> Spotify isn’t promoting Alex Jones with a big table in the center. It’s just part of the catalog.

I think this collaboration goes a bit further than their regular catalog but ok I agree there is a difficult line to draw here

> My concern with your reasoning, and if enough people think similarly to you, is that people don’t like lots of people.

I think that’s unavoidable that people object to a tiny bit of content so much that they reject a whole company based on it. And it’s also unavoidable that a company would adjust their catalog.

> So if people skip a bookstore because they have a JK Rowling signing, they lost customers.

Indeed. I’m sure there are people who are offended by JKR who would boycott a store that invites her.

> And if people skip for a Ben Shapiro signing. And if they skip for a Hemingway signing (raised for the dead through necromancy just for a signing). Etc etc Bookstores like money so rationally they’ll stop having signings from people who could alienate customers.

Of course. But I’m guessing book signings also drive customers. So the sensible thing commercially is to invite everyone but the alienating ones. Thus creating a set of non-offensive book signings that drive more business than they alienate. I don’t really see the alternative to this setup? Is it forcing book stores to carry books? Banning boycotts by customers? What?

It’s one thing to say “I don’t like this it’s a worrying trend” and another thing entirely to argue the alternative. I can’t see one! (I’m not worried half as much by tech giant censorship as I am about the effect of spread of the content like Jones’ though obviously which is why I’m not concerned about this)

> I like having lots of choices for books and worry that eventually there won’t be stores that carry the books I want to read. So I tolerate the availability of lots of stuff because that leads to books I like being available.

I too like having lots of choices for content. I’m however more than ready to sacrifice a bit of content to remove the platform for some other content so that even people who like it aren’t reached by it. I don’t see a big problem with arbitrarily having someone like Spotify being allowed to decide what falls into the category that should be marginalized.

> Spotify being responsible for lyrics is a bad thing. I remember in the 80s and 90s when Congress tried to pressure music labels to censor lyrics on albums. That sucked. Not just because it was Congress but because it made it harder for artists to express their ideas. Companies like Walmart would only carry censored versions or not carry albums at all. That sucked. People were butthurt about curse words and devil references back then. Being butthurt about gay frogs and Sandy hook stupid conspiracy theories is today’s version, replacing alt right for satanists and cop killers.

Oh I don’t think government should make any laws here. That’s censorship. That’s positively dystopian. But the same works in reverse - should Spotify be forced (by who?) to promote something? I just don’t see why they can’t be free to associate with whatever content they want? Of course there are limits to speech also for book stores (there are a few countries that have extreme free speech protections without many restrictions, such as the US, but even there no one is forced to say or promote anything.)

That I hold them morally responsible for their platform doesn’t mean I think they should be legally responsible or that there should be censorship laws. Free speech is important in the negative, possibly more so. Being able to not promote something is important.

Note that the government never passed any laws to censor music, the industry did it themselves. I guess it sucked less that Walmart and the music labels censored rather than government, but still sucked and was a negative for society.

I think the issue is that there’s no single moral authority and if I expect companies to meet my moral standards then maybe one day they meet someone else’s and that will suck. I’d rather companies not try to match what I exactly have and stick to some more objective level like what’s legal/illegal. That’s still subjective but less likely to change.

> should Spotify be forced

Of course not, but I’m suggesting that Spotify not try to micromanage content by removing specific content from artists for arbitrary reasons.

I’m not talking about legal responsibility, I’m taking about them not being jerks and positively contributing to society. I think it’s a net negative for society when Spotify tries to remove stuff like Alex Jones. Or if they were to remove explicit lyrics and curse words.

I’d rather have a protocol that doesn’t differentiate and just lets me choose.

I remember AOL before the web was widespread. It sucked and they literally blocked curse words from their pages. The web was better because it let users choose. Stuff was still taken down when criminal, but in general, I didn’t have to worry whether AOL “promoted content on their platform.”

Spotify is like the legal version of Napster, but Napster was better because it didn’t try to limit or promote content. I liked that it just connected people together and let me discover music. Any lists or promotion was a layer applied on top of Napster.

I think the concept of promoting is also something I don’t want. I don’t want Spotify promoting specific content.

Comically, stuff like this moves me closer to piracy as it just gives a better user experience.

Outlets always censor themselves and always did. Where to draw the line is obviously up to each outlet. A record store might be able to sell the rap songs about killing cops because they are confident that they can be seen as offering a wide selection and not merely promoting violence. A record store that only sold that kind of music should rightly be questioned about their motives.

Radio stations are more careful about music selection than record stores, because they are seen as choosing their music making it an expression of their opinion and not their customers. They play it next to messages from sponsors who don't want to be associated with everything and so on. Spotify is obviously closer to record store than radio station, but they do have commercial messages.

(A note for younger readers, a "record store" was a kind of brick and mortar shop where songs were sold engraved onto physical artifacts).

But (and this I think is key): Even record stores have always entirely stayed away from some material. Not just the material that is illegal, but also material that is simply offensive or objectionable. They put Parental Advisory stickers on rap albums, but no main street record stores carried nazi music, for example, even though there was never a shortage of it, and it was never outlawed in many countries. If a band was known as a nazi music band, they weren't showing up on record store shelves with their non-nazi album either. That is - they were boycotted as artists, not merely some objectionable content. I'd put Alex Jones (but not many more of JRE guests) in the "Nazi band" bucket. The ones that record stores didn't have on shelves because customers, owners, employees etc wouldn't stand for it.

My point is: this isn't some "woke" phenomenon of cancel culture. It's the way it's always been.