> Content that promotes dangerous false or dangerous deceptive medical information that may cause offline harm or poses a direct threat to public health
I guess that depends on ones definition of "promotes" and even "false". And, "deceptive" requires intent. I imagine this is up for some interpretation.
Obviously, it doesn't, because adjudicating this would require building a mind-reading device. Unless Spotify possesses one, clearly, the intent behind this rule is that the intent behind the deception is irrelevant. A rule that you can break by having the right or wrong thoughts isn't a rule.
> I guess that depends on ones definition of "promotes" and even "false".
Yes, and it also depends on what their definition of "Content", "Harm", "Health", "Medical", and "Information". What's your point? Words have generally agreed upon meanings, we aren't just shouting Shannon noise into the ether.
In criminal law in most nations intent plays an extremely important role.
Yet these mind reading devices do not exist. Is it because there are other ways to establish intent?
> A rule that you can break by having the right or wrong thoughts isn't a rule.
Yet somehow those kinds of rules are enforced in a courtroom thousands of times a week.
In this context, deception would have been proven by simply proving the person knew the information was untrue. You be surprised how often people publicly admit to that in some other context. And then suddenly "intent" is proven.
>Words have generally agreed upon meanings,
Especially in a legal context. But that doesn't make the classification of "promoting false information" easier.
The idea that Spotify is "platforming" Rogan is laughable. They paid him millions of dollars to come to their platform. Spotify is not bringing an audience to Rogan, Rogan is bringing an audience to Spotify.
Do you have a reference for this? I've been following this very closely, and this is the first time I've heard he broke the TOS.