In Trump's original post, he is "calling for" the rate cap, which I interpret differently to "mandating" a rate cap. The Guardian article seems to think that the executive has no authority to compel banks to comply, and this might well be the reason he is merely "calling for" this rate cap.
And if this is the correct interpretation, then this was communicated in a very confusing way.
I was once in South Africa and needed to look up my prescriptions in the CVS app. I had lost my pills and needed to show a local pharmacist what I needed. CVS geoblocked me. Luckily I had a TailScale exit node running at home, which solved the problem.
That doesn't refute the original point, though. Apple Podcasts and Google Podcasts are products that embrace the open podcasting model. Spotify and Youtube Music do not, and these are the products that the original comment is referring to, where you are not able to add a subscription using an RSS feed.
Back in 2006, our expectations were set when An Inconveient Truth contemplated what would happen if sea levels rose by six meters (in our lifetime). 3.6mm a year seems a bit meh in that context.
Well, the old-timers (such as me) don't really like what Spotify are doing either. A "podcast", in our view, conforms to a de-facto standard, the RSS feed. This is what ensures its openness. You have choices about where to host it. Your listeners have choices of where to consume it.
Again, I'm merely saying that spam control is not censorship. Your argument about participating in business relationships might have merit, but it is a different argument.
> You're somehow conflating not actively supporting a cause with censoring someone.
No, I'm merely making the argument that spam control tools are not censorship because the user decides. I'm not sure how the paper supplier fits in to this argument. Perhaps it is a good analogy for the original topic.
> Is it censorship when your email provider removes spam?
No, but only in situations where it is user controlled. In other words, tools that empower a user to control what they read is not censorship. In the case of spam, false positives and false negatives can be addressed by the user by adding/removing email from a spam folder. If the user does not have this kind of control, then it can be argued that this is censorship because, after all, who decides what is spam?
If the publisher is prevented from publishing despite having an audience that wants to read them, that is censorship.
And if this is the correct interpretation, then this was communicated in a very confusing way.