Acknowledged - moderator. You did not yet make clear however, how you became aware of this issue. I think that deserves a mention; nice to have not required. I can put 2+2 together either way.
Now as my part here, and to conclude. I lost the moral high ground by name calling. It weakened my position. It was an unforced error; nobody to blame but myself. So please accept my apologies.
I'll redouble my efforts:
- Professional managers know how products, services, and assets the company own or run relate to top, bottom line. Managers also know that assets don't run the company nor do they have a profit motive or pay taxes. Assets do not make meaning. People do. And in particular those who have choice which arises out control usually through seniority, ownership, but also common sense are charged with staying on the right side public health. Anything less is a problem. Spotify seems to know that, so good for them.
- Relegating Spotify as a dumb pipe reminds me of a person I knew several years ago was wont to say: "I don't talk ``X"; I just do technical." X was politics/management and related issues. This isn't the time or place to unpack this more. But there is a strong sense of a willful disassociation a distortion really between tech and the environment in which tech is used to the good or bad. I also think that's a problem.
@throwawaysea This reply in context to your original post above is ... well ... is a mixed blessing too.
It does not. In the big scheme of things it really does not; I am on the same page as you there.
Now, I want explicitly point out that if reported then surely that leaves some non-zero work for @throwawaysea who wrote:
>Anything can be construed to be a safety issue ... If you think exchanging information is dangerous to the point that it requires censorship, then you’re arguing for authoritarianism and tyranny.
Right? Because by that analysis HN is conspiring in censorship or is censoring.
Be clear: not my position at all. The HN complaint was: hey, keep it professional and naming calling isn't professional. I stand corrected there.
The larger point is:
- I do not feel nor would I argue I was censored; certainly not
- it is not the case communication for or against some issue X is censorship
- we are not helped to better assess issues that leave the domain of petty, serious, or deep disagreement into censorship and tyranny by confusing inanimate things with the people above it that put those assets to work.
Now as my part here, and to conclude. I lost the moral high ground by name calling. It weakened my position. It was an unforced error; nobody to blame but myself. So please accept my apologies.
I'll redouble my efforts:
- Professional managers know how products, services, and assets the company own or run relate to top, bottom line. Managers also know that assets don't run the company nor do they have a profit motive or pay taxes. Assets do not make meaning. People do. And in particular those who have choice which arises out control usually through seniority, ownership, but also common sense are charged with staying on the right side public health. Anything less is a problem. Spotify seems to know that, so good for them.
- Relegating Spotify as a dumb pipe reminds me of a person I knew several years ago was wont to say: "I don't talk ``X"; I just do technical." X was politics/management and related issues. This isn't the time or place to unpack this more. But there is a strong sense of a willful disassociation a distortion really between tech and the environment in which tech is used to the good or bad. I also think that's a problem.
@throwawaysea This reply in context to your original post above is ... well ... is a mixed blessing too.
Cheers!