My co-founder Jon Buda and I have been broadcasting our journey with Transistor.fm from the beginning here:
I’m also really enjoying @starr, Ben Curtis, and Josh Wood’s new HoneyBadger show:
Yeah, listening and enjoying it.
One comment tho for the episode where you were contemplating how you’re going to censor podcasts.
Well, I suggest you don’t.
If I were you I’d have a template reply for anyone who demands to de-platform a podcast: “Bring me a court order saying this is illegal”. Because you see - the courts invite experts in law, psychology and so on to make a judgement if someone’s right for free speech should be curbed. You’re not a court. You’re not even experts. You’re just two dudes, and trying to play gods could result in a disaster.
Look at the Facebook: on a daily basis I hear “We’ve banned X! Oh wait, we’d overreacted!”. This is just stupid, but also makes one wonder should they choose FB as their platform? Facebook can live with that - but for you the losses can be unsustainable.
Focus on business, for God sake, and leave the politics to politicians.
So, as an extreme example, you think they should host neo-Nazi podcasts, as long as they aren’t saying anything illegal?
You labeled someone “neo-Nazi”. But how do you know they in fact are? In fact, not in your imagination or due to someone’s name-calling tantrum on Twitter?
Are you an expert and can tell neo-Nazi (illegal) from far-right (legal) from just right (legal) from alt-right (not a legal term, some groups are legal, some apparently not)? (***)
You cannot even rely on their self-identification. They may call themselves neo-Nazi, but be just a BDSM role-playing club. I’m familiar with a self-proclaimed Communist party which is not even Socialist in their program.
We also have here two supposedly liberal founders who are eager to implement totalitarian measures (for greater public good, of course - just like all other totalitarian measures are intended).
The cases are also rarely so clear-cut as “kill all (FITB)”. Can you tell a brain research podcast from an eugenics one? Can you tell if an episode argues for not allowing people with dual citizenship on government roles because of sound logic, or because the unspoken fact that majority of those people are Jews? Can you tell a Koran studying podcast from a jihad incitement one?
So, yes:
If they are not saying anything illegal, you should let them in. They are not neo-Nazi, it is just your imagination or lack of expertise or their false self-identification.
If they are, in fact, neo-Nazi, they have already or will shortly say something illegal and a court bans them. You get a copy of court order and hand them the eviction notice. You do not have to spend energy prematurely.
P.S. This is not even mentioning that evicting someone based on their (legal) political or other properties is discriminatory and can open you to a legal action.
(***) While writing this paragraph I checked the definitions of each of these terms and realized it is all very confusing and hard to define. Only swastika on a logo is a definitive red flag, the rest is open to interpretation. One more reason to leave the judging to experts and courts.
Ok, lets be more specific and say someone who is advocating holocaust denial on their podcast. Which I believe is not illegal in the US. Do you think they should host that?
If it is not legal, then you shouldn’t let them in.
The question again - are you sure they are advocating it?
If they were sued/arrested for that and found guilty - you have a reason to decline them. Case closed.
If they weren’t, then maybe you should question your own understanding what constitutes a holocaust denial. It is one thing to reject the mass murder in general, and a very different thing is to try to find out the more specific number of killed (which some organizations profiting on the topic do not like very much and label as “denial” too.)
P.S. Read you post as “is not legal” in US. Sorry. The point still stands - if it is legal, it can be discussed on podcast.
A bunch of experienced people spent probably weeks deliberating on the topic and decided that it is for better benefit for society if the gag order is not given. Why should a small founder believe he knows better?
P.P.S. Speaking of which, some topics are legal in some jurisdictions and illegal in some other - the folks should eventually be ready to respond to court subpoenas from other jurisdictions by blocking particular podcasts from download from those jurisdictions. Not now tho.
I understand your position. But I totally disagree with it.
If it was my business I absolutely would not let people use it as a platform to promote hatred. Even if that was legal in my jurisdiction.
I understand that would mean making a subjective opinion on what counts as promoting hatred.
Note that refusing to provide a platform for something, is not the same as censoring it (which would mean preventing it from being hosted by anyone else and is a different discussion).
Given that most of IT is left-leaning, letting each service to decide on their own is functionally identical to left-leaning censorship.
That reminds me the early days of Soviet state, when the new law corpus was still missing and the approach was to “follow your proletarian gut feeling” (“классовое чутьё”). Of course, everyone’s gut feeling was different, causing a lot of lawless acts.
Here you go again - how do you know they promote hatred? Maybe they are in fact resisting an oppression? Only a court can say that.
The cool thing is that @Andy, or whoever is running a business hosting podcasts, can allow – or disallow – whoever the fuck they want, regardless of what you have to say about it.
Lets keep it civil. We can agree to disagree.
Generally speaking, this is not true. Not in all jurisdictions, anyway.
The right to refuse business conflicts with discrimination laws and can lead to destroying your business, as certain wedding cake makers found out the hard way recently.
The podcast hosters can get into hot waters one day too, because refusing a business based on political beliefs is discriminatory.
You’re missing the point of the conversation. It is not about who have to say what, but what is the correct/safe way to handle this as a business. SJWs have nothing to lose, but business owners have.
As a business you also have to consider reputation harm and associated costs of giving platform to (probably) legal but generally distasteful views and content.
I just don’t see how most of us could avoid avoid having to make these decisions.
Reputation among who? Everyone has multiple reputations at once - highly respected in some circles, highly despised in others.
Particular loud groups can make lots of noise about a business providing a platform to someone; but are those loud groups your customers? (If they are, maybe it is not your business anymore - they are going to tell you what to do simply by increasing the screaming volume.)
Looking at Facebook, IMHO, they get harmed more by arbitrarily banning people left and right, and then having to say “Sorry, we’ve made a mistake” and un-ban them. Not only it creates a bad optics, but it takes resources and human time, and undermines the trust into the platform.
You have to make those decision. I’m suggesting a base for such decisions - the law. It is a much stronger foundation than raw emotions and activist groups-influenced personal opinions.
It is also (IMHO) much easier to defend: “I can’t de-platform X because it would be discriminatory. I understand your concerns, and ready to support you providing that you form a legal defense fund in case of a legal action against my business if X decides to sue.” Vote with your money, justice warrior, not with your Twitter.
This is just not how the world works though. I may (or may not) agree with you that its how it should work, but its not what you see in the real world.
If the Social Justice Warriors (SJW) manage to get something going ‘viral’ and/or the press involved in a cause it takes on a life of its own. Governments through to big businesses through to micro businesses have all taken a hammering over various issues, some rightly, many not. Hosting something that most would consider abhorrent even if its not illegal is making yourself an easy target.
We’re talking about running a business (presumably to make a profit) not a platform for ‘anti-SJW’ (which in itself is a bit SJW!)