[Dwelve]

Ugh... what's worse than the actual censorship are people like you that pretend to not understand the issue, at all.

First of all, WHO ARE YOU ARGUING WITH?!? - "proponent of a free market"? Who are you talking to? Critics of these reactions are not these people, so why on earth are you pretending you want to have a discussion when you deliberately choose to argue with people that have no objection to them? You're talking to an audience of three people, yet everybody that's on your side, the side of censorship will pretend you're refuting the opposing perspective. No, you just picked a tiny group that already agrees with you, pretend it doesn't, and then explain why they actually agree with you.

Ok, so it seems like you're fine with it, because Spotify is a "private corporation", aren't you? Is Spotify free to ban all black artists then? They are a private company after all. Or is that different for reason x / y / z. Fine, let's be a little more theoretical than. Youtube, Spotify and Twitter decide to ban ALL opinions that go against invading Venezuala. Is that something you will support? Private company banning an opinion which they disagree with, all fine and dandy, correct?

Top comment, most upvotes and everyone joins in on this farce... wtf is going on here?

[hnarn]

First of all, your tone does not belong on HN. Secondly, you claim that I do not "understand the issue, at all", which is ironic to say the least since you then go on to make the following examples as presumably equal to what is going on with JR:

- Discriminating artists across the board based on ethnicity

- Social networks banning end-users for having an opinion

Neither of these are in any way similar to selling your intellectual property to a third party and them deciding whether or not to air it. If you additionally enter an NDA with this party, voluntarily and through compensation, that is in no way anything like discrimination based on ethnicity, or blanket censorship on social media.

[Dwelve]

Your agitation does not belong on HN either, yet here it is.

Why are you pretending this is a difficult issue to understand, it very clearly isn't. You're making up random assertions that fit your own predetermined perspective. Everybody that makes money on Youtube or Twitter or Spotify agreed to certain terms. And these terms say they can be deplatformed. So yes, the artist getting displaced based on ethnicity and the anti-war opinion getting banned is exactly the same thing. And it seems you think this is justifiable as long as a spread sheet says it's profitable to do so.

I'm not opening a discussion here, there is nothing to discuss. I'm simply following your own logic to it's conclusion. Your input is not necessary in any of this.

[9935c101ab17a66]

[removed]

[smegma2]

I think to rephrase the parent comment, the issue is that you're making an argument from hipocrisy. You're saying that free-market people should be ok with this but (it sounds like) you also don't subscribe to the free-market view, which means that what you said isn't enough to justify it according to your values.

Maybe it would be different if you said "as a supporter of the free market, I believe that Spotify was correct and in their rights to do this".

[detroitcoder]

Seems pretty obvious OP is addressing a conservative audience that tends to be pro-free-market. For better or worse it is a VERY political topic and this argument attempts identify contradicting agendas of conservatives that take issue with this.

[GauntletWizard]

They're Marxists, they only see things through a Marxist perspective, and human anything does not enter into it.