Re:Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive ...
by paulgb on Tuesday May 19, 2020 @07:07PM
(#23241381)
I believe YouTube has the right to remove it whether or not I agree with it, because they don't owe it to anyone to pay their hosting bill.
Re:Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive ...
by mythrwy on Tuesday May 19, 2020 @09:13PM
(#23242301)
Should a restaurant be able to refuse service to an openly gay couple then in your opinion? What if it offends the other patrons?
Re:Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive ...
by chillwaves on Tuesday May 19, 2020 @10:28PM
(#23242696)
There is no law protecting conspiracy theorists.
Re:Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive ...
by mythrwy on Tuesday May 19, 2020 @11:55PM
(#23243137)
I'm not sure there is a national law requiring businesses to serve gay customers either. I'm just curious how OP feels about that.
Besides, who decides who is and who isn't a conspiracy theorist. You? A twitter mob? The government? Some people in San Francisco?
The fact that there is apparently such strong disagreement (most of which probably is from people who believe that it is appropriate to use the strong market share of these platforms to mold political discourse) is a bit alarming. No way that ends well.
Re:Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive ...
by chillwaves on Wednesday May 20, 2020 @01:22AM
(#23243531)
Fine, let the court of public opinion decide.
Alex Jones is banned from Youtube. People, largely, do not give a shit. Now try banning gay people from a resturant.
Good luck with that.
And in many jurisdictions it is illegal to discriminate over sexual orientation. There is no such law protecting conspiracy theorists.
Re:Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive ...
by mythrwy on Wednesday May 20, 2020 @10:35AM
(#23247298)
Your argument is juvenile and fails to address the point
Re:Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive ...
by chillwaves on Wednesday May 20, 2020 @05:04PM
(#23251794)
And your reply is devoid of substance.
I think we're done here.
You really don't see the moral hazard in that?