4 ms·

Being free to choose not to do business that promotes misinformation is a freedom. I wouldn’t do it personally, but I respect his choice.

by paulgb 5y ago

imgabe 5y ago
Yes, freedom does mean that you are free to oppose freedom if you like.
- awb 5y ago
  He’s not saying no one can listen to Rogan, that would be restricting freedom. He’s saying you can listen to Rogan, but it won’t be with me. You are free to choose and rock in the free world with whoever you want. The free world doesn’t entitle you to be able to listen to both men on the same platform. It’s like a 1 man boycott. Nothing wrong with it.
  - imgabe 5y ago
    If that were the case he would have left without issuing an ultimatum. Ultimatums are an attempt to force someone to do something. “Do what I want or else“ Same thing with a boycott. Do you just randomly boycott companies for no reason? No, you do it because you want them to change a policy that you don't like. In this case, Neil doesn't like that Spotify won't censor Rogan. He left to try to force them to do it. He failed.
    - awb 5y ago
      With a boycott you have to be happy with either result. Either you change and we still do business with you or you don’t change and I take my business elsewhere. Yes, it involves an ultimatum but both results are successful outcomes. The only way you lose is if you are unhappy with the result of your ultimatum and I haven’t heard any indication of that. I think it worked out just fine for both parties. Neil is almost 80 and decades past his prime. I doubt he cares at all about the money, it was always out of principal for him.
      - imgabe 5y ago
        I'm not saying he's unhappy. I'm saying the goal of his actions was to reduce freedom. The principle he is following is that of censorship. He left because Spotify refused to capitulate to his demands for censorship. Yes, he is free to do that if he likes. Yes, he may be happy about it. But I do not find supporting censorship to be a noble or worthy cause.
        awb 5y ago
        Where did he ask for censorship though? https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/spotify-remove-neil-young-music-songs-threaten-joe-rogan-covid-vaccine https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/spotify-remove-neil-yo... > Young reportedly posted a letter that read: 'They can have Rogan or Young. Not both' Censorship is saying “You can’t have Rogan, and no one can have Rogan”, but that’s not what he said. He’s just saying he doesn’t want to be associated with Rogan. They agreed to go their separate ways and everyone’s content is still available for purchase by any willing consumers.
        imgabe 5y ago
        Literally nobody was associating him with Rogan. He's on a platform with millions of artists. Absolutely not one single person in the entire world was thinking "Gee, Neil Young must agree with every single thing that Joe Rogan says, because they're both on Spotify". That is complete nonsense. The only reason to make a threat like this was to attempt to get Rogan dropped from the service. I'm sure at various times Neil Young's music was sold in Wal-Mart or other stores that also sold music or other media by other people he disagreed with. He never felt the need to pressure any of them into dropping other artists for fear that they would be associated because they're both in the same store. Imagine for a second that Neil Young had written something like "There's too many gay artists on Spotify. They need to kick off all these gay artists or I'm gonna pull all my music". He might technically be in his rights to do that and pull his music over that, but I doubt anyone would be on here saying how he's just standing up for his principles and exercising his freedom to choose who he does business with. We'd all be saying that it's a shitty thing to do to try to use your clout to silence people you disagree with. That's what he's doing here. The fact that it didn't work doesn't make it any less shitty of a thing to do. The fact that you might also disagree with the person he's trying to silence also doesn't make it right.
- amiantos 5y ago
  Since when is being able to decide where you want your work sold restricting someone else's freedom?
  - imgabe 5y ago
    When you wield it as a cudgel to try to force someone's freedom to be restricted. As in when Neil said "Restrict Rogan's freedom or I'll remove my music" That is when deciding where you want your work sold restricts someone's freedom.

Being free to choose not to do business that promotes misinformation is a freedom. I wouldn’t do it personally, but I respect his choice.

by paulgb 5y ago

Being free to choose not to do business that promotes misinformation is a freedom. I wouldn’t do it personally, but I respect his choice.

imgabe 5y ago

Yes, freedom does mean that you are free to oppose freedom if you like.

awb 5y ago
He’s not saying no one can listen to Rogan, that would be restricting freedom. He’s saying you can listen to Rogan, but it won’t be with me. You are free to choose and rock in the free world with whoever you want. The free world doesn’t entitle you to be able to listen to both men on the same platform. It’s like a 1 man boycott. Nothing wrong with it.
- imgabe 5y ago
  If that were the case he would have left without issuing an ultimatum. Ultimatums are an attempt to force someone to do something. “Do what I want or else“ Same thing with a boycott. Do you just randomly boycott companies for no reason? No, you do it because you want them to change a policy that you don't like. In this case, Neil doesn't like that Spotify won't censor Rogan. He left to try to force them to do it. He failed.
  - awb 5y ago
    With a boycott you have to be happy with either result. Either you change and we still do business with you or you don’t change and I take my business elsewhere. Yes, it involves an ultimatum but both results are successful outcomes. The only way you lose is if you are unhappy with the result of your ultimatum and I haven’t heard any indication of that. I think it worked out just fine for both parties. Neil is almost 80 and decades past his prime. I doubt he cares at all about the money, it was always out of principal for him.
    - imgabe 5y ago
      I'm not saying he's unhappy. I'm saying the goal of his actions was to reduce freedom. The principle he is following is that of censorship. He left because Spotify refused to capitulate to his demands for censorship. Yes, he is free to do that if he likes. Yes, he may be happy about it. But I do not find supporting censorship to be a noble or worthy cause.
      - awb 5y ago
        Where did he ask for censorship though? https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/spotify-remove-neil-young-music-songs-threaten-joe-rogan-covid-vaccine https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/spotify-remove-neil-yo... > Young reportedly posted a letter that read: 'They can have Rogan or Young. Not both' Censorship is saying “You can’t have Rogan, and no one can have Rogan”, but that’s not what he said. He’s just saying he doesn’t want to be associated with Rogan. They agreed to go their separate ways and everyone’s content is still available for purchase by any willing consumers.
        imgabe 5y ago
        Literally nobody was associating him with Rogan. He's on a platform with millions of artists. Absolutely not one single person in the entire world was thinking "Gee, Neil Young must agree with every single thing that Joe Rogan says, because they're both on Spotify". That is complete nonsense. The only reason to make a threat like this was to attempt to get Rogan dropped from the service. I'm sure at various times Neil Young's music was sold in Wal-Mart or other stores that also sold music or other media by other people he disagreed with. He never felt the need to pressure any of them into dropping other artists for fear that they would be associated because they're both in the same store. Imagine for a second that Neil Young had written something like "There's too many gay artists on Spotify. They need to kick off all these gay artists or I'm gonna pull all my music". He might technically be in his rights to do that and pull his music over that, but I doubt anyone would be on here saying how he's just standing up for his principles and exercising his freedom to choose who he does business with. We'd all be saying that it's a shitty thing to do to try to use your clout to silence people you disagree with. That's what he's doing here. The fact that it didn't work doesn't make it any less shitty of a thing to do. The fact that you might also disagree with the person he's trying to silence also doesn't make it right.
amiantos 5y ago
Since when is being able to decide where you want your work sold restricting someone else's freedom?
- imgabe 5y ago
  When you wield it as a cudgel to try to force someone's freedom to be restricted. As in when Neil said "Restrict Rogan's freedom or I'll remove my music" That is when deciding where you want your work sold restricts someone's freedom.