Spotify Unsurprisingly Chooses Joe Rogan Over Neil Young After Ultimatum, Eliciting Wide Range Of Reactions On Social Media - Comment #5,919,014

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

King Crimson

Jan 27, 2022 at 04:47PM EST

People die because they believe Joe's anti-vaxx nonsense. If you believe nobody should ever be deplatformed then you certainly have the right to your viewpoint and I can even say I see where you're coming from, but on the same token I don't think saying Spotify shouldn't be hosting harmful crackpot conspiracy theories for profit is an unreasonable stance to take either. I absolutely promise you that at the end of the day Spotify does not care about freedom of speech, only what makes them the most money, and if the likes of Taylor Swift or BTS were to join the boycott Spotify would throw Rogan under the bus faster than you can blink.

hexkeybushing

Jan 27, 2022 at 06:28PM EST in reply to King Crimson

Eh, let natural selection take its place. Freedom of speech is bigger than a bunch of idiots taking horse dewormer.

KZN02

Jan 29, 2022 at 04:44PM EST in reply to hexkeybushing

Unfortunately there's the issue of these particular people endangering others before they die.

hexkeybushing

Jan 29, 2022 at 05:58PM EST in reply to KZN02

You can use that as a justification to censor anything. It's a slippery slope.

-1

KZN02

Jan 29, 2022 at 06:12PM EST in reply to hexkeybushing

Different year, same sh*t. Back then people were fearful of things we would now consider common sense.

hexkeybushing

Jan 29, 2022 at 06:20PM EST in reply to KZN02

Nice strawman. That's not freedom of speech. But anyway, if people want to not wear seatbelts and die, the only person they're harming is themselves. However, it should still be illegal for a parent to not belt up their child--that would be harming another person. Why bother protecting stupid people from themselves? The world could do with a lot less idiots.

KZN02

Jan 29, 2022 at 06:23PM EST in reply to hexkeybushing

Well, it is still possible for unbuckled people to hurt others, even if other people wore seatbelts. Imagine all that energy in an unsecured person in motion and hitting something.

hexkeybushing

Jan 29, 2022 at 06:24PM EST in reply to hexkeybushing

Then again, if there is a reason that seatbelts protect other people--say you have a mild impact and the seatbelt prevents you from flying out of the seat so you can regain control of the car before running over a pedestrian--then it is justifiable to make seatbelts the law. Again, it's all about whether you're hurting yourself or someone.

But again, that has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

KZN02

Jan 29, 2022 at 09:49PM EST in reply to hexkeybushing

Hmm, I guess I'll concede since in the case of seat belts, the internet wasn't prevalent at the time and there doesn't seem any instances of people being cancelled for speaking out against them, likely under the same reasoning you have that protesters probably died out over time.

hexkeybushing

Jan 30, 2022 at 12:17PM EST in reply to KZN02

I would not want people to be cancelled for speaking out against seat belt laws, even though I disagree with their stance.

One of the most insidious mentalities in our society is the belief that the people need to be "protected" from information that we personally disagree with "for their own good". If you believe someone out there is publicly distributing incorrect information or even lying, it is your freedom to present a counterargument. It is the individual's responsibility to think for themselves, and if they believe in the lies then that is their own fault.