If you want to really 100% understand where someone you don't otherwise like or agree with is coming from, then three or more unedited hours of that person essentially talking without interruption is a great service. Personally, I haven't found that useful. The summary usually matches the expansion. Tim Pool (for example) made a good point or two that time he was on with the Twitter people, but it didn't meaningfully change what I think of him.
> Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
“Suppress” is different from “restrict”. Suppression is “ to end or stop (something) by force” or “ to keep (something) secret : to not allow people to know about or see (something)”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suppress
Please, let’s use “censorship” as the word was intended: to mean the total restriction of content. That’s why it’s usually governments who do it. Private companies can typically only do it if they have the exclusive rights to something and refuse to publish it.
If someone is dropped from a platform, they’ve been de-platformed but by no definition of the word have they been censored.
In order for Spotify to actually “censor” Rogan they would have to not publish his content while also not allowing it to be distributed in any form, anywhere else, ever. Presumably either party could cancel the contract and then Rogan would have numerous other platforms to publish on. So in some sense Rogan is self-censoring at best if he continues to honor his Spotify contract.
Also, his podcast is only 1 medium. He could presumably still publish short form video/audio content outside of Spotify, or publish a book without their consent with any content of his choosing. Censorship by the definition of the word would mean banning content across all mediums, which Spotify does not have the authority to do.
In any event, if he really wants to share information with the public Spotify alone cannot censor him and prevent him from doing that. All they can do is restrict access to his podcast.
In this scenario, I think “restrict” or “inhibit” are more accurate and less provocative descriptions of what could happen.
> Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions and other controlling bodies.
Seems like your source agrees with me (and I find your quibbling over "suppress" vs. "restrict" absurd). People who are trying to confuse the issue are uncomfortable with the fact that they are pro-censorship. Why not just admit it?
Restricting content on a single, privately-owned, non-monopolistic platform and total censorship (suppression) are two wildly different things.
Imagine 1984, but the Ministry of Thought requires you to go to the store next door to buy the controversial book you want to read. Annoying yes, but doesn’t quite have the same zing to it.
Censorship is a real problem with disastrous consequences throughout history. It’s definitely worth fighting censorship of ideas, this just isn’t censorship.
> Restricting content on a single, privately-owned, non-monopolistic platform and total censorship (suppression) are two wildly different things.
Yes but they both fall in the category of censorship. I'm not saying companies shouldn't be allowed to censor (I wrote: "sometimes, perhaps, censorship is called for"). I'm just saying it's still censorship.
My view is that, in general, companies should not censor. Free speech is good.
Can you point me to a definition of censorship that supports your view?
Your definition is so broad that anyone who declines to share anything ever is “censoring”.
At that point we need a new word for the action of totally suppressing content everywhere and declining to share content to distinguish between two very different events with two very different outcomes throughout history.
Or I guess a qualifier like “total censorship” vs. “limited distribution censorship”. At this point why not just use the words “censorship” and “restricted” as originally intended?
> Your definition is so broad that anyone who declines to share anything ever is “censoring”.
No it's not. Individuals are not censoring when they decline to share something. A company or government may be, depending on why.
I honestly don’t see how and if you decide to not explain then I guess we’re done.
Disney can censor their content because they own it and it can’t legally be reproduced or redistributed elsewhere. Otherwise, it’s really challenging for a private company to censor someone who can simply produce content elsewhere.
The reason I’m making a big deal about the semantics is that censorship and free speech are charged words that get people riled up, and for good reason. But they lose their meaning if we start applying them to temporary, minor restrictions rather than actual suppression.
It’s like saying you’re being censored if you can’t say whatever you want in the lobby of Spotify HQ. No, that’s private property and you don’t have that right. Go to the public square and say whatever you want there — no one is censoring you.
The idea that you can do or say whatever you want on private property is bizarre to me. That’s never been part of any country’s laws or cultural history.
When Rogan can’t say something on his own platform or in a public setting or 1 company controls the large majority of content distribution, then I’m with you 100% that that’s censorship. Until then it’s the market at work and non-monopolistic companies conducting business within the bounds of their contract. If you don’t like it, take your content and your business somewhere else, it’s a free country.
Really? Should HN moderatos literally let every post go on unchecked? If someone starts posting links to a Kardashian selfie blog, or to NSFW stuff, why should HN allow it? It's NOT censorship, HN is in no way obligated to allow everything on its site. Free speech is good. Heck, it's awesome. You want to post NSFW or Kim Kardashian, go create a blog. It's pretty much free and you can reach the whole world.
This does not line up. A private company "censoring" is actually exercising its right to free speech. The alternati e is compelled speech. You can't have it both ways.
Every major online platform has a ToS and in this case, Spotify has a contract with Rogan. So, it's not like a public square that anyone can use, it's more like private property with terms and conditions.
Maybe people think these platforms are open to anyone because they don't read the user agreements, they just click "agree".
> the content on the platform is explicitly not the speech of the platform provider.
Sure, kind of like a book store didn't write the books, but they get to choose which ones they want to give you access to.
In a faraway land, a new law has just been enacted: all public criticism of the government is now a crime. However, the law contains an exception – it will not apply in designated Official Government Criticism Zones, which will be established in convenient locations throughout the country. Would you say that, since government-critical content is not being totally restricted – it will remain legally permitted in government-designated locations – it isn't being censored?
Maybe: Censorship is the suppression of content by someone other than the creator or legal owner in a free market such that the creation, distribution, purchase or consumption of the content by the public is impossible or unreasonably burdensome
Basically trying to differentiate between a 1984 scenario (censorship) and someone buying a painting and not letting other people see it (not censorship).
By law and government, many different kinds of speech/communication are suppressed and/or restricted–fraud, perjury, defamation, violent threats, conspiring to commit crimes, impersonating law enforcement or other government officials, unauthorised publication of confidential information (medical records, intimate images, nuclear launch codes), inciting imminent lawless action, practicing regulated professions (such as law or medicine) without the appropriate qualifications and licenses, the proverbial "shouting fire in a crowded theatre", encouraging vulnerable teenagers to commit suicide, etc, etc, etc. The vast majority of people agree with most (or even all) of these in principle, even though there are still disputes about them at the margins–indeed, most people would agree that the suppression of many of these kinds of speech is essential for society to function. Yet very few would call suppressing these kinds of speech "censorship"; why? Well, the word "censorship" is largely a pejorative term–you'll only call it "censorship" if you disagree with it. If you believe certain kinds of speech ought to be suppressed–as almost everybody does–by that very fact it can't be "censorship", that's the way most people use the word. Now, there probably do exist some people who will say "Yes, banning X is censorship, but I support it, that's the good kind of censorship"–but, those people are very much a minority, most people don't use the word that way.
Since we'll never be able to fully agree on what kinds of speech are justifiably suppressed, we'll never be able to fully agree on what counts as "censorship" either. However, I think a lot of these debates get derailed into pointless semantic squabbling, by people who appear unaware of the "it can only be censorship if you disagree with it" principle which governs how the majority of people use the word. Once you are aware of that fact, it becomes clear that debating what forms of speech suppression count as "censorship" is a distraction from the real issue – debating where to draw the line between the good cases of speech suppression and the bad cases of speech suppression.
Another issue underlying many of these definitional debates, is different views on the significance of the public-private distinction, the distinction between governments and private corporations. To some people, that distinction has immense ideological, philosophical, even moral significance – they believe that governments and private corporations are fundamentally different kinds of entities, and very different standards should be used in judging them. Others think that governments and large corporations have many similarities; that even if there are some fundamental differences between them in theory (although even that is disputed), those theoretical differences have far less relevance in practice; that they should be judged by fundamentally the same standards – to these people, what matters is what is being done, not whether the public or private sectors are doing it. The first school of thought is naturally attracted to government-centric definitions of "censorship", such that "censorship by the private sector" becomes definitionally impossible; the second school of thought is instead attracted to definitions of "censorship" which are neutral to the government-vs-corporations distinction, so "censorship by the private sector" is entirely conceivable.
I think, once again, too much time is wasted by approaching this as a debate over the correct definition of a word, rather than focusing on the underlying philosophical differences. Inevitably, people with radically different philosophical starting points are almost inevitably going to adopt different definitions of key words, and it is impossible to answer "whose definition is right" without first answering "whose philosophy is right". Since philosophical disputes are notoriously unresolvable, we are never going to agree on the definitions either, so we might as well just all stop arguing about the later. At least the philosophical debates, even if unresolvable, have some profound significance, for how we ought to live our lives and organise our societies, for very Truth and Goodness themselves; the same cannot be said for debates over how to define a word.
Suppose instead, that the law said it was a crime to publicly criticise the government on weekends; but, Monday to Friday, government-critical speech is fully allowed. That's not a case of "most parts... there is a total restriction": the restriction only applies 28.57% of the time.
But, on the contrary, if a government deliberately subjects certain points of view to restrictions which it does not impose on others, that still counts as censorship – even if the restrictions are not total, even if they don't rise to the level of "most places" or "most times".
Is a private corporation doing the same thing "censorship" as well? That's a perennial debate. But I don't think looking at restriction-vs-suppression, total-vs-partial restriction, differing degrees of restriction, etc, is very useful in resolving that debate. Whatever the correct conclusion to that debate may be, I don't think it is going to be based on those kinds of distinctions.
That seems too strong, what about curation or editorial discretion? The NYT deciding not to publish my op-ed screed about the lizard people isn't censorship, it's just how you run a good news agency.
Strongly disagree.
At the government level, I might agree - but not with private companies.
In other words, private companies are allowed to censor but that doesn't magically make it something other than censorship.
No one is making Joe Rogan illegal. They are mad Spotify is paying for his nonsense.
If Spotify stopped paying him, nothing would materially change for his listeners. Unless Spotify went so far as to ban his Libsyn from their systems, they'd still be able to listen, for free, on Spotify. Even if they did that weird action, people would be able to listen from any number of podcatchers.
It's meaningless.
When nearly everything is private, so is censorship.
We also break up monopolies, so no one company can control the fate of their consumers, partners, contractors, etc.
I’m sure you’ve seen the signs at local shops saying they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. It’s an inconvenience if you get kicked out but you don’t have a right to the provider of your choosing in the US unless you were denied solely based on your status in a “protected class” (race, gender, over 65, etc.).
It’s the free market at work and if it’s not working other solutions will pop up if there’s enough demand.
And they had to find a new hosting provider: https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/1/19/bb-parler-moves-...
So yeah, they (and their users) were inconvenienced, but they agreed to the terms and conditions of these providers.
It's kind of like if you have a restaurant and you violate the terms of your lease (or your lease has no guarantee of future occupancy). The landlord can kick you out, and it'll be a huge inconvenience to move.
I think the lesson is that if you want to do something a little edgy, self-host or find an off-shore host with terms and conditions you're comfortable with. Or, if this keep happening enough, new hosting companies will start up that have fewer terms and conditions. But the big providers are going to be the most strict and care the least about your unique situation and your infinitesimal contribution to their bottom line.
As someone else implied, the private company can do as it please (within the law), and if getting chucked off the platform is a problem, then there is a monopoly problem to be dealt with, not a censorship problem.
If you, a consumer, are making the decision then it's not censorship. If some company, government, organization, school, etc is making the decision then it is censorship.
Sometimes, perhaps, censorship is called for. And censorship is only illegal if the government is involved. But in general, legal or not, censorship is bad. People should be allowed to say what they think and whether they have a platform should be decided by whether other people want to listen.
What disturbs me about the Joe Rogan situation is that Rogan is not an alt-right deplorable. He's not scary or mean, he exudes youthful exuberance and curiosity. He's thoughtful, un-ideological and he's a good conversationalist. The attempt to brand him as a deplorable is genuinely creepy.
As far as the article goes, I don't think we're close to any dystopia. These are growing pains as the media opens up. I'm optimistic.