Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

She was specifically asked the question whether she thought Spotify applying warnings to episodes of rogan was enough. She replied with a more ‘general’ answer about misinformation not specifically referencing rogan, but that’s exactly what she was talking about. Her answer was no that they need to do more.

That’s not just my conclusion, many media outlets also came to this conclusion. You can easily check with a ‘Psaki rogan Spotify’ google. And no, they aren’t right wing, anti vax sites. A few days later Spotify completely revamped its policy, publicly publishing the company’s internal rules for what is allowed on the platform, “testing ways to highlight” those rules to its creators and “working to add a content advisory to any podcast episode that includes a discussion about COVID-19,” Spotify CEO Daniel Ek wrote in a news release.

This hasn’t been enough to stop the backlash against Joe though, my contention is that they want him silenced altogether. They hated him since long before the pandemic.

It is though a part of a broader pattern described well by Glenn Greenwald.

”But it's even more alarming when you consider that it's actually part of a broad pattern, even an explicit strategy by Democrats to use their majority in power in Washington to coerce companies to censor for them in ways the Constitution would prohibit."

Remember when YouTube removed the dislike button because of all the downvoting poor Biden got? He went on to say, “They've repeatedly subpoenaed social media companies and explicitly said If you don't start censoring more, you will face legal and regulatory reprisals,"

How is that not censorship?

There are well defined principles that have stood the test of time in relation to speech, here is an extract from the ACLU.

”The second principle is that expression may be restricted only if it will clearly cause direct and imminent harm to an important societal interest. The classic example is falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing a stampede. Even then, the speech may be silenced or punished only if there is no other way to avert the harm.”

The argument being made is that COVID misinformation is possibly harmful and may lead to people not taking vaccines/boosters causing more harm. This misses the second part of this second principle in that there is a way avert the harm of misinformation- with real information. With the example of a fire in a theatre there is no way to avert harm.

If what he was saying was incorrect I suspect you’d have dealt with that. You can read anything you like, or not, but your immature taking of offence speaks volumes.

You’re probably not aware of the times big tech has been subpoenaed and the types of questions that were asked, but don’t let that offend you. You can look it up. Your posts with zero argument has led to me not to want to engage you in the future. You asked me twice on two separate threads what the ‘n’ word means but at this point I’m considering it harassment. Unless you have some argument to make don’t expect me to follow you down any rabbit holes.