.
The crux of the matter is and always remains that if you make behavioral rules, someone must be the judge of them. As we can see in our current society, people are not above and beyond completely reimagining an agreed upon phrase, nomen or intent.
When fascists become this nebulous group of people that may use and believe similar concepts as we do but are definit
The truth must beat falsehoods in debates and arguments.
Well, that doesn't happen.
People have this weird fantasy that when you let ideas compete with one another, the best ideas, or those closest to the truth, will naturally win. Here in reality, it's generally not the ideas that are even in competition, but the personalities behind them.
> This is the difference between allowing people to purposeful harm the public at large or helping to stop the damage before it goes too far.
Who decides what is "Harm?" Let's take a step back a few decades to DDT. If someone came on the radio to talk about how DDT is leading to birth defects, and then ton of people write and call in off the hook saying ban that person.. well the radio station is private. They can fire the host. They can block those interviews.
What is the truth? DDT cases birth defects and destroys bird populations. It was safe and effective for a long time before that. The damage to those children is literally unfixable.
These new drugs have had horrific side effects, which I have documented here (along with all the so-called fact checks):
Any appeal to science is bullshit. If someone quotes VARES, the "science" people will claim it's self-reporting (it's not; VARES are 80% doctor reports and each report has to be verified and tied back to the actual batch number, before it becomes part of the red number in the VARES database).
Months ago, people were getting banned for saying we don't know if these drugs prevent infection and transmission. Now that's a generally accepted fact that's not bannable. Same goes for the lab-leak.
So fuck you and you wanting to decide what information I'm allowed to hear and see in order to come up with my own conclusions.
The Freedom of Speech is essential in preventing autocratic regimes and stopping the spread of misinformation. If anything, freedom of speech should be further extended into the digital space with platforms having more power than the postal service. At the very least, social media should be treated like utilities. All posts should be in chronological order, not filtered, with no blocking what-so-ever. They should be common carrier like an SMS message.
If you get your way, how long until phone companies will start blocking texts or Google/Microsoft block e-mail for "misinformation".. and where does it end? Who decides what is real and what is fiction? There is a reason America's first human right in the Bill of Rights included the freedom of speech.
Go fuck your desire to bring about actual, real fascism.
You don’t have a right to control your private property. In fact, the government can come and take your private property at any time. But even it they don’t, they have the ability to say what you can do with it. For example, they can make it illegal to perform certain modifications on your vehicle. They can prohibit you from storing certain types of information on your computer. They can prohibit you from building on your property. They can prohibit you from tearing down or failing to maintain a
The lack of property rights in the constitution is complete enough that communism could be implemented in America without a single change in the constitution.
You have literally no idea hat you are talking about. Your property rights are not strong in any way. They’re not constitutionality guaranteed. And when it comes down to it, there’s very little you can do with your property without the explicit permission of the government.
We force private venues to accept all kinds of things. It would be completely trivial to require them to host free speech. I have no idea what problem you are talking about.
Sometimes it's really, really hard to tell the difference between a troll and an idiot.
I don't know which US you practice law in, but in the US where *I* practice, property rights are in fact very strong and backed by a mile-high stack of common law and constitutional protections. Furthermore, forcing private venues to host speech they don't wish to host isn't just a property rights issue, it's a speech issue, and something that would be far more than 'trivial'.
I assume you live in the US. There are no protections for private property written into the constitution. Not only that, but the construction specifically grants the government the authority to take private property. Your private property rights are entirely determined by the state and locality you reside in, and they can change at any time. You really need to look into this if you believe otherwise, you couldn’t be more wrong. There is even a supreme court precedent that says you can be barred by the
There are no protections for private property written into the constitution.
Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
Fifth Amendment
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation...
You may notice that these amendments actually allow the government to search your property and seize you possessions. They also do not prohibit the government from telling you what you can and can't do with your property. Nor do they prohibit the government telling you how to run your business. The supreme court has upheld the government's legal authority to do those things time and time again.
Those amendments do not protect your private property. They literally allow the government to seize your property. And they don’t place any restrictions on the government’s ability to tell you what you can and can’t do with your property. I don’t know what you’re seeing here that would lead you to conclude it that property rights are broadly protected.
They literally allow the government to seize your property.
They do the exact opposite of that. Maybe you just don't understand the concept of eminent domain? The 5th amendment is a limitation on the government's power here.
Everything, apparently. Assuming that you don't already know, I'll explain these to you.
The most important thing to remember here is tha the amendments we're going to look at grant you specific rights, not the government. Both of these amendments place restrictions on the government's ability to seize your property. They do not in any way grant the right to seize property to the government.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. This is a restriction. Without these pro
When the whole world is operating online, online property is a public infrastructure.
Public infrastructure is also privately owned.
Therefore, either private infrastructure companies can shut down electricity to people they don't like or online communication companies have to carry content they don't like.
There is no other option.
I am VERY sure that you would be absolutely up in arms about it, if Spotify would censor LGBT content or decided to block African American music altogether. And I am VERY sure that
No - I would have no problems with Spotify censoring LGBT content. It would make me personally not use their service - but I would not be calling for any legal action. They are a company and can do what they want.
I am pro "free speech" when that speech is factually based and not leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. That includes both speech on the left and the right. Talking about how gay couples should have rights and not be discriminated against is NOT the same thing as saying
Iâ(TM)m fine with most of those other than the utilities. Utilities (even if privately owned) enter into contracts with the areas they provide service to that say they will provide service evenly to everyone (among other things). What they get out of it is access to the physical infrastructure of the town/city. If itâ(TM)s a public utility then definitely no - they donâ(TM)t get to discriminate.
Private companies have all sorts of gatekeeping going on already. You canâ(TM)t shop at Co
Oh - and it is not fascist to let privately owned companies do what they want.
A decent definition of fascism: âoea centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.â
Private companies choosing not to peddle in lies about an ongoing pandemic does not even get close to fascism. Lies saying that the pandemic is a hoax are NOT âoeoppositionâ - they are simply lies.
"And one of that rights you give up is the right to refuse service to people you don't like."
No - you lose the right to refuse service to _protected groups_, such as black people, religious groups, gays, etc. A nutjob conspiracy theorist saying that the pandemic is a hoax is NOT a protected group. A snowflake Trump supporter that won't follow health guidelines is NOT a protected group. No one is compelled to service them.
STOP. Just stop and go research Jan 6t. Compared to the previous summer where BLM/Antifa protesters literally burned down huge pieces of DC, Jan 6th was obviously a setup where police were told to stand down. They wanted things to go bad. Called Jan 6th an insurrection is like calling BLM raging for 6 months a "peaceful protest." I saw it. I watched them loot and burn downtown Chicago just a block from where I lived. If the BLM insurrection happened on Jan 6th, there wouldn't be Capitol
Even if BLM protesters actually did "[burn] down huge pieces of DC", that in no way, shape or form alters the nature of what happened on January 6th. I really don't get why you people think shouting "BLM was worse!!!11!!1" on the internet somehow makes January 6th something other than what it was.
Assuming BLM was an insurrection, and was worse, it still does not help you here - the fact that OJ Simpson got away with killing two people doesn't mean you get to claim it's not murder when you stab your neighbor because he kept your lawnmower too long.
A large group of people, at the direction of their Dear Leader, attempted to prevent his constitutional removal from office through violent, extra-constitutional means. There aren't too many standard definitions of 'insurrection' that wouldn't encompass that.
Also:
The people who were arrested for trespassing on Jan 6th have been in jail for over a year, with no bail, in solitary, with little hope.
I'm pretty sure *you* need to "just stop and go research Jan 6th", because I'm pretty sure you're getting your info from people screaming at bus stops. Also, FYI, you know what other big violent protest movement saw a lot of people wind up with prison sentences? BLM. Because going to jail for destroying property doesn't make you a "political prisoner", it makes you a vandal, even if the orange-haired man told you to do it.
I'm of the mind that both the BLM footings and burning AND the raid on the Capitol were wrong. I am Conservative, but don't identify with the Party of Trump.
Even if BLM protesters actually did "[burn] down huge pieces of DC", that in no way, shape or form alters the nature of what happened on January 6th. I really don't get why you people think shouting "BLM was worse!!!11!!1" on the internet somehow makes January 6th something other than what it was.
The disparity in how participants are being treated is what gets Republicans riled up. The seemingly lack of consequence of looting and burning whole sections cities needs justice. Republicans want the same standard applied.
Assuming BLM was an insurrection, and was worse, it still does not help you here - the fact that OJ Simpson got away with killing two people doesn't mean you get to claim it's not murder when you stab your neighbor because he kept your lawnmower too long.
Apples and oranges. OJ was tried. People who participated in the BLM insurrections aren't facing any consequences at all.
"The disparity in how participants are being treated"
This is COMPLETE BS made up by conservative media. BLM participants were arrested and tried _in droves_. There were more than 14,000 arrests for BLM protests: https://www.forbes.com/sites/r... [forbes.com] . That's in addition to getting actually beaten, gassed, shot with rubber bullets, etc. on the spot. Hell, Trump gassed a huge group of them just so he could get a picture with him holding a bible upside down. In comparison - only 6 people were arrested on Janu
This is complete BS. Almost every single rioter was let go. None of them faced any consequences. This is STILL HAPPENING in LA where people are breaking into freight trains constantly, get arrested and are immediately let out to commit crimes again.
The Jan 6th protestors literally did nothing but walk into a damn building. There were very very few that broke anything, and even with those people, charge them and make them serve their 30 ~ 90 days or whatever. The vast majority of people held for Jan 6th caus
I'd say trying to overthrow the government should come with a stiffer penalty than stealing a six-pack, but I'm not even sure why we would be comparing the two. Just because crimes happen within a similar time period doesn't mean they're comparable. If a Trump supporter parked illegally while a Biden supporter robbed a bank, you wouldn't say "But both sides are doing crimes", you'd say "that Trump supporter should get a parking ticket" and "that Biden supporter should be arrested for robbery".
No one tried to overthrow the government. They tried to keep someone they didn't like from taking the reigns very loudly while touring the building and a couple of them stole shit. They were deluded, full of shit and wrong....but that wasn't an insurrection. Barely qualifies as a riot.
The Civil War was an insurrection.
The Revolutionary War was an insurrection.
Spartacus led an insurrection.
WW2 vet GI's led an insurrection in Athens, TN.
Often, the difference between insurrection and a revolution is who win
Yeah they tried to keep someone from taking the reigns who was legally elected. If they had succeeded it would have been an insurrection, but fortunately they did not. It's like if you shoot someone but miss, it's not murder, but you're still going to jail for attempted murder
But having people whip up others into a mob with deadly mis-information is what causes most autocratic regimes.
[CITATION NEEDED]
With the examples you gave, the people were happily willing to go along with Mao and Hitler's agenda. Same thing in Afghanistan: most of the population supports the Taliban.
One of the main supporting pillars of autocratic regimes in the modern era is fear of outsiders, fomented by leadership through manipulation of the media in order to create the impression that the only thing between the people and abject misery is the current rigid control over their lives. The people "happily go along" because they are either afraid of the alternative or have been promised something that will never be delivered. This is done through misinformation.
People forget that we already have quite a few restrictions on harmful speech. That includes speech that causes someone to do harm to themselves. You've probably heard stories about people who have been convicted of manslaughter for encouraging a suicidal person to kill themselves. Those stories are true.
Vaccine misinformation has killed countless people. Including people that I care about. It's long past time we started treating these people like the criminals that they are.
It's funny because almost every claim Faucci has made about covid and the vaccines has proven false, form where the virus came from, the efficacy of cloth masks , transmission rates, death rates for people without co morbidity, the danger of the Omicron variant and anyone challenging that was branded misinformation or a denier of some sort.
The man who invented the MRNA vaccine technique was accused of spreading misinformation and censored.
Science is about questions, you no longer have science or reason if q
This simply isn't true. He's creating debate where none exists. He puts dangerous lies against truth and calls them equal. This just elevates the lies.
They have also said that vaccines will protect us from Omicron. Now they are saying that both Pfizer and Moderna are working on the vaccine versions adjusted for Omicron. So what exactly is the truth here?
Both of those things are true. The current vaccines are effective against the Omicron variant and both Pfizer and Moderna are working on vaccines that target the Omicron variant. There is no contradiction here.
Do you get paid to copy/paste this trash or do you do it for the lulz? You're getting people killed. Stop it.
A CDC spokesperson has said so in the very beginning of 2020. I remember seeing the broadcast.
*Yawn* Sorry. I deal with facts and reality, not your fever dreams. Video or GTFO.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/arti... [cdc.gov]
Learn to read. Your link supports my claim, not yours.
I myself wear an Etsy mask with "Let's Go Brandon" and American flag printed on it.
To let everyone know that you're a moron?
This is just plain silly. If those vaccines are effective in protecting us from Omicron, why working on the new ones?
The problem is that you only "think" about things in absolute terms. Seat belts are very effective, but we still have air bags. Why do you think that is? Try not to hurt yourself.
But the poll in general is a stupid premise. Should X media be moderated? Generally I'd say 'Yes'. Should the government censor X media? I'd say 'No'.
It's like saying "Should messages on the internet be subject to any sort of moderation or censorship?" There's a BIG gap between say the slashdot moderation system and an ISP/government blocking the messages
Yes, because podcasts are not just audio recordings for your friends. Podcasts are basically a type of media and media must be moderated to a certain extent unless you wanna have accidents, destruction and death.
Which accidents and destruction are a result of podcasts? And which corporations deserve to be the moderators? All other media is controlled and disseminated by corporations.
Despite our seeming polarization, we still rely on a common sense of decency that make much of the censorship uncontroversial. Sharing personal information of private citizens, death threats, recordings of violent crimes posted by the perpetrator, and so on are all commonly understood to be out of bounds.
The problem is that there are always gray areas, and immediately jumping to an absolute stance does not move the conversation forward.
In the case of Spotify, you have a platform with a lot of different
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Monday January 31, 2022 @09:24PM (#62225547)
So now you're saying podcasts caused the capital riot? You got a source for that? Can you point to any misinformation Joe Rogan has propagated? Not cherry picked sound bites, but actual full context videos of him spreading misinformation?
What do you propose we do about the corporate media that's been wrong about COVID at every turn? Ban them too?
Do you think you are smart enough to discern what is misinformation and what is not, but others aren't? Why do you think you're so much smarter than everyone else?
When have the censors ever been the good guys? Can you name any time in history?
Why are you unique and intelligent enough to decide what people should be able to listen to?
Why do you think you should get to make your own decisions but other people shouldn't?
Joe Rogan has never told people not to get vaccinated. In fact he has recommended the vast majority of the population to get vaccinated. Now, you'd know that if you listened to him instead of corporate media headlines.
Sure, he's gone on a lot about ivermectin as a treatment for covid when it's been studied and pretty well proven that it does nothing (though it does help people in regions where parasites are common). His continuing to spread that misinformation likely led to many deaths
Your view on this is quite scary and if people like you win this will no longer be a country that I want to live in. Which source exactly has not provided lots of disinformation with regards to COVID? I cannot think of even one. The capitol riot? What does that have to do with anything?
Companies like Spotify try to hijack the concept of podcasts by putting them into platforms. This is not what a podcast actually it, it's audio files you download via the information provided to you by an RSS-feed. There is no need for a platform, everybody with webspace can do it. The only sensible involvement of a 3rd party is in hosting.
Therefore the premise is simply wrong. Those Spotyfy exclusive things are not podcasts.
BTW if you wonder how podcasts can finance themselves? Most German podcasts do that simply by offering a way to "donate".
Back in the ‘80s, a senator’s wife named Tipper Gore got sick of her kids listening to music she didn’t like, so she started an organization called the Parents Music Resource Center. The PMRC compiled a list of songs they found unacceptable, including “Darling Nikki” by Prince, “We’re Not Gonna Take It” by Twisted Sister, and “She Bop” by Cyndi Lauper. Then Tipper used her political connections to convince the Senate to hold hearings about this supposedly dangerous music.
In other words, a lot of Americans decided they liked what popular entertainers were saying, and a handful of busybodies tried to put a stop to it. “If we don’t want to listen to it, nobody should get to listen to it. We need to protect the helpless unwashed masses from themselves!”
That was different because it was real censorship. This is not real censorship because of reasons, so it’s no big deal. I mean, the first amendment only exists to protect speech I value, like music. If it’s not something I care about, or it’s not the government doing it, it’s not real censorship. That’s why I voted “no” in this poll. Did you know Neil Young is a big advocate for free speech? That’s another way you can tell his isn’t real censorship.
Censorship (let's be clear about the type of censorship that could have happened here: a private company may have stopped carrying a program that its users don't like) of dangerous speech (hate speech, extreme misinformation) is VERY much different from censoring music that has "salacious beats".
In this case - Joe Rogan (and, hence, Spotify) amplified the idea that the pandemic is not real. That is _dangerous_. That will (and is) lead to thousands of deaths due to ignoring health guidelines. People subsc
I'm pretty sure even "Ol' Neil" isn't sure how much of "his music" is his and how much is owned by Hipgnosis [hipgnosissongs.com], which is partially owned by Blackrock Investments [blackrock.com] which also owns a portion of Spotify [spotify.com] and I'm not sure where but there is a former Pfizer CEO in that dog chasing tail mess too. Looks to me like Good ol' anti-establishment Neil is now up to his neck in establishment.
"It Depends" and "Yes" are the same answer for this question.
The question was whether there's ANY condition under which it is ok - the "it depends" part is already baked into the question and included in the "yes" answer.
The only functionally different answers are No: not under any circumstances or Yes: given X,Y or Z.
You're free to project all the absolute filth that you can come up with to anyone who will listen, with some boundaries that from time to time the Supreme Court have established about the 1st amendment. That doesn't mean any third party is obligated to carry it. If you can drive viewers to your personal website (and can find an ISP to host it) or to your house and your basement, absolutely no one in the US can stop you.
All the cases I know of alleged censorship right now are people using 3rd parties to spre
It's censorship, just not government censorship. A lot of people who are advocating de-platforming are actively trying to prevent the person from being heard.
Podcasts should be as Dog intended them: downloaded from the content provider's ISP, only available on iPods, and since there are no iPods, dead and gone.
Seriously, it's a radio show - all of the craps already been hashed out.
In the US this comes down to the Constitution. Should the government whether Federal, State, City, or local moderate or censor podcasts, the answer with very limited caveats is a resounding NO.
Should a company providing a service be able to moderate or censor people using their platform, the answer is YES*.
*I do believe that any such moderation/censor policy have well published guidelines that normal people can understand.
Moderation or censorship... by whom? Presumably if you're publishing with some sort of aggregator, they'll have terms of service you'll need to follow. And the market will have some sway, even applying pressure to the aggregator to change its ToS. Oh noes, censorship! But the nice thing is, you don't need an aggregator to publish your podcast. All you need is an audio file, a short bit of XML, and someplace to store them. There you go, your own moderation-free podcast, Radio Free Nutjob. Knock yourself o
Yes-All of the podcasts are subject to any and possibly every sort of moderation or censorship from all or any sources.
No-None of the podcasts are subject to any and no sort of moderation or censorship from all or any sources.
Depends-Any or some but not necessarily all of the podcasts are subject to any and every sort and lack of moderation or/and censorship from some sources, but not necessarily all sources or no source at all.
Whether the hosting platform chooses to moderate them. Every platform should moderate podcasts or not as it sees fit. And listeners and content providers can choose to take their ears, dollars, and content elsewhere if the don't like the moderation decisions.
It really isn't that complicated.
Every platform should moderate podcasts or not as it sees fit..
Should the COMCAST platform be able to moderate CNN because of the Rachel Maddow Trump/Russia collusion hoax? Should the CSPAN platform be able to ban Adam Schift until he produces the "Evidence" he claimed he had?
Every public policy should be about harm reduction. We've graduated from the era of principles (no one is genuine in their intentions or attitudes or actions anymore anyway) so all we can do is try to balance short term and long term reduction of harm. If censoring or fining or providing warnings before a specific podcasts results in significantly less COVID deaths, then it's a no brainer. You can't argue that free speech is more important than life.
The First Amendment guarantees free speech in the US. Government censorship would be illegal. Boycotting a site that you do not approve of is appropriate. However, there should be some restrictions on making money from spreading lies. Free speech in my opinion does not include the right to con people for money.
You can not yell fire! in a movie theatre. No one has ever had the right to cause panic without reason. That is tested law.
Besides, moderation or censorship of podcasts is not up to the government. Its up to the content providers. All the people who voted no are insisting those that pay to host podcasts are compelled to host _anything_ anyone wants to say. What a bullshit idea. Can I demand Spotify host my podcast where I upload a daily screed calling Joe Rogan a man-baby, Jordan Peterson is his lover and
Long answer: It seems like *all* groups today think they should be able to "cancel" anything they don't like or don't want to hear. This attitude is, frankly, pathetic. If you don't want to engage with people who hold different opinions, then ignore them. Don't follow them on social media, don't go listen to their podcasts. For that matter, stop reading (or listening to) people on "your" side, who get all offended by those other beliefs. More: know that, in order to get all offended, they have almost certainly taken quotes and information out of context.
Freedom of speech is a basic human right (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 [un.org]). Lots of governments, even Western governments, haven't fully accepted this. Importantly, there is no reason for this freedom to apply only to governments. It should apply to commercial speech platforms as well. Any platform that generally allows people to post on any topic (Facebook, Twitter, etc, etc.) should be required to allow people to post whatever they want, restricting only clearly illegal content.
You are free to say anything you want with the typical exceptions (yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, etc.).
Just because you have that right, that doesn't mean you get a platform to propagate it. If you want that, go get a soapbox and stand up and start yelling. Or start a blog. If you use someone else's platform, you get to play by their rules. If you don't like their rules, don't use their platform.
Spotify paid $100million for Rogan's dribble. They need an ROI. Their choice. Not on
The problem with Spotify is that they were trying to be both a broadcaster AND platform. They paid Joe Rogan to produce content exclusively for them. That's like Fox News paying Tucker Carlson or MSNBC paying Rachel Maddow to host a show. That's being a broadcaster. But then, they also want to host effectively all recorded music and provide an avenue for any musician to upload their songs. That's being a platform.
You run into problems when you try to be both. If you are a platform, you can make rules (and k
Idiots should be allowed to spill their vitriol. They should not, however, be given a megaphone. Unfortunately, the internet as it stands is the loudest morons with the most ardent followers generate flow and get attention.
Gone are the times of putting them in the categories of "arrest them" and "ignore them", which I think covers quite a bit of ground.
FALSE PREMISE (Score:4, Informative)
A producer, dissastified with other arrangements by his commercial vending platform and switching outlet is not censorship.
US First Ammendment rights prohibit the actions of government. They do not license, endorse or sanction the agency of people to contest messaging or choice of platform.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice FP, even unto the Subject. But I still think it's a better poll than most of the recent efforts. (And who did you bribe or wrestle to get the Fine-Structure Constant"?)
My take is rather more complicated than the Yes/No/Depends options. My basic answer is more like "No, but..." I do think there need to be limits on insane speech, but the "Depends" option is too vacuous. On top of the foundation of my "No" answer, I think there should be an easy way to assess and ignore the noisy fools, rage farmers, and
Re: (Score:2)
Nice FP, even unto the Subject.
Not as bad as many first posts, but the question asked about "moderation or censorship," not about "boycott", so it was a change of topic.
What bothers me about the question is that it seems to see little distinction between moderation and censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... Good point, though I think it's hard to assess the "focal" quality of "productive" FPs. I kind of like the opening jokes, though you don't see many of them these years. Some decent jokes, but few jokes that "trigger" broad and interesting discussions.
(Scare quotes expressing my concern about lack of clarity.)
Re: (Score:2)
Boycotts can be a form of censorship, if the goal of the boycott is to have a piece of media removed from publication. People don’t understand censorship. Like you claiming it has to be the result of government action. Where did you get that idea? Why does it even matter if a work is being censored by the government or by some other entity or group of people? At the end of the day, if you can’t listen to the podcast does it matter who is stopping you from doing it? Not really.
Re: (Score:2)
When bags of lettuce are making people sick, we pull them from the shelves.
When a drug causes horrific birth defects, we ban it.
Why can't we do the same for a radio program that kills people? If nothing else, why can't we make the host liable for the harm caused by their content?
Re: (Score:2)
The constitution prohibits laws abridging the freedom of speech, so that would need to be changed before you can start pulling radio shows off the air. But, form a practical standpoint, defective drugs or spoiled food literally kill people. When you say a radio program kills people, you (probably) don't mean that literally. What you are probably saying is that the information they include is leading people to make harmful decisions. That is far too subjective to be worthwhile in preventing people from makin
Re: (Score:2)
The constitution prohibits laws abridging the freedom of speech, so that would need to be changed before you can start pulling radio shows off the air
LOL! No.
We have a ton of rules restricting speech. From libel laws to perjury, we love sensible rules restricting speech. We have restrictions on advertising, even what things can be advertised. We even have rules dictating the specific phrasing you can use on packages of cheese.
In the real world, people know the risks they are taking and they don't simply accept whatever they've been told.
LOL! You're hopelessly naive. People are stupid and blindly believe whatever anyone with a confident smile tells them. There are people taking viagra, hormone replacement therapy pills to protect themselves against a virus tha
Re: (Score:2)
Weren't the artists asking Spotify to pull their songs basically asking for the censorship of Joe Rogan?
Re: (Score:2)
They were saying they didn't want to be on the same platform. If Rogan wants to still be on Spotify, he's basically censoring their music!
Re: FALSE PREMISE (Score:2)
It's also a false premise, at least of we're talking about Spotify as the "censor", because Spotify is the publisher of their podcasts. They can be sued if a guest on their podcast defames someone, so they must have a system in place to prevent that. If they avoid publishing lies that hurt people's reputations, why shouldn't they also avoid publishing lies that kill people?
Many publishers try not to publish false statements, so why shouldn't Spotify?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And where does this poll specify anything with regards to the U.S.A. constitution?
Why do U.S.A. citizens so often bring up their constitution and own cultural interpretations of things in discussions that have nothing to do with it. — It isn't about the U.S.A. constitution nor is it about what they call “freedom of speech”; it's about censorship.
The word “censorship” in English has never meant from the government only, and certainly not from the U.S.A. government only. That is
FALSE PREMISE is False (Score:3)
Yeah but in this case the government is calling for censorship https://www.outkick.com/u-s-su... [outkick.com]
No.
First, Vivek Murthy is not "the government". He is the Surgeon General, a position which is not in charge of any part of the US government that has the ability to implement any type of control over the media whatsoever.
But second, he didn't call for government censorship. Read your own link. Ignore the clickbait headline, and what he specifically said was "This not just about what the government can do,” he said, “this is about companies and individuals recognizing that the only way we get pa
Re: (Score:2)
I can assure you that the surgeon general is most certainly part of the government.
FALSE PREMISE is STILL False (Score:3)
First, Vivek Murthy is not "the government". He is the Surgeon General,
He is literally a state actor, appointed by elected officials. He is a government entity and part of the federal government. You're arguing semantics.
This is not semantics. He is a person employed by the government, but the fact that he's employed by the government does not mean he is the government. The part is not the whole.
And I notice you cleverly left out the end of that sentence, which was
...a position which is not in charge of any part of the US government that has the ability to implement any type of control over the media whatsoever.
His random statements to the press are not the policy of the government. Turns out that even people employed by the government still have free speech: he was asked for his opinion of media, and he gave it.
But second, he didn't call for government censorship.
He is calling for private industry to deny to individuals what is unacceptable to him and other government entities.
He did nothing of the kind. He was asked what coul
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think "the government" is if not people
Person. Singular.
employed by the government?
What do you think a car is, other than an assemblage of parts? Surely it's accurate to refer to a spark plug as a car.
"I bought a new car today. It cost me $2.99."
Nope. Louis XI might have said "I am France", but the Surgeon General cannot he is the US Government.
Re: (Score:2)
that's close. That's actually the White House Press Secretary, not the Surgeon General.
And urging that the companies "do something"!
Why, saying companies should “be responsible and be vigilant to ensure the American people have accurate information about something as significant as Covid-19. That certainly includes Spotify” is clearly a coded message for "we need to implement government censorship in the United States."
Or, it is if you already believe that the government wants to implement censo
Re: (Score:2)
No, censorship is okay. We accept tons of censorship in our daily life. We even self-censor. We even happily allow censorship by the state. We have tons of laws regulating various kinds of speech. We even have rules against lying! You're okay with the overwhelming majority of these things.
Stop pretending anything less that perfect freedom of expression is somehow a bad thing. You don't believe it yourself.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:FALSE PREMISE (Score:5, Insightful)
You started with "a boycott is not censorship" and arrived two posts later at "anyway, fascists must be censored"
Not agreeing with the definition of Gavin McInnes to be a fascist, because I have zero idea who this guy is or what hes thinking about. But I say yes, people talk with fascists. That is what a free society is about. That is what freedom of speech is about.
The truth must beat falsehoods in debates and arguments. That is the basic assumption of our society and the only way this society can work the way it does. We assume and hope that the truth exists in the first place and that we can mututally agree on something that is true through a debate.
You claim the opposite. By demanding censorship of those you deem to be fascists, you implicitly concede say that you cannot beat a fascist in an argument about what is true and what isn't, and worse, you say that NO ONE ON YOUR SIDE can do that, either.
Please allow me a few questions to clarify that:
Do you think fascism is objectively and subjectively, morally wrong?
Do you think that it is impossible for ANY antifascist to convince a neutral audience of this in a debate with a fascist and therefore, censorship is the best way to handle that?
How do you know that fascism is wrong if neither you nor any other smart antifascist can prove that in a debate?
Do you think, censorship, one of the hallmarks of a fascist society, is an acceptable and necessary tool to fight fascism?
And above all:
How will you convince society that fascism is wrong when you are actively encouraging society to use fascist methods?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh if only I had mod points...
Someone farther up north talked about Multidimensional Earned Public Reputation which sounds to me like social credit.
The crux of the matter is and always remains that if you make behavioral rules, someone must be the judge of them. As we can see in our current society, people are not above and beyond completely reimagining an agreed upon phrase, nomen or intent.
When fascists become this nebulous group of people that may use and believe similar concepts as we do but are definit
Re: (Score:2)
The truth must beat falsehoods in debates and arguments.
Well, that doesn't happen.
People have this weird fantasy that when you let ideas compete with one another, the best ideas, or those closest to the truth, will naturally win. Here in reality, it's generally not the ideas that are even in competition, but the personalities behind them.
Re:FALSE PREMISE (Score:5, Insightful)
> This is the difference between allowing people to purposeful harm the public at large or helping to stop the damage before it goes too far.
Who decides what is "Harm?" Let's take a step back a few decades to DDT. If someone came on the radio to talk about how DDT is leading to birth defects, and then ton of people write and call in off the hook saying ban that person .. well the radio station is private. They can fire the host. They can block those interviews.
What is the truth? DDT cases birth defects and destroys bird populations. It was safe and effective for a long time before that. The damage to those children is literally unfixable.
These new drugs have had horrific side effects, which I have documented here (along with all the so-called fact checks):
https://battlepenguin.com/poli... [battlepenguin.com]
Any appeal to science is bullshit. If someone quotes VARES, the "science" people will claim it's self-reporting (it's not; VARES are 80% doctor reports and each report has to be verified and tied back to the actual batch number, before it becomes part of the red number in the VARES database).
Months ago, people were getting banned for saying we don't know if these drugs prevent infection and transmission. Now that's a generally accepted fact that's not bannable. Same goes for the lab-leak.
So fuck you and you wanting to decide what information I'm allowed to hear and see in order to come up with my own conclusions.
The Freedom of Speech is essential in preventing autocratic regimes and stopping the spread of misinformation. If anything, freedom of speech should be further extended into the digital space with platforms having more power than the postal service. At the very least, social media should be treated like utilities. All posts should be in chronological order, not filtered, with no blocking what-so-ever. They should be common carrier like an SMS message.
If you get your way, how long until phone companies will start blocking texts or Google/Microsoft block e-mail for "misinformation" .. and where does it end? Who decides what is real and what is fiction? There is a reason America's first human right in the Bill of Rights included the freedom of speech.
Go fuck your desire to bring about actual, real fascism.
Re: (Score:3)
The right to control your private property, i.e. Spotify, essential. Once you are forced to carry content you don't like, that's fascism.
Imagine if you couldn't turn the telescreen off, to stop you censoring the broadcaster.
Re: (Score:3)
You don’t have a right to control your private property. In fact, the government can come and take your private property at any time. But even it they don’t, they have the ability to say what you can do with it. For example, they can make it illegal to perform certain modifications on your vehicle. They can prohibit you from storing certain types of information on your computer. They can prohibit you from building on your property. They can prohibit you from tearing down or failing to maintain a
Re: (Score:2)
The lack of property rights in the constitution is complete enough that communism could be implemented in America without a single change in the constitution.
Collectively owned property, yum.
Re: (Score:2)
More accurately, you can do what you like with your property except where it starts to interfere with other people.
The government can, in some circumstances, take your property, but your property rights are quite strong and defended by law.
Anyway, the point stands, once we start forcing private venues to accept other people's speech against their will, we have a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
You have literally no idea hat you are talking about. Your property rights are not strong in any way. They’re not constitutionality guaranteed. And when it comes down to it, there’s very little you can do with your property without the explicit permission of the government.
We force private venues to accept all kinds of things. It would be completely trivial to require them to host free speech. I have no idea what problem you are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know which US you practice law in, but in the US where *I* practice, property rights are in fact very strong and backed by a mile-high stack of common law and constitutional protections. Furthermore, forcing private venues to host speech they don't wish to host isn't just a property rights issue, it's a speech issue, and something that would be far more than 'trivial'.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you live in the US. There are no protections for private property written into the constitution. Not only that, but the construction specifically grants the government the authority to take private property. Your private property rights are entirely determined by the state and locality you reside in, and they can change at any time. You really need to look into this if you believe otherwise, you couldn’t be more wrong. There is even a supreme court precedent that says you can be barred by the
Re: (Score:2)
There are no protections for private property written into the constitution.
Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ...
Fifth Amendment
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation ...
Re: (Score:2)
You may notice that these amendments actually allow the government to search your property and seize you possessions. They also do not prohibit the government from telling you what you can and can't do with your property. Nor do they prohibit the government telling you how to run your business. The supreme court has upheld the government's legal authority to do those things time and time again.
Re: (Score:2)
Your claim was the Constitution did not say anything about private property. I've proven it does by quoting those PROTECTIONS in the 4th and 5th.
Rather than admit you were wrong, you are now moving the goal post.
Re: (Score:2)
Those amendments do not protect your private property. They literally allow the government to seize your property. And they don’t place any restrictions on the government’s ability to tell you what you can and can’t do with your property. I don’t know what you’re seeing here that would lead you to conclude it that property rights are broadly protected.
Re: (Score:2)
They literally allow the government to seize your property.
They do the exact opposite of that. Maybe you just don't understand the concept of eminent domain? The 5th amendment is a limitation on the government's power here.
Re: (Score:2)
You are citing laws to me that explicitly allow the government to seize your property. There is no subjectivity here. What am I missing?
Re: (Score:2)
What am I missing?
Everything, apparently. Assuming that you don't already know, I'll explain these to you.
The most important thing to remember here is tha the amendments we're going to look at grant you specific rights, not the government. Both of these amendments place restrictions on the government's ability to seize your property. They do not in any way grant the right to seize property to the government.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. This is a restriction. Without these pro
Re: (Score:2)
When the whole world is operating online, online property is a public infrastructure.
Public infrastructure is also privately owned.
Therefore, either private infrastructure companies can shut down electricity to people they don't like or online communication companies have to carry content they don't like.
There is no other option.
I am VERY sure that you would be absolutely up in arms about it, if Spotify would censor LGBT content or decided to block African American music altogether. And I am VERY sure that
Re: (Score:2)
No - I would have no problems with Spotify censoring LGBT content. It would make me personally not use their service - but I would not be calling for any legal action. They are a company and can do what they want.
I am pro "free speech" when that speech is factually based and not leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. That includes both speech on the left and the right. Talking about how gay couples should have rights and not be discriminated against is NOT the same thing as saying
Re: (Score:2)
So a company can do whatever they want.
Would you agree to all companies shutting down electricity, water, delivery and all other services to "fascists"?
Walmart requiring proof of a good standing on social media, aka social credit scoring?
One could always shop elsewhere, I know.
What about credit card companies and banks denying "fascists" all banking, all credit cards?
Is that a society that is "antifascist" or "fascist under a different logo"?
Re: FALSE PREMISE (Score:2)
Iâ(TM)m fine with most of those other than the utilities. Utilities (even if privately owned) enter into contracts with the areas they provide service to that say they will provide service evenly to everyone (among other things). What they get out of it is access to the physical infrastructure of the town/city. If itâ(TM)s a public utility then definitely no - they donâ(TM)t get to discriminate.
Private companies have all sorts of gatekeeping going on already. You canâ(TM)t shop at Co
Re: FALSE PREMISE (Score:2)
Oh - and it is not fascist to let privately owned companies do what they want.
A decent definition of fascism: âoea centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.â
Private companies choosing not to peddle in lies about an ongoing pandemic does not even get close to fascism. Lies saying that the pandemic is a hoax are NOT âoeoppositionâ - they are simply lies.
Re: (Score:3)
"And one of that rights you give up is the right to refuse service to people you don't like."
No - you lose the right to refuse service to _protected groups_, such as black people, religious groups, gays, etc. A nutjob conspiracy theorist saying that the pandemic is a hoax is NOT a protected group. A snowflake Trump supporter that won't follow health guidelines is NOT a protected group. No one is compelled to service them.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
> Jan 6 in the US
STOP. Just stop and go research Jan 6t. Compared to the previous summer where BLM/Antifa protesters literally burned down huge pieces of DC, Jan 6th was obviously a setup where police were told to stand down. They wanted things to go bad. Called Jan 6th an insurrection is like calling BLM raging for 6 months a "peaceful protest." I saw it. I watched them loot and burn downtown Chicago just a block from where I lived. If the BLM insurrection happened on Jan 6th, there wouldn't be Capitol
Re: FALSE PREMISE (Score:2)
"Compared to the previous summer where BLM/Antifa protesters literally burned down huge pieces of DC"
You mean where agents provocateur did so?
Re:FALSE PREMISE (Score:5, Informative)
Assuming BLM was an insurrection, and was worse, it still does not help you here - the fact that OJ Simpson got away with killing two people doesn't mean you get to claim it's not murder when you stab your neighbor because he kept your lawnmower too long.
A large group of people, at the direction of their Dear Leader, attempted to prevent his constitutional removal from office through violent, extra-constitutional means. There aren't too many standard definitions of 'insurrection' that wouldn't encompass that.
Also:
The people who were arrested for trespassing on Jan 6th have been in jail for over a year, with no bail, in solitary, with little hope.
I'm pretty sure *you* need to "just stop and go research Jan 6th", because I'm pretty sure you're getting your info from people screaming at bus stops. Also, FYI, you know what other big violent protest movement saw a lot of people wind up with prison sentences? BLM. Because going to jail for destroying property doesn't make you a "political prisoner", it makes you a vandal, even if the orange-haired man told you to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm of the mind that both the BLM footings and burning AND the raid on the Capitol were wrong. I am Conservative, but don't identify with the Party of Trump.
Even if BLM protesters actually did "[burn] down huge pieces of DC", that in no way, shape or form alters the nature of what happened on January 6th. I really don't get why you people think shouting "BLM was worse!!!11!!1" on the internet somehow makes January 6th something other than what it was.
The disparity in how participants are being treated is what gets Republicans riled up. The seemingly lack of consequence of looting and burning whole sections cities needs justice. Republicans want the same standard applied.
Assuming BLM was an insurrection, and was worse, it still does not help you here - the fact that OJ Simpson got away with killing two people doesn't mean you get to claim it's not murder when you stab your neighbor because he kept your lawnmower too long.
Apples and oranges. OJ was tried. People who participated in the BLM insurrections aren't facing any consequences at all.
Re: (Score:2)
"The disparity in how participants are being treated"
This is COMPLETE BS made up by conservative media. BLM participants were arrested and tried _in droves_. There were more than 14,000 arrests for BLM protests: https://www.forbes.com/sites/r... [forbes.com] . That's in addition to getting actually beaten, gassed, shot with rubber bullets, etc. on the spot. Hell, Trump gassed a huge group of them just so he could get a picture with him holding a bible upside down. In comparison - only 6 people were arrested on Janu
Re: (Score:3)
This is complete BS. Almost every single rioter was let go. None of them faced any consequences. This is STILL HAPPENING in LA where people are breaking into freight trains constantly, get arrested and are immediately let out to commit crimes again.
The Jan 6th protestors literally did nothing but walk into a damn building. There were very very few that broke anything, and even with those people, charge them and make them serve their 30 ~ 90 days or whatever. The vast majority of people held for Jan 6th caus
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say trying to overthrow the government should come with a stiffer penalty than stealing a six-pack, but I'm not even sure why we would be comparing the two. Just because crimes happen within a similar time period doesn't mean they're comparable. If a Trump supporter parked illegally while a Biden supporter robbed a bank, you wouldn't say "But both sides are doing crimes", you'd say "that Trump supporter should get a parking ticket" and "that Biden supporter should be arrested for robbery".
Really the o
Re: (Score:3)
The Jan 6th protestors literally did nothing but walk into a damn building.
This is a lie.
It's not even a good lie. We've all seen the video. Who do you think you're fooling?
Re: FALSE PREMISE (Score:3)
No one tried to overthrow the government. They tried to keep someone they didn't like from taking the reigns very loudly while touring the building and a couple of them stole shit. They were deluded, full of shit and wrong....but that wasn't an insurrection. Barely qualifies as a riot.
The Civil War was an insurrection.
The Revolutionary War was an insurrection.
Spartacus led an insurrection.
WW2 vet GI's led an insurrection in Athens, TN.
Often, the difference between insurrection and a revolution is who win
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah they tried to keep someone from taking the reigns who was legally elected. If they had succeeded it would have been an insurrection, but fortunately they did not. It's like if you shoot someone but miss, it's not murder, but you're still going to jail for attempted murder
Re: (Score:2)
But having people whip up others into a mob with deadly mis-information is what causes most autocratic regimes.
[CITATION NEEDED]
With the examples you gave, the people were happily willing to go along with Mao and Hitler's agenda. Same thing in Afghanistan: most of the population supports the Taliban.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you might want to read more.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need misinformation to be afraid of outsiders.
Re: (Score:2)
Your xenophobia is showing. It's a bad look.
Re: (Score:2)
People forget that we already have quite a few restrictions on harmful speech. That includes speech that causes someone to do harm to themselves. You've probably heard stories about people who have been convicted of manslaughter for encouraging a suicidal person to kill themselves. Those stories are true.
Vaccine misinformation has killed countless people. Including people that I care about. It's long past time we started treating these people like the criminals that they are.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's funny because almost every claim Faucci has made about covid and the vaccines has proven false, form where the virus came from, the efficacy of cloth masks , transmission rates, death rates for people without co morbidity, the danger of the Omicron variant and anyone challenging that was branded misinformation or a denier of some sort.
The man who invented the MRNA vaccine technique was accused of spreading misinformation and censored.
Science is about questions, you no longer have science or reason if q
Re:FALSE PREMISE (Score:4, Insightful)
It's funny because almost every claim Faucci has made about covid and the vaccines has proven false
This is a lie. You know it's a lie. Stop lying.
Re: (Score:3)
This simply isn't true. He's creating debate where none exists. He puts dangerous lies against truth and calls them equal. This just elevates the lies.
He's a scumbag.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's fact-check some of your bullshit:
CDC first said that Covid isn't transmissible.
False
Now they are saying that masks don't help.
False
They have also said that vaccines will protect us from Omicron. Now they are saying that both Pfizer and Moderna are working on the vaccine versions adjusted for Omicron. So what exactly is the truth here?
Both of those things are true. The current vaccines are effective against the Omicron variant and both Pfizer and Moderna are working on vaccines that target the Omicron variant. There is no contradiction here.
Do you get paid to copy/paste this trash or do you do it for the lulz? You're getting people killed. Stop it.
Re: (Score:3)
A CDC spokesperson has said so in the very beginning of 2020. I remember seeing the broadcast.
*Yawn* Sorry. I deal with facts and reality, not your fever dreams. Video or GTFO.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/arti... [cdc.gov]
Learn to read. Your link supports my claim, not yours.
I myself wear an Etsy mask with "Let's Go Brandon" and American flag printed on it.
To let everyone know that you're a moron?
This is just plain silly. If those vaccines are effective in protecting us from Omicron, why working on the new ones?
The problem is that you only "think" about things in absolute terms. Seat belts are very effective, but we still have air bags. Why do you think that is? Try not to hurt yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! You actually think your silly mask annoys them?
Sorry, kid. It just makes you look like an idiot. You're not "triggering" anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
But the poll in general is a stupid premise. Should X media be moderated? Generally I'd say 'Yes'. Should the government censor X media? I'd say 'No'.
It's like saying "Should messages on the internet be subject to any sort of moderation or censorship?" There's a BIG gap between say the slashdot moderation system and an ISP/government blocking the messages
Yes (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Yes (Score:2)
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
What do you propose we do about the corporate media that's been wrong about COVID at every turn? Ban them too?
Do you think you are smart enough to discern what is misinformation and what is not, but others aren't? Why do you think you're so much smarter than everyone else?
When have the censors ever been the good guys? Can you name any time in history?
Why are you unique and intelligent enough to decide what people should be able to listen to?
Why do you think you should get to make your own decisions but other people shouldn't?
Joe Rogan has never told people not to get vaccinated. In fact he has recommended the vast majority of the population to get vaccinated. Now, you'd know that if you listened to him instead of corporate media headlines.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, he's gone on a lot about ivermectin as a treatment for covid when it's been studied and pretty well proven that it does nothing (though it does help people in regions where parasites are common). His continuing to spread that misinformation likely led to many deaths
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
so you have free speech only as long as you're talking to your friends in private?
absolutely ridiculous
society will adapt, don't throw your freedoms away on BS
there is NO basis for censoring any of this
Podcasts should never depend on platforms (Score:5, Interesting)
Companies like Spotify try to hijack the concept of podcasts by putting them into platforms. This is not what a podcast actually it, it's audio files you download via the information provided to you by an RSS-feed. There is no need for a platform, everybody with webspace can do it. The only sensible involvement of a 3rd party is in hosting.
Therefore the premise is simply wrong. Those Spotyfy exclusive things are not podcasts.
BTW if you wonder how podcasts can finance themselves? Most German podcasts do that simply by offering a way to "donate".
Welcome to the PMRC, Neil Young (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in the ‘80s, a senator’s wife named Tipper Gore got sick of her kids listening to music she didn’t like, so she started an organization called the Parents Music Resource Center. The PMRC compiled a list of songs they found unacceptable, including “Darling Nikki” by Prince, “We’re Not Gonna Take It” by Twisted Sister, and “She Bop” by Cyndi Lauper. Then Tipper used her political connections to convince the Senate to hold hearings about this supposedly dangerous music.
In other words, a lot of Americans decided they liked what popular entertainers were saying, and a handful of busybodies tried to put a stop to it. “If we don’t want to listen to it, nobody should get to listen to it. We need to protect the helpless unwashed masses from themselves!”
Sound familiar?
Re: (Score:2)
That was different because it was real censorship. This is not real censorship because of reasons, so it’s no big deal. I mean, the first amendment only exists to protect speech I value, like music. If it’s not something I care about, or it’s not the government doing it, it’s not real censorship. That’s why I voted “no” in this poll. Did you know Neil Young is a big advocate for free speech? That’s another way you can tell his isn’t real censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship (let's be clear about the type of censorship that could have happened here: a private company may have stopped carrying a program that its users don't like) of dangerous speech (hate speech, extreme misinformation) is VERY much different from censoring music that has "salacious beats".
In this case - Joe Rogan (and, hence, Spotify) amplified the idea that the pandemic is not real. That is _dangerous_. That will (and is) lead to thousands of deaths due to ignoring health guidelines. People subsc
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure even "Ol' Neil" isn't sure how much of "his music" is his and how much is owned by Hipgnosis [hipgnosissongs.com], which is partially owned by Blackrock Investments [blackrock.com] which also owns a portion of Spotify [spotify.com] and I'm not sure where but there is a former Pfizer CEO in that dog chasing tail mess too.
Looks to me like Good ol' anti-establishment Neil is now up to his neck in establishment.
It depends, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
It depends, but the exceptions are (to my mind) extremely limited:
1. Advocating violence.
2. Spouting literal hate (that amounts to the same thing as #1).
For me, it's that simple.
That said, Neil Young and Joanie Mitchell also have the right to do and say whatever they want.
Re: (Score:2)
"It Depends" and "Yes" are the same answer for this question.
The question was whether there's ANY condition under which it is ok - the "it depends" part is already baked into the question and included in the "yes" answer.
The only functionally different answers are No: not under any circumstances or Yes: given X,Y or Z.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, but just in case my answer wasn't clear: I think Joe Rogan should be able to say whatever he pleases and talk to whomever he wants on his podcast.
Joe Rogan's podcast is awesome. (Score:5, Insightful)
Deplatforming isn't exactly censorship (Score:2)
You're free to project all the absolute filth that you can come up with to anyone who will listen, with some boundaries that from time to time the Supreme Court have established about the 1st amendment. That doesn't mean any third party is obligated to carry it. If you can drive viewers to your personal website (and can find an ISP to host it) or to your house and your basement, absolutely no one in the US can stop you.
All the cases I know of alleged censorship right now are people using 3rd parties to spre
Re: (Score:2)
It's censorship, just not government censorship. A lot of people who are advocating de-platforming are actively trying to prevent the person from being heard.
Podcasts (Score:2)
Seriously, it's a radio show - all of the craps already been hashed out.
US centric answer (Score:2)
In the US this comes down to the Constitution. Should the government whether Federal, State, City, or local moderate or censor podcasts, the answer with very limited caveats is a resounding NO.
Should a company providing a service be able to moderate or censor people using their platform, the answer is YES*.
*I do believe that any such moderation/censor policy have well published guidelines that normal people can understand.
Irrelevant (Score:2)
It's a Trap! (Score:2)
No-None of the podcasts are subject to any and no sort of moderation or censorship from all or any sources.
Depends-Any or some but not necessarily all of the podcasts are subject to any and every sort and lack of moderation or/and censorship from some sources, but not necessarily all sources or no source at all.
Depends On... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every platform should moderate podcasts or not as it sees fit..
Should the COMCAST platform be able to moderate CNN because of the Rachel Maddow Trump/Russia collusion hoax?
Should the CSPAN platform be able to ban Adam Schift until he produces the "Evidence" he claimed he had?
value-based policy is dead (Score:2)
First Amendment (Score:2)
Speech is already moderated by the US government (Score:2)
Cancel culture (Score:3)
Short answer: no
Long answer: It seems like *all* groups today think they should be able to "cancel" anything they don't like or don't want to hear. This attitude is, frankly, pathetic. If you don't want to engage with people who hold different opinions, then ignore them. Don't follow them on social media, don't go listen to their podcasts. For that matter, stop reading (or listening to) people on "your" side, who get all offended by those other beliefs. More: know that, in order to get all offended, they have almost certainly taken quotes and information out of context.
Freedom of speech is a basic human right (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 [un.org]). Lots of governments, even Western governments, haven't fully accepted this. Importantly, there is no reason for this freedom to apply only to governments. It should apply to commercial speech platforms as well. Any platform that generally allows people to post on any topic (Facebook, Twitter, etc, etc.) should be required to allow people to post whatever they want, restricting only clearly illegal content.
So is anyone who voted "no" (Score:2)
cool with podcasts inciting genocide or child abuse to go uncensored?
false question (Score:2)
You are free to say anything you want with the typical exceptions (yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, etc.).
Just because you have that right, that doesn't mean you get a platform to propagate it. If you want that, go get a soapbox and stand up and start yelling. Or start a blog. If you use someone else's platform, you get to play by their rules. If you don't like their rules, don't use their platform.
Spotify paid $100million for Rogan's dribble. They need an ROI. Their choice. Not on
Yes, But... (Score:2)
Podcasts do not have the right to expose personal information of people whose job does not involve being a public figure.
Or children
And they should not be controlled by big money - corporate or personal
Platform vs Broadcast (Score:2)
The problem with Spotify is that they were trying to be both a broadcaster AND platform. They paid Joe Rogan to produce content exclusively for them. That's like Fox News paying Tucker Carlson or MSNBC paying Rachel Maddow to host a show. That's being a broadcaster. But then, they also want to host effectively all recorded music and provide an avenue for any musician to upload their songs. That's being a platform.
You run into problems when you try to be both. If you are a platform, you can make rules (and k
Re: (Score:2)
Gone are the times of putting them in the categories of "arrest them" and "ignore them", which I think covers quite a bit of ground.
now get off my lawn
Re: (Score:3)
Of course nobody wants censorship
Apparently 23% of voters on Slashdot want it.