Spotify is not abusing anything. They are simply exercising their freedom to choose what content they want to host and be liable for.

If you want the content and it is not available, well then you just can't have it.

How can someone have a right not to be exposed to something they will have to willfully look for and have actions for such exposure?

That's why I say: if the problem is the possibility of exposure (the absurdity), just paywall the damn thing, then no one can "trip over" a 3 hour podcast and sit around to listen to it.

>They are simply exercising their freedom to choose what content they want to host and be liable for.

Well that content was published and had views/listeners, so at some point in time that content was up to standard. If they are going to be liable for it, they should be liable since the day it was published. That's why I thought of the idea of doing it under a pay wall, so only users that are actively paying for will be subject to that content censorship.

Or simply don't publish content until it's vetted and approved.

Another idea: have space for contrarian points of views within the video/podcast.

2. Many humans aren't smart enough to critically think about all topics. This wasn't a problem in pre-internet era since the radius of influence was quite limited.

3. So, it makes sense for some kind of checks and balances to exist unless ofcourse we want the society to crumble under the idea of pure free speech.

4. As a member of the society, I would want experts to exist who are competent and want to help the people. Similarly I would want people to listen to the experts on their matters of expertise rather than a celebrity who has no incentive to help people.

5. Usually this isn't a problem in a society where people aren't antagonistic but US in this case has a very bad recent history.

Note that most countries in the world support sensible speech (i.e. free speech minus hate+mass disinformation speech).

PS: This is most likely the minority view on HN but hey not all of us are US citizens bred through 100s of years of 2-sided fights.

If that's your take, I admit I might have got it wrong, but it would be a recipe for disaster imo.

You have public broadcasts that have the objective to inform the people, it's called the "News", with journalists that have an ethics code. Remember journalists are not copywriters, or entertainers, or celebrities - they have a duty and an important role in the society. At least it used to mean something at some point in time.

Now, if people are looking to inform themselves on other sources, maybe you should question first if the news are doing a proper job. In a lot of places, I don't think they are, maybe the US is one of them.

When you have different news channels that pretty much openly support different political views, you're already splitting up and dividing people.

If people are looking for Joe Rogan to be informed, the problem isn't Joe Rogan, or the people who go there to be informed, but the ones who should have been informing people all along and failed to the point of people not caring, or worst, not believing it.

It would be easy to label those who don't believe the news as "nuts", which in fact is the common label. When in reality those "nuts" at some point in time were fooled, or misinformed by those organizations - which probably didn't take responsibility for it, and never owned up to their mistakes.

In the case of COVID, it was as simple as listening to the experts as they learned things and as the virus evolved. No need for the president to suggest medicines/treatments to general public. Let the doctors/medical personnel do their job.

Following that there has been so much mud slinging/disinformation/distraction intending to make it a political issue rather than public health issue and they have succeeded to some extent.

I am going to be selfish and ask that the businesses/websites that I visit don't partake/promote/be-in-league with any of this nonsense. I want them to promote science if the general govt + media system doesn't do it. I am just sad that businesses take so long to make a stand, they fix a situation rather than preventing it in the first place.

It's a choice like any other, and after looking at some public divide over the past couple of years I don't even think I'm being too dramatic.

>In the case of COVID, it was as simple as listening to the experts as they learned things and as the virus evolved. No need for the president to suggest medicines/treatments to general public. Let the doctors/medical personnel do their job.

If you recall correctly, in the beginning of the pandemic, everyone was listening - remember the craze for toilet paper, masks and the whole ridiculous hoarding drama?

Somewhere down the line it shifted part of the population in the opposite direction, and I agree with you it was because some had the interest for it to become a political matter not a public health issue. The Media played their part in this, it wasn't Joe Rogan.

>I am going to be selfish and ask that the businesses/websites that I visit don't partake/promote/be-in-league with any of this nonsense.

Businesses have an agenda as well, usually revolves around makes money or creating share holder value. Let's not forget what happened to Spotify stock when they announced Joe Rogan would come to Spotify (took a 10% bump), and the amount of new users he brought with him.

That's the stand they took, they brought an entertainer to their platform that wasn't being valued at Youtube.

Yeah people forget words have effects. Its much easier to give up all responsibility instead. Seems sensible (/s).

Regarding the other points, I think you are losing focus of the topic. I am happy whenever sometimes listens to scientists for covid and takes steps in that direction. I would be happy if a more currently applicable version of the Fairness Doctrine made a resurgence. It would be much better than allowing anyone to say anything without any responsibility.