On the wider point

The idea of free speech (more an American concept tbf) is always in balance with taking responsibility for what's said. Note laws about slander, libel, incitement to violence or damage.

The Internet provides a platform for *anybody* to say *anything* to a massive audience.

There needs to be a discussion about the degree to which the platform owners, who profit from disseminating those views, are responsible for damages caused thereby.

This Spotify thing is particularly thorny as they have paid a lot for the podcaster in question to haul in audiences to listen to his palpable nonsense.

We're Spotify and the podcaster to get sued by the families of people who refused the vaccines on the basis of the information they've produced, shared and propagated and held jointly liable for the damage caused, it would be interesting to see if the current inequitable balance in responsibilities would level out again.

Before any nincompoop chimes in, the standards of responsibilities for weighing the national health advice that has underpinned advice on vaccines and lockdowns is utterly incomparable, despite whatever nonsense is doing the rounds in the unregulated social medias.

Posted By: Cardiff Canary, Jan 29, 10:30:51