Spotify and Free Speech

[Jeril]

You can still watch any of Rogan's stuff on YouTube can't you? I vaguely recall reading that somewhere. I only watch segments of his shows and very rarely - who can watch/listen to hours of anyone?!

But really, it's a free market. I feel the same way about all the social media filters on free speech. It's their platform, and I'm not on it so WTF do I care?

Edit just to add this - I do care that social media and MSM do a lot of filtering of free speech and opinions, mainly against conservatives. But because I do believe in the free market and that most rational people can actually think, I'm not terribly concerned.

But what percent of people do you believe this represents?

[Gelston]

Out of all the things I don't care about, Spotify's music and podcast catalogue is one of the least.

[LOL BRIELUS]

Wondering if the use of "speech" on a private venue such as Spotify counts as protected speech per constitution, or is just subject to the terms and conditions of the Spotify service, which is probably at the whim of Spotify....

[Tgo01]

Wondering if the use of "speech" on a private venue such as Spotify counts as protected speech per constitution, or is just subject to the terms and conditions of the Spotify service, which is probably at the whim of Spotify....

Constitutional free speech doesn't exist for private companies.

What the government can't due is compel companies to curtail free speech, something Biden and Democrats are actively pushing for right now.

Which is exactly why I think it's a copout to say it's a private company so they can do whatever they want. While technically true, the Democrats are basically using this argument as a runaround to the constitution.

Imagine if Republicans were even a tiny fraction of the racists the Democrats claim they are, and Republicans were actually trying to keep black people from making it to the polls in order to vote. Now imagine if Republicans were pressuring private company taxis, ubers, buses, etc to not pick up anyone in black neighborhoods on election day in an effort to keep black people from the polls. Would a single Democrat be saying "Oh! Well! It's just private companies doing it! That's their right!" Something tells me the answer is no.

[Gelston]

Wondering if the use of "speech" on a private venue such as Spotify counts as protected speech per constitution, or is just subject to the terms and conditions of the Spotify service, which is probably at the whim of Spotify....

Freedom of Speech only protects you from the Government, if the Government owned Spotify the Constitution would apply as far as the 1st Amendment.... But it doesn't, so it doesn't.

[Solkern]

Wondering if the use of "speech" on a private venue such as Spotify counts as protected speech per constitution, or is just subject to the terms and conditions of the Spotify service, which is probably at the whim of Spotify....

Well, none of these private companies are actually stopping free speech. You can say whatever the fuck your want, they are just removing the megaphone people use.

[Gelston]

Well, none of these private companies are actually stopping free speech. You can say whatever the fuck your want, they are just removing the megaphone people use.

Spotify isn't even stopping anything. They are granting requests by artists to remove their own music.

[Bhaalizmo]

Out of all the things I don't care about, Spotify's music and podcast catalogue is one of the least.

Of all the things you've ever said here, I agree with this one the most.

[Shaps]

A company acknowledging one artists/speaker/etc. request to remove their content in protest of another = good.

A company removing a persons content because of another artists/speakers/etc. objection = bad.

A communications "platform" (ie. Twitter, Facebook, etc.) removing peoples content = bad. Similar to how the phone company can not stop people from talking to one another, even if the phone company doesn't like what is being said.

A person choosing to not listen/read/or promote someone else's ideas on a communications "platform" = good.

A person that chooses to argue their point, to contradict someone else's perspective on a communications "platform" = good.

The issue lies in the definition of what a communications "platform" vs. a "publisher" is.

Currently - mostly the Left, but a little on the Right also - mix and match the definition that these communication "platforms" operate under to censor people/thoughts as they see fit.

Hence the "private company" argument when it suits their argument vs. the "public platform" argument when it doesn't.

In addition, what really fucks it up, is that communications "platforms" gain certain protections that other "private companies" do not... so for companies like Twitter, Facebook, etc. to claim those protections, yet still act as a "publisher" is just wrong.

[Flap]

A company acknowledging one artists/speaker/etc. request to remove their content in protest of another = good.

A company removing a persons content because of another artists/speakers/etc. objection = bad.

A communications "platform" (ie. Twitter, Facebook, etc.) removing peoples content = bad. Similar to how the phone company can not stop people from talking to one another, even if the phone company doesn't like what is being said.

A person choosing to not listen/read/or promote someone else's ideas on a communications "platform" = good.

A person that chooses to argue their point, to contradict someone else's perspective on a communications "platform" = good.

The issue lies in the definition of what a communications "platform" vs. a "publisher" is.

Currently - mostly the Left, but a little on the Right also - mix and match the definition that these communication "platforms" operate under to censor people/thoughts as they see fit.

Hence the "private company" argument when it suits their argument vs. the "public platform" argument when it doesn't.

In addition, what really fucks it up, is that communications "platforms" gain certain protections that other "private companies" do not... so for companies like Twitter, Facebook, etc. to claim those protections, yet still act as a "publisher" is just wrong.

Thanks for sharing your wacky arbitrary rules with us! This doesn't really align with how the laws work, and private companies are going to do what's profitable.

Facebook, Twitter, etc are not government entities and there are plenty of alternatives if you get banned from one of them. That's not censorship, it's businesses doing what they think will make them the most money. That is the ONLY thing that businesses care about.

Maybe they are cAtErInG tO tHe WoKe mAsSeS, but if they are, it's solely because more people who use their product are members of the EvIl wOkE mOvEmEnT than aren't. It's basically the same thing as bakers refusing service to gay customers because MUH FREEDOMS, but conservatives get upset about it because it reveals how actually unpopular conservative ideology is.