It won't end with Spotify and Substack

Cybertoonz takes on "technology-adjacent" content moderation

Comments

[bevis the lumberjack]

You know what is just astounding? The same people who just repeatedly *insisted* that the BBB would have a cost of $0 are throwing a fit about so-called misinformation out in the private world.

These people have no sense of shame or self-awareness.

[bernard11]

What happened to Spotify?

I mean, I know some people have withdrawn their content because of Rogan, but if that's it, so what?

If someone decides they don't want their writing published in a particular magazine because of other content it carries that seems OK to me.

[Martinned]

Didn't you hear? Regulating private business is bad, except when private business doesn't want to do business with conservative blowhards.

[AmosArch]

Who's calling for any regulation in this instance other than the progs throwing a fit that Spotify won't bow to them?

[bernard11]

I don't know, Amos.

But Baker is upset about something. I'm trying to figure out what it is.

[AmosArch]

Spotify has the right not to censor any legal content. People have a right to protest these platforms. And people have the right to judge them for it. I would think that you guys would understand this since you are usually on the 1st and 3rd groups side and are currently on the 2nd groups side in this instance.

But overall in order to mean something free speech should be approached as a holistic mentality including openmindness or at least not trying to actively destroy each other. Not just a technical checkbox for the government only. Thats why it is right for Stewart to point out that leftists should embrace the marketplace of ideas approach to free speech Since they're in for a rude awakening as their government checkbox philosophy of free speech is not going to be kind to them when the pendulum swings the other way.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I'm trying to figure out what it is.

Since you and Martinned have repeatedly demonstrated that you lack the cognitive ability to understand the simplest of issues, and even the barest hint of anything remotely resembling intellectual honesty, maybe you should save yourselves the time and effort on this one.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Didn't you hear? Regulating private business is bad, except when private business doesn't want to do business with conservative blowhards.

Given that "regulating private business" has absolutely nothing to do with this issue the stupidity of your comment in general, and the hypocrisy of you referring to anyone else as "blowhards" cannot be overstated.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Spotify has had some musicians skedaddle because of Rogan (whom I’ve never listened to). They released their quarter yesterday or today and say that so far there’s been no impact on subscriber count and don’t anticipate one. Their stock is down recently but most everything tech has been selling off over the last couple of months after a crazy run.

Did you see Meta/Facebook today? Disappointing results and weak guidance, so it got drug out behind the barn and shot.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Do you think Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, and others who removed their music from Spotify really thought Spotify would remove Rogan's podcast, or that their action would hurt Spotify? Maybe they were just trying to draw attention to what they considered misinformation. Which it certainly has, and in fact hasn't Rogan issued a statement that he would try to better in presenting both sides of the issue, or some such statement?

Neil Young has always been prickly and difficult about his music, and it usually isn't about politics. Indeed politically he is all over the map. In 1980, he was famously a big Ronald Reagan supporter.

[AmosArch]

I like how the same people who usually whine against people complaining about corporations when they censor are now whining in support of people who complain when corporations don't censor.

But its not that they want corporate censorship (of ideas they don't like) guys. These two positions are totes the same position in support of liberty and freedom!

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I mean, I know some people have withdrawn their content because of Rogan, but if that's it, so what?"

So, it makes it harder for people to listen to content that they choose to listen to.

Neil Young is allowed to try to make it more difficult for me to listen to Joe Rogan, should I desire to, and I'm allowed to call him a censorious asshole for doing so.

[bernard11]

Neil Young is allowed to try to make it more difficult for me to listen to Joe Rogan, should I desire to, and I'm allowed to call him a censorious asshole for doing so.

Well, OK. but I think characterizing it as Neil Young making "it more difficult for me to listen to Joe Rogan," is sort of silly.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Well, OK. but I think characterizing it as Neil Young making "it more difficult for me to listen to Joe Rogan," is sort of silly."

Why? Isn't that his entire aim?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Basically everyone speech rights were honored here. Young said he’d go if Rogan didn’t. Spotify declined to drop Rogan, and left Young’s decision up to Young, who chose to move. Nobody is making anybody do anything. Everyone wins.

And a private company doing this, no less.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sure. You can excercize your own rights in ways that are obnoxious without violating anyone else's rights.

Imagine an anti-birth control zealot going to the drugstore and buying all the condoms so that people couldn't use condoms.

Or imagine somebody going to the bookstore and buying all the copies of a book he disagreed with so other people couldn't read it.

What Neil Young is doing is closer to the latter. The people in both examples are exercising their own rights, but still imposing their will on others in a way that's rather dickish.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Not a good analogy. Young isn’t taking his songs off the market. It’ll be available in plenty of other places. Anybody who wants it will be able to get it.

[Kazinski]

Bad analogy, if someone bought all the copies of a book in their bookstore the manager would restock and order twice as many.

[bernard11]

WTF? You are making no sense at all.

Young isn't taking away anyone's ability to listen to Rogan.

By your logic all musicians have to make their music available on Spotify, or else they are making it harder for people to listen to Rogan.

That's utterly ridiculous.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"By your logic all musicians have to make their music available on Spotify..."

What? Not at all.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Young isn't taking away anyone's ability to listen to Rogan."

Young failed at his effort to take away some peoples' ability to listen to Rogan. He certainly tried, Spotify just called him on his dare.

[Rossami]

Young did not succeed at taking away anyone's ability to listen to Rogan.

He sure as hell tried, though. Specifically, he tried by threatening (and then carrying out) a boycott.

Young's tactics are entirely legal. However, his goal - non-governmental censorship - was unethical and deeply hypocritical.

[bernard11]

What? Not at all.

IOW, yes.

A popular musician who declines to let Spotify play his music is doing exactly what Young did - not letting Spotify play his music, thereby making Spotify marginally less popular than otherwise. The two things are exactly fucking the same.

But because you like Rogan, I guess, or want to own libs, or something, you are trying to say they are not - that Young is under some sort of moral obligation, etc, etc.

What you, and Brett, and Rossami, are saying is utter bullshit.

[Brett Bellmore]

Setting aside that Young is not all that popular anymore, he didn't "decline to let Spotify play his music". He threatened to stop letting Spotify play his music if they didn't censor Joe Rogan.

Happily, they told him to shove it. But he was absolutely trying to use the supposed popularity of his music as leverage to shut somebody else up.

[Rossami]

You are misrepresenting the timing, bernard. And in doing so, exposing your own biases.

Young first attempted to have Rogan censored by threatening Spotify with a boycott, essentially saying "take down his stuff or I'll hurt you economically by withdrawing my stuff". The fact that Spotify did not yield to his attempted boycott does not change the nature of Young's initial attempt.

Again, boycotts are entirely legal. But Young's attempted boycott was hypocritical (given that he said it was over "disinformation" while ignoring his own extensive history of disinformation on other causes) and unethical (because he admitted that his boycott was intended to suppress Spotify listeners' ability to listen to Rogan's speech rather than to grant Spotify listeners agency by attempting to persuade them that Rogan is wrong).

Young can withdraw his music from Spotify for any reason or none (subject to whatever contractual terms Spotify imposes). But he chose to say that he was taking that action for political reasons. In doing so, he opened himself up to criticism for those reasons.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

A popular musician who declines to let Spotify play his music is doing exactly what Young did - not letting Spotify play his music, thereby making Spotify marginally less popular than otherwise. The two things are exactly fucking the same.

You might well be the dumbest SOB on this site.

[David Nieporent]

People. Stop being clueless. Young did not think that there was a snowball's chance that Spotify was going to choose him over Rogan. Young was making a statement, not trying to censor Rogan.

[Toranth]

Young explicitly and open demanded that Spotify censor Rogan. How can anyone even pretend that Young was "not trying to censor Rogan"?
There might have been ulterior motives behind Young's demands, such as trying to force people to his own streaming service or other sales channels. But the fact remains that what Young said, and did, was an explicit demand for censorship and a threat of withdrawing his music if the demand was not met.

Denying Young's own words is Mohammed al-Sahaf levels of denialism.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Young did not think that there was a snowball's chance that Spotify was going to choose him over Rogan. Young was making a statement, not trying to censor Rogan."

You're saying that Young lied and falsely claimed he was trying to censor Rogan? Well, I guess he fooled me.

[David Nieporent]

Young explicitly and open demanded that Spotify censor Rogan. How can anyone even pretend that Young was "not trying to censor Rogan"?

He did not, in fact, do any such thing. You should probably go look up his actual words, rather than relying on paraphrases.

[M L]

"Young did not think that there was a snowball's chance that Spotify was going to choose him over Rogan. Young was making a statement, not trying to censor Rogan."

LMAO. Yeah just imagine someone being canceled or kicked off platforms for COVID "misinformation" that usually isn't even misinformation. That never happens.

Oh, wait . . . the very guest that Rogan created controversy by speaking to, one of the inventors of MRNA vaccine technology, was kicked off Twitter. To name one of thousands of examples.

Talk about clueless.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Young isn't taking away anyone's ability to listen to Rogan.

But that was what he tried to do, you moron.

[bernard11]

You know what? Fuck you.

You contribute nothing to this site whatsoever. All you do is show up occasionally to insult those you disagree with, call them morons, and generally act like an asshole.

Unlike many on your side of the fence you have never made an intelligent or thoughtful comment.

Take your "opinions" and shove them.

[DStraws]

No, actually he just doesn't want to be associated with a company that will allow its platform to be used to spread covid disinformation.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Well, OK. but I think characterizing it as Neil Young making "it more difficult for me to listen to Joe Rogan," is sort of silly.

Given that their whole goal was to get Spotify to ditch Rogan your comment couldn't be more pants-on-head stupid.

[PaulS]

I think Neil Young made it more difficult for me to listen to Neil Young. I don't think he wants people who listen to Joe Rogan listening to him - they are the wrong kind of listeners

[bernard11]

Why ascribe all these terrible motives?

[MatthewSlyfield]

How is that ascribing a motive (terrible or otherwise)?

Neil Young outright said dump Rogan or I will pull my music off Spotify.

[bernard11]

That doesn't mean he thinks the Rogan listeners are "the wrong kind."

Maybe he just doesn't want to be associated with Rogan himself in any way.

[bernard11]

I think Neil Young made it more difficult for me to listen to Neil Young.

He also did that when he actually had the nerve to charge for CD's and concert tickets.

[Brett Bellmore]

Being just "sometimes Y" has been my main obstacle to listening to him, as the only time I ever do is on CSN albums.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

He's not to everyone's taste, but I'm a big fan. He did some good stuff with CSN, most especially 'Helpless.'

[AmosArch]

Joe Rogan has the right to publish where he wants and the leftist artists have the right to publish where they want. I just wish progs recognized the right to free speech in avenues other than trying to mob punish conservative dissidents.

[Sarcastr0]

Joe Rogan has the right to publish where he wants

Not if where he wants doesn't wanna.

[AmosArch]

If it was a cake shop or photographer and he was a sjw activist you'd be wrong.

If it was a massive multinational oligarchy with ties to the financial system, media, and governments working in concert to crush wrongthink OTOH I'll give you that.

[Sarcastr0]

sjw activists is not a covered class under public accommodation laws.

wrongthink doesn't seem to be being crushed. Also, I am reminded of the now old saw:

Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
Con: LOL no...no not those views
Me: So....deregulation?
Con: Haha no not those views either
Me: Which views, exactly?
Con: Oh, you know the ones

[Michael P]

That reminds me of an old saw, too!

Scratch a progressive, find a Nazi.

[Sarcastr0]

LOL, yeah slavering for a Holocaust over here.

Don't devalue Nazi for your partisan pettiness. See also: fascist, racist, Marxist, Communist, Stalinist.

[Brett Bellmore]

The fascists didn't start with the Holocaust, Sarcastro. They ended with it.

[bernard11]

They didn't end with it either, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, you're claiming it was only the penultimate solution?

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Don't devalue Nazi for your partisan pettiness. See also: fascist, racist

LOL! You're a hoot.

[Titus PUllo]

Big Tech is an enemy of liberty. Run by NYC far left ivy league wokes who get the gig because their friends, relatives, "group" got them VP jobs at FB, Twitter, and Google they are acting as sovereign nations flaunting the Bill of Rights. Force these commies out and force them all to NOT censor any content unless is calling for physical violence.

[Sarcastr0]

Big Tech is an enemy of liberty

He posts on the Internet.

[fafalone]

That's funny when FB has been repeatedly caught being openly biased in favor of conservatives. You all are so whiny and vitriolic even being held to lesser standards than everyone else isn't enough, until calls for murder and genocide, and being able to freely use the n word, don't get you banned, it's "censorship".

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, come on. It's becoming a cliche at this point: Both liberals and conservatives think FB has a censorship problem: The conservative don't like being censored, and the liberals don't like that some of the conservatives AREN'T censored.

[ThePublius]

"That's funny when FB has been repeatedly caught being openly biased in favor of conservatives."

Are you high?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, it's sort of like press bias in favor of Trump. They didn't charge the podium wearing suicide vests at even one of his press conferences, that shows they were in the tank for him.

FB's 'bias in favor of conservatives' consisted of not censoring them enough.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That's funny when FB has been repeatedly caught being openly biased in favor of conservatives.

And we've always been at war with Eastasia.

[David Nieporent]

Run by NYC far left ivy league wokes who get the gig because their friends, relatives, "group"

In case people aren't paying attention, TP (appropriate initials) is talking about Jews here.

[fafalone]

If only you were as big a fan of the principles embodied in the 4th Amendment as you are the ones embodied by the 1st.

Stewart Baker: How dare internet companies try to control speech because misinformation is harmful.

Also Stewart Baker: How dare companies not completely gut privacy and scan+archive every message you send on their platform on behalf of law enforcement and provide back doors to them because CSAM is harmful.

[ThePublius]

"Stewart Baker: How dare internet companies try to control speech because misinformation is harmful."

Don't you realize that the problem here isn't controlling misinformation, it's WHO defines misinformation?

Did you see the example in the cartoon? That really happens! It's very well known, and well researched and documented, that cloths masks are useless for controlling the spread of a virus. Yet, people have been kicked off social media platforms for saying this.

"Misinformation" in this totalitarian state is defined as anything that is counter to the narrative of the party in power, which is the the Democratic party, and the progressive/liberal movement.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Don't you realize

If his/her/its posting history makes anything clear it's that the answer to that question is always a resounding, "No."

[fafalone]

You don't realize the problem inherent to thinking the social media companies are going to far in restricting misinformation, but supporting the government having direct access to private speech on their platforms?

Yes, the Dems act like totalitarians sometimes. So do the Republicans. That's why giving the government complete warrantless access to your private conversations on these platforms is problematic.

You've entirely failed to understand the point, just wanting to cry like a toddler about masks without understanding the bigger problem of authoritarian abuse from both parties.

[Kazinski]

I wonder if the tech companies aren't going to get tired of all this "moderation" soon. It alienates a portion of their customer base, and it drives up their costs, neither of which is good business. You can do that when you have the world on a string, when you're stock.is going through the roof, and you have robust customer growth.

But yesterday Facebook lost 250 billion in market cap, one quarter of the value of the company, Zuckerberg himself lost 26 billion. Not only did they miss their earnings targets, but for the first time ever they lost users.

Twitter has lost half its market value in the last year too.

Now I'm not saying their heavy handed moderation policies are the reason, but it can't be helping, and it seems like an easy place to reduce costs.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's not going to be enough to get them to change course. Some people take their profits in cold, hard cash.

Other people take their profits in warping a nation's political discourse so that their preferred side has an easier time prevailing.

And the latter sort of profit actually lowers your taxes!

[bernard11]

That's some serious paranoia you've got going there, Brett.

[FourteenFour]

I never listened to Rogan before so I looked him up on youtube and now I find myself listening to even his old content.

[Brett Bellmore]

My only previous exposure to him was that interview with Elon Musk. Otherwise I wouldn't have had the slightest clue who he was.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I only knew him because he was Joe on the 90's TV show 'News Radio.' That was a great show.

[benji]

NewsRadio was amazing.

[Doug Huffman]

Here is an adjacent technology challenge; disentangle your e-mail and favorites’ passwords file from ‘free’ virtual technology.

Of contacts and password’s I may have 1,000 and am working to move to a two way encrypted off-shore fee based service.

It’s not easy being secure.

[jimc5499]

Think about this. Young was practically unknown to certain groups of people before this. Now these people know who Young is because of this. Young doesn't own the majority of his music, so he basically has no say about removing it. Can you say scam? Think of the clueless idiots who will buy or listen to Young's music just because of this.

[ThePublius]

"Young doesn't own the majority of his music, so he basically has no say about removing it. "

That's not entirely true. "Neil Young has sold 50 percent of the worldwide copyright and income interests." I could find no statement about who may determine distribution of the catalog.

[Rossami]

You are misrepresenting the timing. And in doing so, exposing your own biases.

Young first attempted to have Rogan censored by threatening Spotify with a boycott, essentially saying "take down his stuff or I'll hurt you economically by withdrawing my stuff". The fact that Spotify did not yield to his attempted boycott does not change the nature of Young's initial attempt.

Again, boycotts are entirely legal. But Young's attempted boycott was hypocritical (given that he said it was over "disinformation" while ignoring his own extensive history of disinformation on other causes) and unethical (because he admitted that his boycott was intended to suppress Spotify listeners' ability to listen to Rogan's speech rather than to grant Spotify listeners agency by attempting to persuade them that Rogan is wrong).

Young can withdraw his music from Spotify for any reason or none (subject to whatever contractual terms Spotify imposes). But he chose to say that he was taking that action for political reasons. That opens him up to criticism over the reasons he alleged.

[Rossami]

Please ignore. That was intended as a reply further up. (Darned comment squirrels...)

[jdgalt1]

A good illustration of how "misinformation" has become Big Tech's buzzword meaning the Truth.

All products that censor us need more competition. Especially Apple and Google phones.

[apedad]

Yes please!

Now about that Trump start up . . . .

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/gettr-truth-jason-miller-trump-social-media-goggin-abbruzesse-rcna11805

Also be prepared for all the pedos who love to flock to the new "absolute free speech" sites.

[Brett Bellmore]

If it has the technical capacity to be censored, it WILL be censored. If you want a genuinely uncensored platform, it would have to be peer to peer, with encryption to prevent ISPs from censoring the traffic.

Trump's proposed platform doesn't claim to be uncensored. It's quite explicit that it's a TOS violation to disparage Trump or the site, and the TOS also prohibit a number of other speech activities, such as offering to buy or sell products not endorsed by the site.

[Brett Bellmore]

Personally, after I read the TOS, I decided that it probably wasn't worth signing up.

[jjsaz]

More accurate for Android.

[benji]

This was actually a good cartoon, Baker.

[Stewart Baker]

Thanks. It's a new thing, so I value the feedback.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, that didn't take long: Spotify changed their mind, they've started purging Rogan.

[M L]

But the leftists above were saying there was no chance in hell of this happening . . . what gives?