9 ms·

Disagree. Spotify clearly cares about music - hence the entire history of the company & product. When one creator on a platform threatens an ultimatum to remo

Disagree. Spotify clearly cares about music - hence the entire history of the company & product. When one creator on a platform threatens an ultimatum to remove themselves or another creator, that is a rude and aggressive unprovoked attack. Even if Young had 10x the financial value to Spotify as JRE, I believe they still would've made the same decision: "Do not negotiate with terrorists." The decisionmaker for who gets to be on Spotify is Spotify. Not Neil Young, not Joe Rogan, not Drake, not Ed Sheeran, not anybody.

basisword 5y ago
There clearly could have been an attempt at compromise. Spotify have removed/not stocked Rogan content before. Spotify will have rules for the content it serves and there could have been a discussion on the robustness of these.
- johnmorrison 5y ago
  I don't see a reasonable compromise to make here, here's why: There is nothing wrong with what Rogan has been criticized by Young for; other than many people including Young being ideologically possessed in the opposite direction. Disagreement is not grounds for censorship. In any case, it was Young who issued an ultimatum. His music or Joe's podcast, off the platform. There is no room for a compromise there - this is a rude and violent threat.
  - plufz 5y ago
    What Young is doing is not "violent" nor "terrorism". I think you know what those words really mean.
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      Not all violence is physical. Violence is what you use to force people to change their behavior. There are many forms. Verbal, psychological, social, economic. I agree with you that it's not terrorism, however.
      - plufz 5y ago
        Violence is a word that is ambiguous for sure. I would still say that it is a long road from most definitions of violence to Neil Young saying that he will remove his music from Spotify if you let Rogan host his podcast there. I mean most negotiation in some way or another uses force but that does not mean it is violence.
    - johnmorrison 5y ago
      Not calling Young a terrorist, I'm using the term "don't negotiate with terrorists" loosely - the point is, when two peers in a network end up in a situation where one is making a violent ultimatum about both of them, the moral high ground is automatically biased in favor of the victim of this ultimatum, not the one who threatened it. The principle of "don't negotiate with terrorists" is applicable far beyond literal terrorism and I think it's exactly the moral calculus necessary for Spotify to reach the conclusion they did. Network members who think they can yield violent ultimatums to control the administrating entity are toxic to all of their peers.
      - scatters 5y ago
        Spotify is not treating Young and Rogan as peers; only one of them has received an exclusive multimillion contract and extensive promotion, and it isn't Young. Spotify have taken an active decision to promote Rogan, and it is entirely correct that they face consequences for that decision.
  - mola 5y ago
    It's not disagreement, you are being flippant here. Rogan is promoting alternative facts, such that are life threatening to those who believe them. Facts are not stories you can agree or disagree on.
    - johnmorrison 5y ago
      I think your beliefs of what is factual and false regarding COVID are actually the opposite of reality. You likely think the same of me. If you could magically be granted "objective" factual understanding, your point would be right, and I would agree with you. But you haven't been, in reality you do not know the facts for certain, neither do any of the 270 doctors/etc who wrote that letter trying to censor Joe, neither does Joe, neither does Robert Malone or any other heterodox intellectual on the topic, and neither does Fauci or any other orthodox intellectual on the topic. Besides mathematics/logical fundamentals, nobody knows facts for sure. Outside of physics we aren't even quite sure. To pretend that you know the facts, and that you know Joe and his guests are wrong, and that their falsehoods are dangerous --- this is altogether delusional, quite frankly. You may very well be right, but you do not know that you are, you cannot know that you are. The subject matter is too complicated. My apologies for the harsh words. This is how it is. --- Edit: and no, I am not being flippant. I am being objective.
- pibechorro 5y ago
  You are promoting censorship?
yokoprime 5y ago
Its not rude to stand up against a creator spewing blatant and dangerous mis-information. It would have been one thing if Roe Rogan was just a regular podcast availiable on Spotify and other places, but its a Spotify exclusive with Spotify promoting him as one of their headliners and paying him millions of dollars. Good on Young for drawing a line in the sand and choose where his music is availiable.
- prohobo 5y ago
  Blatant and dangerous misinformation? You're gonna have to back those bold claims up, otherwise what's stopping us from claiming that you are the culprit and should be gulag'd? You have no idea what you're talking about, which is what's so fucked up about this whole situation. This is all a dystopian cliche. Opinions are not misinformation, and looking at opposing evidence and arguments is not misinformation. It never was, and never will be. The only people who ever claimed such things are historically disgraced totalitarians. Misinformation comes from states and organizations with ulterior motives who twist and hide the truth for their own gain. It's about power. Crying out about how "dangerous" it is to have a real discussion that you don't like is ridiculously absurd. Are you saying adults are too stupid to think for themselves, or should not be allowed to take calculated risks? Do you have some kind of proof that having discussions is bad for individuals and/or communities in some way?
  - givinguflac 5y ago
    - prohobo 5y ago
      > Found the JRE fan What is this, reddit? That's not proof of shit, many more doctors support questioning the Covid interventions. See: https://gbdeclaration.org/view-signatures/ https://gbdeclaration.org/view-signatures/ What you are proving is that there's a discussion to be had that you want to stop, because what? You're scared?
      - 5y ago
ecdouvhr 5y ago
Meanwhile, my Release Radar playlist has about 30% songs that are unavailable and the home screen is full of recommendations for podcasts I don't care about. Can anyone recommend a good alternative? Preferably with a decent selection of obscure metal. I'd like to try some other paid sevices before reverting to piracy.
- nixy 5y ago
  I went to Apple Music already back when Spotify decided to give Rogan their platform and the millions of dollars. Can't say I regret it.
  - P_I_Staker 5y ago
    Apple music is no better, but I went this route too.
- kmlx 5y ago
  bandcamp.
- deaddodo 5y ago
  Apple Music would probably have the largest library of Metal music owing to its MOG lineage (via Beats Music).
  - ecdouvhr 5y ago
    Doesn't Apple Music require Apple devices? :/
    - deaddodo 5y ago
      I don’t actually use it, but my understanding is that it doesn’t. There’s an Android app, at the very least. I just know that MOG’s selling point for a long while was it’s huge metal library and license set; I see no reason for that to have been lost through its MOG->Beats->Apple Music transition.
subpixel 5y ago
It not aggressive or unprovoked - it’s principled. Neil Young is supporting the hundreds of doctors who have previously pointed to the fact that Joe Rogan is creating controversy, for profit, that endangers his listeners (and the people who live in a society with them, since we’re talking about COVID misinformation).
- naasking 5y ago
  Rogan isn't creating the controversy, media outlets reporting on Rogan are. They also frequently stir up controversy for clicks. Are you not equally skeptical of their profit motive?
  - subpixel 5y ago
    I am confident that Neil Young is not removing his music from Spotify in order to make money.
    - naasking 5y ago
      And I am confident that Neil Young doesn't know what he's talking about: https://www.thedailybeast.com/neil-youngs-long-record-of-spreading-scientific-misinformation?ref=scroll https://www.thedailybeast.com/neil-youngs-long-record-of-spr...
      - subpixel 5y ago
        I'm with the anti-GMO crowd for the monopolistic concerns on top of the effing-with nature concerns. GMOs are (probably) not dangerous like asbestos, but they are by no means safe and a good idea. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/05/monsanto200805 https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/05/monsanto200805
        naasking 5y ago
        All evidence to the contrary I suppose. So is it safe to label you anti-science and conclude you and Young are endangering people with death and disability because GMO-enhanced crops can feed more people and satisfy nutritional deficiencies? This strikes me as very much the same sort of disagreement over what are clear facts on one side, and what some would consider unwarranted paranoia on the other. Maybe people should just be allowed to have these conversations because the paranoid serve a useful purpose.
scatters 5y ago
Spotify cares about music? Then why is it displaying front and center podcast shows that I have zero interest in above and ahead of the music that I go to Spotify for? It's fine that they've decided to pivot to being a podcast company with a sideline in music - apparently that's where the money is, and it's a free market. But if they're going to take a political position by signing exclusive contracts with and heavily promoting podcast hosts, they've lost all claim to be a neutral party, and can't expect artists - and customers - to remain with them.
- the_only_law 5y ago
  > Then why is it displaying front and center podcast shows that I have zero interest in above and ahead of the music that I go to Spotify for? Tangent, but this is actually obnoxious. I never seem to get the “new releases for you” on my home screen anymore, but every-time I open the app I see I slew of podcasts I don’t give a damn about despite me slipping through maybe one podcast episode in my entire account history.
the_other 5y ago
> Spotify clearly cares about music - hence the entire history of the company & product. Spotify clearly cares about the money they can make managing music rights. If they cared about *music* their playlists would be curated by humans. If they cared about music they'd be working to increase musician payout across the board, rather than push it down as low as possible like any other business expense. If they cared about music, they'd be creating opportunities to make, share and enjoy music: instead what they focus on is engagement, sponsorship and rights management.
Mindwipe 5y ago
> Spotify clearly cares about music - hence the entire history of the company & product. That is definitely not clear any more. As someone who doesn't listen to podcasts via Spotify, the UI is literally unusable for music nowadays.
ncr100 5y ago
Not likely true. Your post ignores the recent and not-recent history of the company: - CEO equates musicians "doing well" with musicians creating a lot content quickly ..: https://ultimateclassicrock.com/spotify-ceo-rockers-respond/ https://ultimateclassicrock.com/spotify-ceo-rockers-respond/ - undermines music as an artform for the sake of high profit - blocking a prominent musician in favor of a talk-show comedian / host. Talk Radio trumping Music. - purportedly poor-quality recommendation engine - purportedly large amount of ads per unit of content

basisword 5y ago

There clearly could have been an attempt at compromise. Spotify have removed/not stocked Rogan content before. Spotify will have rules for the content it serves and there could have been a discussion on the robustness of these.

johnmorrison 5y ago
I don't see a reasonable compromise to make here, here's why: There is nothing wrong with what Rogan has been criticized by Young for; other than many people including Young being ideologically possessed in the opposite direction. Disagreement is not grounds for censorship. In any case, it was Young who issued an ultimatum. His music or Joe's podcast, off the platform. There is no room for a compromise there - this is a rude and violent threat.
- plufz 5y ago
  What Young is doing is not "violent" nor "terrorism". I think you know what those words really mean.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    Not all violence is physical. Violence is what you use to force people to change their behavior. There are many forms. Verbal, psychological, social, economic. I agree with you that it's not terrorism, however.
    - plufz 5y ago
      Violence is a word that is ambiguous for sure. I would still say that it is a long road from most definitions of violence to Neil Young saying that he will remove his music from Spotify if you let Rogan host his podcast there. I mean most negotiation in some way or another uses force but that does not mean it is violence.
  - johnmorrison 5y ago
    Not calling Young a terrorist, I'm using the term "don't negotiate with terrorists" loosely - the point is, when two peers in a network end up in a situation where one is making a violent ultimatum about both of them, the moral high ground is automatically biased in favor of the victim of this ultimatum, not the one who threatened it. The principle of "don't negotiate with terrorists" is applicable far beyond literal terrorism and I think it's exactly the moral calculus necessary for Spotify to reach the conclusion they did. Network members who think they can yield violent ultimatums to control the administrating entity are toxic to all of their peers.
    - scatters 5y ago
      Spotify is not treating Young and Rogan as peers; only one of them has received an exclusive multimillion contract and extensive promotion, and it isn't Young. Spotify have taken an active decision to promote Rogan, and it is entirely correct that they face consequences for that decision.
- mola 5y ago
  It's not disagreement, you are being flippant here. Rogan is promoting alternative facts, such that are life threatening to those who believe them. Facts are not stories you can agree or disagree on.
  - johnmorrison 5y ago
    I think your beliefs of what is factual and false regarding COVID are actually the opposite of reality. You likely think the same of me. If you could magically be granted "objective" factual understanding, your point would be right, and I would agree with you. But you haven't been, in reality you do not know the facts for certain, neither do any of the 270 doctors/etc who wrote that letter trying to censor Joe, neither does Joe, neither does Robert Malone or any other heterodox intellectual on the topic, and neither does Fauci or any other orthodox intellectual on the topic. Besides mathematics/logical fundamentals, nobody knows facts for sure. Outside of physics we aren't even quite sure. To pretend that you know the facts, and that you know Joe and his guests are wrong, and that their falsehoods are dangerous --- this is altogether delusional, quite frankly. You may very well be right, but you do not know that you are, you cannot know that you are. The subject matter is too complicated. My apologies for the harsh words. This is how it is. --- Edit: and no, I am not being flippant. I am being objective.
pibechorro 5y ago
You are promoting censorship?

yokoprime 5y ago

Its not rude to stand up against a creator spewing blatant and dangerous mis-information. It would have been one thing if Roe Rogan was just a regular podcast availiable on Spotify and other places, but its a Spotify exclusive with Spotify promoting him as one of their headliners and paying him millions of dollars. Good on Young for drawing a line in the sand and choose where his music is availiable.

prohobo 5y ago
Blatant and dangerous misinformation? You're gonna have to back those bold claims up, otherwise what's stopping us from claiming that you are the culprit and should be gulag'd? You have no idea what you're talking about, which is what's so fucked up about this whole situation. This is all a dystopian cliche. Opinions are not misinformation, and looking at opposing evidence and arguments is not misinformation. It never was, and never will be. The only people who ever claimed such things are historically disgraced totalitarians. Misinformation comes from states and organizations with ulterior motives who twist and hide the truth for their own gain. It's about power. Crying out about how "dangerous" it is to have a real discussion that you don't like is ridiculously absurd. Are you saying adults are too stupid to think for themselves, or should not be allowed to take calculated risks? Do you have some kind of proof that having discussions is bad for individuals and/or communities in some way?
- givinguflac 5y ago
  - prohobo 5y ago
    > Found the JRE fan What is this, reddit? That's not proof of shit, many more doctors support questioning the Covid interventions. See: https://gbdeclaration.org/view-signatures/ https://gbdeclaration.org/view-signatures/ What you are proving is that there's a discussion to be had that you want to stop, because what? You're scared?
    - 5y ago

ecdouvhr 5y ago

Meanwhile, my Release Radar playlist has about 30% songs that are unavailable and the home screen is full of recommendations for podcasts I don't care about. Can anyone recommend a good alternative? Preferably with a decent selection of obscure metal. I'd like to try some other paid sevices before reverting to piracy.

nixy 5y ago
I went to Apple Music already back when Spotify decided to give Rogan their platform and the millions of dollars. Can't say I regret it.
- P_I_Staker 5y ago
  Apple music is no better, but I went this route too.
kmlx 5y ago
bandcamp.
deaddodo 5y ago
Apple Music would probably have the largest library of Metal music owing to its MOG lineage (via Beats Music).
- ecdouvhr 5y ago
  Doesn't Apple Music require Apple devices? :/
  - deaddodo 5y ago
    I don’t actually use it, but my understanding is that it doesn’t. There’s an Android app, at the very least. I just know that MOG’s selling point for a long while was it’s huge metal library and license set; I see no reason for that to have been lost through its MOG->Beats->Apple Music transition.

subpixel 5y ago

It not aggressive or unprovoked - it’s principled. Neil Young is supporting the hundreds of doctors who have previously pointed to the fact that Joe Rogan is creating controversy, for profit, that endangers his listeners (and the people who live in a society with them, since we’re talking about COVID misinformation).

naasking 5y ago
Rogan isn't creating the controversy, media outlets reporting on Rogan are. They also frequently stir up controversy for clicks. Are you not equally skeptical of their profit motive?
- subpixel 5y ago
  I am confident that Neil Young is not removing his music from Spotify in order to make money.
  - naasking 5y ago
    And I am confident that Neil Young doesn't know what he's talking about: https://www.thedailybeast.com/neil-youngs-long-record-of-spreading-scientific-misinformation?ref=scroll https://www.thedailybeast.com/neil-youngs-long-record-of-spr...
    - subpixel 5y ago
      I'm with the anti-GMO crowd for the monopolistic concerns on top of the effing-with nature concerns. GMOs are (probably) not dangerous like asbestos, but they are by no means safe and a good idea. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/05/monsanto200805 https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/05/monsanto200805
      - naasking 5y ago
        All evidence to the contrary I suppose. So is it safe to label you anti-science and conclude you and Young are endangering people with death and disability because GMO-enhanced crops can feed more people and satisfy nutritional deficiencies? This strikes me as very much the same sort of disagreement over what are clear facts on one side, and what some would consider unwarranted paranoia on the other. Maybe people should just be allowed to have these conversations because the paranoid serve a useful purpose.

scatters 5y ago

Spotify cares about music? Then why is it displaying front and center podcast shows that I have zero interest in above and ahead of the music that I go to Spotify for? It's fine that they've decided to pivot to being a podcast company with a sideline in music - apparently that's where the money is, and it's a free market. But if they're going to take a political position by signing exclusive contracts with and heavily promoting podcast hosts, they've lost all claim to be a neutral party, and can't expect artists - and customers - to remain with them.

the_only_law 5y ago
> Then why is it displaying front and center podcast shows that I have zero interest in above and ahead of the music that I go to Spotify for? Tangent, but this is actually obnoxious. I never seem to get the “new releases for you” on my home screen anymore, but every-time I open the app I see I slew of podcasts I don’t give a damn about despite me slipping through maybe one podcast episode in my entire account history.

the_other 5y ago

> Spotify clearly cares about music - hence the entire history of the company & product. Spotify clearly cares about the money they can make managing music rights. If they cared about *music* their playlists would be curated by humans. If they cared about music they'd be working to increase musician payout across the board, rather than push it down as low as possible like any other business expense. If they cared about music, they'd be creating opportunities to make, share and enjoy music: instead what they focus on is engagement, sponsorship and rights management.

Mindwipe 5y ago

> Spotify clearly cares about music - hence the entire history of the company & product. That is definitely not clear any more. As someone who doesn't listen to podcasts via Spotify, the UI is literally unusable for music nowadays.

ncr100 5y ago

Not likely true. Your post ignores the recent and not-recent history of the company: - CEO equates musicians "doing well" with musicians creating a lot content quickly ..: https://ultimateclassicrock.com/spotify-ceo-rockers-respond/ https://ultimateclassicrock.com/spotify-ceo-rockers-respond/ - undermines music as an artform for the sake of high profit - blocking a prominent musician in favor of a talk-show comedian / host. Talk Radio trumping Music. - purportedly poor-quality recommendation engine - purportedly large amount of ads per unit of content