So it’s not going to have any effect…. except that it might accomplish its stated goal.
Before all of this, Spotify had no publicly visible policies on medical misinformation. That has
already changed in direct response to the controversy, and we may well see action taken with respect to individual episodes of Joe Rogan’s podcast in the near future.
As such, this is already kind of a moot point.
I assumed the goal is to reduce the spread of misinformation,
removing him from spotify would do the opposite.
he would be available to more people not less.
and given the structure of podcasts as just totally unregulated RSS feeds,
there literally no one to complain to if were to leave spotify.
If you support content moderation, then you’re fine with companies and services setting their own policies around these issues and consumers/partners making their own choices accordingly.
Although you like to lean on slippery slope arguments, if you support content moderation then yours isn’t an “all or nothing” position. You’re fine with companies limiting expression on their premises/platforms/services, you would just personally draw the boundaries so as to permit, among other things, racial slurs, medical misinformation, and White Supremacist hate speech.
As we’re essentially discussing matters of corporate policy, not government prohibition of speech, the conservative/libertarian stance on this issue is particularly ironic in that it essentially opposes free market forces.
Im not opposed to moderation but I think how it happens matters.
Take the Maus situation, I think it's one thing if a school board decides they are uncomfortable with teaching maus at a specific grade and decide to remove it from the curriculum.
I think it's different when conservatives gin a up a moral panic, to win elections
and embarrass democrats and start enacting book bans as part of a broader political strategy
the outcome is the same but I think the process matters.
I think rich celebrities and cultural elites using shunning tactics to suppress popular media
is unhelpful and counter productive.
do they have the right to do it sure. but I don't think it helps anyone.
NikeTalk is not affiliated with Nike, Inc.
NikeTalk remains independently owned and operated.
Platform moderation is no minor feat. Even services with virtually unlimited resources struggle mightily with it.
We’re not above criticism and I would hardly cry foul if anyone chooses to patronize a service that they believe provides a safer experience.
I would be the first to admit that, although it is difficult to strike the right balance between safety and ideological diversity, we have at times been too patient with people like Ninjahood. Although he was held accountable for his behavior, it was self-evidently insufficient to adequately alter that behavior.
While realtime moderation is, despite its difficulty, an important responsibility that we don’t shy away from, it is a very different and far more complicated task than accepting responsibility for content that we directly produce or commission.
If Ninjahood were even a fraction as important to the community as he fancied himself and we paid him to post here exclusively, would we not have an even greater responsibility to ensure that his content conforms to our community’s values?
sorry typo, what I meant to say is that NT gets revenue from ads and page views
and thus profits from the content posted even if they aren't directly paying the posters.
look I think i'd agree that there is a difference.
id disagree what actions that difference necessitates but i grant there is a difference.
but that's not really my point; Im saying you see people argue all the time that the
publisher-platform distinction is just a cop out made by twitter, facebook ect
to avoid liability and could fairly accuse you of the same thing.
if someone decides, hey I don't want to be on NT the moderation is not strong enough, cool.
but I think it's different if say
some small group of outsiders disagrees with you on your levels of moderation
and tries to use elite influence and shunning tactics to force you to change your policies.
the try to brand anyone who posts on this forum a racist or sexist,
they convince Nike to file suit ect ect.
to me that is counter productive, and accomplishes nothing.
at best it's ineffectual, it doesn't get rid of these ideas,
at worst it boomerangs and further radicalizes people.
Do you think it was wrong for CBS radio to have fired Don Imus for his comments about, among other subjects, the Rutgers basketball team?
i was a pretty young when that happened but no.
to me it's different between authentic popular discontent and a broadcaster enforcing their already described standards
and elite actors using influence to force platforms to violate their own standards
and adopt theirs.
Joe Rogan is the most popular english podcast on the planet,
banning him, for whatever merits that idea may have, is a fringe view.
you don't help anyone when you try to supress popular figures.
you have to persuade people and imo that happens through more speech, not less.
like I said I think NT strikes a good balance. on this.
not allowing counterproductive behaviors but allowing people to be wrong on the internet.
www.cnet.com
