š¾ Archived View for dioskouroi.xyz āŗ thread āŗ 24923711 captured on 2020-10-31 at 00:42:41. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
________________________________________________________________________________
I really appreciate Spotify for treating me as an adult and letting me make the decision. If it's a bad idea i want to hear it so i can be better prepared to counter it.
The problem, as we are seeing, is that _lots_ of people cannot distinguish between fact and fiction let alone propaganda.
There is a non-trivial cohort of people who think "It's on <Joe Rogan, Fox News, etc.>, so it can't be completely wrong."
Actually, yes it can. It can be on CNN and be completely wrong--the probabilities are lower because people get _fired_ over that, but it still can be wrong.
And this is before we even get into the whole "There are equally valid sides to an argument" problem in the media. No, no there aren't always two valid sides, and sometimes there's a dozen valid sides.
I'm not sure how we should deal with this.
In practice, censorship always comes with this bias:
Mainstream journalists and politicians can say all the lies they want, because they're usually not considered lies by whoever is in charge of the medium (Twitter, Spotify?, the government?).
Fringe movements don't have the popularity to pass off their lies as truth to the general population or the censor, they can only do it to their relatively small group of followers.
In the end, you end up with: popular lies are accepted, unpopular lies are censored. Sometimes unpopular truths get censored too.
Censorship is a problem itself, but a much bigger problem is biased censorship.
The problem is there are more "reputable" sources that are also often wrong, and are _just_ as harmful, if not more, for the same reason: wikipedia, Politifact, The John Oliver show.
The probabilities really aren't lower. CNN has fired a vanishingly low number of people over incorrect stories and in the rare cases that did occur, they were immediately hired by other outlets with identical viewpoints to CNN, where they continued writing exactly the same kinds of stories that got them fired previously (see Thomas Frank for an example).
I dealt with it by realizing that my own perception of the concepts of true and false can only be based on the consensus of other people Iām able to communicate with, and now that I can instantly reach billions of people I see it more like any side of any issue is ātrueā in the sense that āthose ideas have been instantiated into our world and are something I have to deal withā. I donāt see any other solution, since how do you fight an idea? My country has been in wars against ideas for the entirety of my adult life and Iāve never seen them succeed.
Iāve been a Spotify premium member for over a decade. I love their service for listening to and discovering music. I donāt want to be contributing to over-inflated āexclusiveā podcaster salaries that I never listen to.
In previous feedback to Spotify Iāve asked for a āhide podcastsā option in the iPhone app. Itās unwanted clutter I donāt use.
Time to redirect the money I pay to the artists I listen to. What systems would others recommend?
I also wanted to use a music service that supports the artists more and found that Napster[0](not the old P2P client) pays out the most royalties to artists. It works pretty well but obviously isn't as popular as spotify and doesn't have as many playlists but the music selection is similar. I use soundiiz[1] to bring my playlists over and it has been more or less seemless.
[0]:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2019/oct/31/b...
[1]:soundiiz.com
Youāre the same type of person who wants to dictate where and how his taxes are used (āIād like a 70%-30% split on health and education. Whatās that? Defense? Yeah I donāt like tanks, no thanks. Oh but do make sure it goes to building MRI machines - I do like those very much, the hum is soothing to meā).
While the sheer arrogance and borderline solipsism do bring a smile to ones face, they are completely impractical.
I think this is a fair request. Maybe not a deal breaker for me though. Itās a little more expensive but you can just directly support the content you most enjoy. Iām not sure how convenient this is in the end though.
Decided to not renew my Spotify subscription. I know it doesn't matter but I think this is despicable. Facilitating someone who calls kids who were the victim of a mass shooting crisis actors and rants about the 'Jewish Mafia' and accuses Bill Gates of making people sick with vaccines _during a pandemic_, this isn't 'diversity of opinion'. It's just greed for clicks.
Do you believe Alex Jones is still entitled to First Amendment rights?
Yeah, full protection from repercussions by the american government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_...
Unless of course he's violating any (or lots of) the exceptions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
As spotify is not the american government it doesn't really apply here.
In addition even if they _were_ the american government, that would only apply in america, which is in fact, not the entire world.
Spotify isnāt the government. Freedom of speech doesnāt mean that anyone has to amplify that speech and broadcast it.
EDIT: Replying to child comments: The First Amendment only applies to the government; full stop. If a bakery can refuse service to a gay couple, and a restaurant can remove you for not following dress code, any private business can refuse you service. Period. You have freedom of speech and they have freedom of association. Those are both First Amendment rights. The right to refuse business is right there next to the right to spout off at the mouth.
Does that standard also apply to services like, for example, GitHub? Do you think that we shouldn't ever question if Microsoft would start kicking off open source projects for arbitrary reasons?
Is Github owned and operated by a state or federal government agency? No? Then yes it probably applies. No person or business has to serve you, or buy from you, or employ you, or let you share their platform. It's their resources and therefor their choice to do so. If it were otherwise people might have recourse when Google shuts them out unilaterally, or when Paypal closes account for vague ToS violations.
Those freedoms enabled the best and worst behavior and let people make of it as they will. Laws usually concern themselves with the ways people abuse others: fraud, various kinds of violence, theft, breach of contract, etc. Regulations exist for industries where the risk of damage to many people exists: chemical waste disposal, lending laws, food labeling laws. If the industry needs regulation then that's what we should push for. My interpretation has always been that the constitution establishes what basic expectations of freedoms and restrictions we should have, and laws set the boundaries on where my freedom ends and yours begins.
A bakery is not a means of mass communication.
If a tree falls in the woods, but none of the services people spend their time on carry the Forest Channel, does it make a sound?
He can say whatever he wants without persecution from the government, but it doesn't mean we all have to give him the platform to be an asshole.
It also doesn't mean that we all have to refuse him the platform to be an asshole.
Giving him the platform seems like exactly what Spotify wants to do, and since we all reached the consensus that private corporations are free to do whatever they want with their platforms, I don't understand what the issue is.
Either that or we could just stop being dishonest and admit that we just want to censor people we don't agree with.
Spotify can do what it wishes, and grandparent poster has said s/he disagrees with Spotify and doesn't wish to contribute to their profits while they're doing something s/he disagrees with. So, isn't that all good and dandy?
And if people start a campaign to tell people to "Delete Spotify", that seems to be in the realm of acceptability too? Just like people are saying "Delete Uber" because they're taking money from that Saudi "Journalist Chopper" Prince.
If the campaign is to get the government to create a law to muzzle Spotify, then there is an issue...
"Bill Gates making people sick" came from CBS News. Here's the clip:
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CG54ZTvAdQC/?igshid=jh0r3qewcih...
You would have liked the interview. Most of it was Rogan stopping Alex and getting Jamie to fact check things before Jones could move into the next topic.
Aren't there mass murderers who give interviews and rapists who receive paychecks from true crime documentaries, and all manner of violent and crazy people being invited to radio talk shows, and still of course a great part of modern music being about raping, illegal drugs and murder.
Why would you expect Spotify to be this child-safe website?
I think the framing is different. I hope folks aren't listening to true crime podcasts thinking "this murderer's making some good points".
I haven't seen a true crime show yet that gives murderers a platform to advocate for murder, that's not the context those shows operate in, the same goes for art.
But the families of the Sandy Hook children faced harassment after Jones spewed his crap, and his talk against vaccines and masks on Rogan, who has 190 million downloads per month, is going to make misinformation worse, make public health worse, and cost lives. This is not a joke or some bad rap lyrics. These conspiracies threaten people's safety from the virus and from him riling up extremists. I'm not paying a company that enables this.
Where do you draw the line? What about music that encourages misogyny, prostitution and violence? Should this also be banned from Spotify? Or is that ok? Who decides?
I draw the line with Spotify's own content policy (
https://newsroom.spotify.com/2018-05-10/spotify-announces-ne...
) that states:
_"However, we do not tolerate hate content on Spotify ā content that expressly and principally promotes, advocates, or incites hatred or violence against a group or individual based on characteristics, including, race, religion, gender identity, sex, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, veteran status, or disability._"
Given that Jones own InfoWars podcast is already banned on the platform, I think where the line is, is pretty clear.
Wouldnāt a large percentage of rap songs, e.g. eninem fail this test. You can find some very hateful lyrics
A person is not content. Alex Jones is not InfoWars podcast. I haven't listened to the podcast in question, because why would I, but if you think that it does violate these rules, you should prove it.
The irony of the first amendment getting down votes in this thread is poetically tragic. It's almost as if writers like Aldous Huxley and George Orwell had the models down so well that prediction was easy.
I donāt see anybody downvoting the first amendment. What are you talking about?
Whatever you want to say about the guy he's definitely not boring to listen to, and I enjoy listening to him and his antics whenever he's on with Joe. He's entertaining, and has a good sense of humor.
If someone was to deprive me of the opportunity to listen to him, I'd be ticked off, and I don't agree with the guy (at least when I can understand what he's saying hahaha).
I can only imagine how people that do agree with his more unconventional views view those doing the deplatforming, but they're definitely not helping them by doing it. You're just insulating them from opposing views and making them angry at you.
It feels to me like its vindictive, coming from a place of genuine hate. Thats not good no matter what the stated intentions are.
Joe Rogan has a ton of right wing propaganda. Too much for it to be a coincidence. Iām also over the enlightened Everyman shtick, he peddles bullshit half the time. He was vehemently anti-mask. Heās dumb.