There is no sharp line between censorship, curation, and mere omission for unrelated reasons (e.g. limited shelf space, or unawareness by the curator that a work even exists). But this example falls close enough to the censorship side that it can be called as such. Because if this doesn't qualify, then it would take a literal government ban to count as censorship, which is a uselessly narrow criterion in our corporate-dominated society.
Edit: To elaborate: To suppress a work, government censorship is simply not necessary. If Amazon refuses to list it, Youtube removes it and Google downranks it, Spotify and Netflix drop it, or Twitter or Facebook ban it, then it'll reach 1% or less of its audience than if it were treated generically (ironically this doesn't apply so much to Joe Rogan, since he already has an established audience. But it does for less known creators).
It absolutely is censorship when the exclusive owner and distributor of the content refuses to distribute and takes it down. It's the very definition of it.
You might be conflating that with the first amendment and free speech, but that's entirely different.
This is the deal Rogan signed so it's also free market capitalism, but that's not mutually exclusive either.
I agree it's not censorship in the First Amendment sense, but as a large corporation approaches monopoly status I think we should be less tolerant of "curation", even if we happen to agree with it in specific cases.
“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)”
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.
I think there are pretty clear examples of censorship that would cross the line.
The most widely recognized example is when major search engines delisted pictures and results for the Tiananmen Square massacre last year.
The bookstore analogy would be if you came in and asked for a book on the massacre, and the owner said "sorry, I don't know what you are talking about" when they have a whole shelf in stock.
This is one of the broadest definitions of censorship I’ve ever heard then.
I understand censorship to be the total suppression of content, not a partial restriction of it, or having to view it on one major (similarly priced, similar ease of use) platform instead of another.
> to keep (something) secret : to not allow people to know about or see (something)
I haven’t seen any evidence or quotes from Young that request keeping Rogan’s content secret.
I don’t think it counts as censorship if you say a platform no longer has content that’s available elsewhere. At that point, any content dropped from any platform for any reason would be “censorship” and the word starts to lose it’s original meaning.
Calling this censorship rather than editorial curation implies that content distribution platforms are somehow expected not to have an editorial line. I find this very odd and a misuse of the term censorship.
"America's got talent" is a great show too, and they certainly select who gets onstage from all the people they audition. Is that censorship? I don't expect that TV show to give me info about protests any more than Tiktok.
Censorship is when the powers of government or the marketplace are such that nobody could, if they wanted, get their message out. Yes there is actual censorship in China that filters anything from group messaging apps to movies, but isn't Tiktok here just defining an editorial line of non-controversial content?
Choosing not to host it because of the content. Of course it is censorship. That people can perhaps publish their opinions somewhere else does not imply that it is not censorship.
No, but they aren't doing anything to suppress the video, they are just refusing to host it. If you expand the definition of censorship to anyone who refuses to host a specific piece of content, then it basically loses all meaning. The New York Times is censoring me by not publishing my article. This science journal is censoring me by not publishing my paper.
Edit: To elaborate: To suppress a work, government censorship is simply not necessary. If Amazon refuses to list it, Youtube removes it and Google downranks it, Spotify and Netflix drop it, or Twitter or Facebook ban it, then it'll reach 1% or less of its audience than if it were treated generically (ironically this doesn't apply so much to Joe Rogan, since he already has an established audience. But it does for less known creators).
Notice I've only listed 6 companies.
reply