• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

MindzEye said:
This is a pretty fundamentally flawed point. It makes the argument that nothing that anyone says on any platform should be punishable in any way whether by the public (including government intervention) or privately.

That view of freedom of speech (censorship is just the other side of the coin, it's the same argument) is more than a bit loony. It allows for incitement, blackmail, libel, slander, perjury, false medical claims, solicitation to commit crime, etc to all be within the bounds of protected speech (as in, free from any level of censorship).

We absolutely have to pick and choose what to censor. This is a really odd, fundamentalist version of what free speech/censorship is and the role it plays in a functioning society.
Click to expand...
I didn't have time to get into this earlier, but obviously there are some things that cross the line. The problem is that we all define where the line is differently. Freedom of speech was written into the Constitution for a reason, because of how important it is in a free society. That is entirely the point.

Now we decided some time ago as a society on zero tolerance for Nazis (pure hate propaganda) and pedophiles (because they target vulnerable people for evil reasons). Doxxing is a new one. And we have systems in place to deal with blackmail, libel, etc. You know all this already.

Just like you also know that Joe Rogan interviewing a guy is not the same thing as denying the Holocaust. And a society deciding on where to draw the line is not the same thing as one man wanting to censor a podcast just because we may agree with him. I mean maybe Graham Nash, but certainly not Neil Young.

I have a lot of disgust for doctors peddling this garbage, whether they are grifting or genuinely believe it, because they use their authority to spread medical misinformation. People like DeathSantis and Scott Atlas are the fucking worst.

But you are okay with censoring someone for interviewing a couple of doctors. It's fucking nuts.
 
Wayward DP said:
so far, so good.

a couple points in response to this.

one, spotify is a corporation, not government. like twitter, facebook, etc., they are free to come up with their own rules regarding what content is and is not acceptable. them refusing to carry, "Tales of the Hitler Youth" is entirely their prerogative and does not amount to censorship. I won't pretend to know what their rules are, but I am sure they exist and they are entitled to have (and enforce) them.

just like Twitter decided to ban Trump for violating their rules, spotify can do the same to Rogan (I assume him peddling vaccine misinformation breaks some of their rules but do not pretend to know).

how is allowing harmful misinformation to be deliberately spread on a daily basis to a massive (11 milly) audience on a daily basis not an equally slippery slope? let's not pretend there are not harms and impacts to allowing the free for all of bullshit to exist, because there are.

and spotify has not pulled Rogan anyways. so the slippery slope is a hypothetical one only, while in the meantime how many folks are discouraged/prevented from getting their vaccines as a result of what they hear on his show? bullshit has consequences.

please explain how spotify removing content that violates their terms of use amounts to censorship. that is the huge disconnect here.

governments censor. the Chinese government censors any mention of Tiananmen Square. that is real life censorship. twitter banning the dotard is not censorship, it is them enforcing their rules. just like if some dickhead who at the start of the movie yells out the ending in the theatre and gets kicked out - that is not censorship. the term has been coopted by the lunatic right to mean, "I dislike consequences to my actions".

so unless you either admit that you have redefined censorship, or change the argument to be about whether private corporations can enforce rules on their platforms, I think we have hit an impasse.

but don't streaming services continually need to adapt to appeal to their customers? isn't that just competition in an open marketplace? consumers speak with their wallets. they are allowed to.
Click to expand...
This discussion isn't about a private corporation enforcing rules on their platform. It's about Neil Young's actions.

Do you think it's totally fine if one man tries to get another man kicked off streaming services because they don't like their content? What if you love the content but not the man? In this example the man is rich and famous, the content creation is a nobody. It's me or them. Answer honestly. Oh, there's an angry mob on his side as well.
 
axlsalinger said:
I didn't have time to get into this earlier, but obviously there are some things that cross the line. The problem is that we all define where the line is differently. Freedom of speech was written into the Constitution for a reason, because of how important it is in a free society. That is entirely the point.

Now we decided some time ago as a society on zero tolerance for Nazis (pure hate propaganda) and pedophiles (because they target vulnerable people for evil reasons). Doxxing is a new one. And we have systems in place to deal with blackmail, libel, etc. You know all this already.

Just like you also know that Joe Rogan interviewing a guy is not the same thing as denying the Holocaust. And a society deciding on where to draw the line is not the same thing as one man wanting to censor a podcast just because we may agree with him. I mean maybe Graham Nash, but certainly not Neil Young.

I have a lot of disgust for doctors peddling this garbage, whether they are grifting or genuinely believe it, because they use their authority to spread medical misinformation. People like DeathSantis and Scott Atlas are the fucking worst.

But you are okay with censoring someone for interviewing a couple of doctors. It's fucking nuts.
Click to expand...


Rogan isn't just "interviewing doctors". He's publicly promoting debunked treatment modalities based on the bad medical advice given on his platform by those doctors. Rogan isn't playing the role of neutral interlocutor here, he has obvious biases on display to the point where he'll parrot and openly agree with the claims of the least authoritative (in regards to covid specifically) medical professionals he has on the show and then almost angrily challenge each individual claim made by an actual expert when what he's being told is contrary to what his quack buddies have told him. I'm okay with censoring someone when their speech strays into the territory of what should obviously not be protected. You and I can't make a medical supplement and put specific health claims on the box, and nor should we be able to. But Rogan can tell 11 million people that an anti parasitic with multiple peer reviewed failures, is a viable treatment for covid. That's what I want censored/punishable.

I think where you and I have a major divergence here is that for some reason you feel like Rogan is "just interviewing" people. He's clearly and obviously not. He's having long form discussion with a guest and has become at least as much a commentator as he is an interviewer. So even if I agreed that the act of platforming doesn't come with some responsibilities, I don't all agree that Joe is simply just out there asking questions.
 
axlsalinger said:
Do you think it's totally fine if one man tries to get another man kicked off streaming services because they don't like their content?
Click to expand...

Well again...it depends on the content, no? Neil isn't saying that Joe Rogan's comedy is bad so take him off of Spotify. He's saying that Rogan is promoting dangerous pseudoscientific nonsense that is causing real physical harm (and I've argued, shouldn't be protected speech).

I mean, if Joe stopped promoting dangerous pseudoscientific, harmful bullshit, I'm sure Neil would stop asking.
 
MindzEye said:
Rogan isn't just "interviewing doctors". He's publicly promoting debunked treatment modalities based on the bad medical advice given on his platform by those doctors. Rogan isn't playing the role of neutral interlocutor here, he has obvious biases on display to the point where he'll parrot and openly agree with the claims of the least authoritative (in regards to covid specifically) medical professionals he has on the show and then almost angrily challenge each individual claim made by an actual expert when what he's being told is contrary to what his quack buddies have told him. I'm okay with censoring someone when their speech strays into the territory of what should obviously not be protected. You and I can't make a medical supplement and put specific health claims on the box, and nor should we be able to. But Rogan can tell 11 million people that an anti parasitic with multiple peer reviewed failures, is a viable treatment for covid. That's what I want censored/punishable.

I think where you and I have a major divergence here is that for some reason you feel like Rogan is "just interviewing" people. He's clearly and obviously not. He's having long form discussion with a guest and has become at least as much a commentator as he is an interviewer. So even if I agreed that the act of platforming doesn't come with some responsibilities, I don't all agree that Joe is simply just out there asking questions.
Click to expand...
It's easy to mock Rogan for taking horse dewormer, and many people did. I think ivermectin jokes are hilarious, and have seen zero evidence that it does anything for covid. But you must acknowledge that there is also a human version of the drug, and that it was prescribed to him by a medical doctor.

As a fan of Joe Rogan I am pissed about the misinformation too, and wish he would interview someone like Eric Topol to discuss the other side of the argument. But I'm sure he would probably counter that this is covered by the fact that 99% of mainstream media talk about covid is pro-vaccine.
 
Joe Rogan spent an hour trying to convince an astrophysicist that the moon landing was fake.

he spent 4 hours intently listening to a drug addicted psychologist spew complete nonsensical verbal diarrhea about gnome underpants without challenging him on a single thing.

there’s no slippery slope by Spotify telling to pound sand. He’s an idiot with a huge platform. That’s a dangerous game.
 
To be clear to Axl, 101 and the other Rogan fans, I don't think Rogan is a bad person or that he deserves to be punished for anything. He's just a really really really dumb human being who happens to peddle misinformation aggressively on a huge platform. That's extremely bad for the world and we've already seen a lot of the consequences for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top