1. I'm curious: why do you believe every individual human should be forced to/be free to (same thing here!) judge each piece of content for themselves? Why is it morally right to let millions of people be deceived, when you know they'll be deceived?

2. On a rather related front: what do you think is the key differentiating factor that explains why humans (homo sapiens) have so devastatingly outstripped all ecological competitors?

My personal answer to question 2 explains why I have my doubts about all too rigidly accepting your moral thesis here. I mean, I accept and support the idea that honest debate can help surface tricky truths - and that in that context debate must be free, but not that all speech should be promoted unconditionally. That's harmful, and the only reason we're even talking about that is because as a society we've come to see the first amendment not merely as a tool to constrain an overly powerful, potentially abusive government, but as an axiom of patriotic identity. The first amendment is not perfect, and even if it were, it should not be applied blindly to every situation, nor should it replace all other social norms about honesty and truth.

Let me turn that onto yourself. Why do you believe that you are right? And why do you think you (or whoever) gets to decide what is correct or not for the remaining millions? No one is forcing anyone to anything (after all only who wants tunes in to JRE) although I think it is very healthy to have an enquiring mind and to have the habit of questioning and judging everything of importance you come by.

Hence my question 2. If you can answer that honestly, and in good faith, at least my personal answer to this follows, and hopefully, eventually, why Rogan's approach is fundamentally invalid; why just asking questions is deceptive.

But even if your perspective differs - I don't expect everyone to follow my lead, of couse - I don't think you're going to understand my reasoning without at least trying to understand and answer that question. In essence - your assertion that it's (implicitly unconditionally) "very healthy to have an enquiring mind" is backed by an assumption I do not share. I know that there are conditions here, and Rogan isn't satisfying those. And the heart of that disagreement is behind question 2.

So if we censor information and don't let people like Joe Rogan ask questions then the human species will be a better species instead of some kind of an ecological disaster?

Also, you don't think that having an enquiring mind is good? How do you justify that? And what is the assumption I made that you don't share?

Maybe Spotify, as the owner and publisher of the content that they paid a lot of money for, realise that THEY are misleading you and they aren’t comfortable with that / feel that you deserve better / would rather that you stay alive so that you continue to send them money [delete as appropriate]

When I signed up for Spotify I did sign up for their moral values but for the service they provide. It is up to them to do whatever they like with their platform and it is up to me to voice my opinion and vote with my feet when I am no longer happy with their service.

I cannot edit this comment but I obviously meant "I didn't sign up for..."