6 ms·

I'll resist[0] the impulse to make fun of these artists as having an inflated sense of their own importance, and simply join others in noting that this kind of

I'll resist[0] the impulse to make fun of these artists as having an inflated sense of their own importance, and simply join others in noting that this kind of behavior shouldn't be tolerated. It sets a horrible precedent, no matter what one thinks about Joe Rogan. Edit: Too late now to save myself from downvote land, but I just spoke poorly. I meant it shouldn't be tolerated in the form of Spotify acquiescing to the demands. Obviously the artists can do whatever they want. [0] Kind of

least 5y ago
Why shouldn’t this behavior be tolerated? This is the response that they uniquely can make to protest for what they believe in. I do not condone censorship and I’m more concerned about the surgeon general suggesting that Spotify should censor Joe Rogan but these actions are also falling in the lines of free expression, which should be protected.
- eej71 5y ago
  He certainly has a right to do that. No doubt I wonder if Mr. Young will apply the same moral stringency to the rest of his distributors. I also wonder if his fans are aware of his own unscientific misinformation campaigns in regards to GMO foods. I think most wonder - where does it end? What heterodox positions are tolerated and which ones aren’t? Especially in the context of something like a broad based music distributor.
  - plufz 5y ago
    Isn’t this just life/humanity? No one is ever gonna have a 100% scientific correct moral applied equally to all of their life. He is gonna protest some stuff and not other stuff. I’m not really afraid of a slippery slope here. I think the bigger problem is people not taking a real stand in what they believe.
    - eej71 5y ago
      For me there is a cultural question of - what kind of heterodox should be considered normal as part of a broad based distribution service. For example, there are a number of artists who seem to glorify killing police. Should we consider it normal that big time artist XYZ would feel the need to remove their music from the service? Yes, it would be their right (I don't think anyone disputes that)... but... is that a good cultural trend? To my eyes, this looks more like tribalistic posturing than some sort of principled stand for something.
      - least 5y ago
        It's hard to call it a cultural trend when it's a couple famous people removing their library of music from one music service. I don't think it's unethical for a musician to stop working with a distributor if the terms of that stop being acceptable, that's wholly reasonable. But to try and answer your question; no, I think it's kind of silly. Someone like Neil Young can only do this sort of thing once and trying to use it to deplatform another entertainer doesn't seem to be the most useful (removing Joe Rogan's podcast or whatever won't make a dent in the cause he supposedly is fighting for) and also not particularly effective unless there is a cataclysm of high profile musicians removing their music from Spotify.
  - subpixel 5y ago
    Neil Young has, as far as I’m aware, made a point of arguing against GMO policy, not science. He’s anti-corporate, greed and an environmentalist, and Monsanto and glysophate are credible threats to farmers and the environment, respectively. I know less about the plight of farmers being forced to use GM seed, but I am intimately familiar with the decimation of insect life in the last decade.
lowdose 5y ago
Joe Rogan has been right a lot, he can’t be right about everything. I think this is an ego problem of an icon turned to insignificance, irritated he doesn’t get an invite to the biggest show of the world.
assttoasstmgr 5y ago
It literally mirrors the plot to "Caddyshack": A couple of old, out of touch rich people throwing a tantrum because they have to share a club with a loud gregarious buffoon that's wildly popular with others.
- tomjakubowski 5y ago
  In that analogy, who is the gopher?
  - jhorogueon 5y ago
    Jamie
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  "Out of touch"? They are both survivors of childhood polio, making a very timely point about vaccinations. [downvoted for this? really?]
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    Are they childhood survivors of authoritarian governments that turned into oligarchies? Maybe if they had been, they wouldn't be so convinced that rich and famous people should get to decide what ideas other people are exposed to.
    - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
      In what way are they deciding that? They are simply deciding that they don't want to share a platform with Joe Rogan. Neil Young made it clear it's an either/or; Spotify went with "or". Their prerogative on both sides.
    - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
      > Are they childhood survivors of authoritarian governments that turned into oligarchies? Yep. They are both Canadian.
tomjakubowski 5y ago
To me it's no different than pulling your art from a gallery which is selling the paintings of John Wayne Gacy next to your work - except that music recordings are reproducible, so you can sell the same thing on multiple platforms. (Artists in physical media can still distribute their work across many galleries - or "platforms")
unfocussed_mike 5y ago
You mean in the interests of free speech, artists who you think have an inflated sense of their own importance should necessarily sacrifice their freedom of speech for someone who is parroting dangerous untruths? Pulling their music from Spotify is speech. Why can they _not_ do it? What makes what they are doing a "horrible precedent"?
- olivierestsage 5y ago
  I didn't actually mention free speech in my comment, which (although I do passionately believe in it!) I don't consider the main issue here. If a precedent is set for artists being rewarded for demanding that other artists be removed from platforms, where will it end? How will the line be drawn? How much content will the people listening on these platforms be deprived of simply because of rivalries and the like? It doesn't seem like it's in the interest of listeners or customers to behave this way.
  - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
    In what sense are Mitchell and Young being _rewarded_? They're going to lose some money, right? And they've certainly lost a few Joe Rogan fans. Both of them simply asserted their right not to share a platform with someone they believe is doing significant harm. They owe him and their (Spotify's) customers nothing in particular. It'll either work out for them and they'll get what they want, or it won't.
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      He makes 600,000 a month from his own streaming service. Some protests are commercials.
    - olivierestsage 5y ago
      They would be rewarded if Spotify dropped Joe Rogan to appease them.
- xioren00 5y ago
  Yes let them exercise their free speech so they can collectively silence others; You're on to something. And speaking of parroting, I'll agree that much of what joe and by proxy his guests say is dangerous. Where we disagree is whether or not these things are "untrue" and to whom they are dangerous towards.
spaceisballer 5y ago
Lol. People can’t take a stance? I think it’s well within their right to pull their music for what they believe in.
- eej71 5y ago
  Of course he can take a stance. And by the same token the rest of us are free to criticize it.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    As they are free to criticize Spotify by putting their money where opinions are and taking their content elsewhere. Free speech all the way around.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  Within their legal rights? Sure. But they are advocating for others to be silenced in the same breath, not just silently pulling their content. In other words, they are using power (financial power, celebrity influence) to silence others. That is incompatible with the ideas underlying a classically liberal free society.
  - zapataband1 5y ago
    Sorry Neil Young isn't the all powerful boogeyman that you think he is. He isn't censoring joe rogan because he doesn't have that power.
    - dazilcher 5y ago
      > Neil Young [...] joe rogan Interesting capitalization choice. Intentional?
      - zapataband1 5y ago
ykevinator2 5y ago
Joe Rogan is an artist too, we have 3 entertainers, they are here to entertain us. I suspect you are more educated than the 3 of them combined, don't fall into to trap of picking which kardashian is best.

least 5y ago

Why shouldn’t this behavior be tolerated? This is the response that they uniquely can make to protest for what they believe in. I do not condone censorship and I’m more concerned about the surgeon general suggesting that Spotify should censor Joe Rogan but these actions are also falling in the lines of free expression, which should be protected.

eej71 5y ago
He certainly has a right to do that. No doubt I wonder if Mr. Young will apply the same moral stringency to the rest of his distributors. I also wonder if his fans are aware of his own unscientific misinformation campaigns in regards to GMO foods. I think most wonder - where does it end? What heterodox positions are tolerated and which ones aren’t? Especially in the context of something like a broad based music distributor.
- plufz 5y ago
  Isn’t this just life/humanity? No one is ever gonna have a 100% scientific correct moral applied equally to all of their life. He is gonna protest some stuff and not other stuff. I’m not really afraid of a slippery slope here. I think the bigger problem is people not taking a real stand in what they believe.
  - eej71 5y ago
    For me there is a cultural question of - what kind of heterodox should be considered normal as part of a broad based distribution service. For example, there are a number of artists who seem to glorify killing police. Should we consider it normal that big time artist XYZ would feel the need to remove their music from the service? Yes, it would be their right (I don't think anyone disputes that)... but... is that a good cultural trend? To my eyes, this looks more like tribalistic posturing than some sort of principled stand for something.
    - least 5y ago
      It's hard to call it a cultural trend when it's a couple famous people removing their library of music from one music service. I don't think it's unethical for a musician to stop working with a distributor if the terms of that stop being acceptable, that's wholly reasonable. But to try and answer your question; no, I think it's kind of silly. Someone like Neil Young can only do this sort of thing once and trying to use it to deplatform another entertainer doesn't seem to be the most useful (removing Joe Rogan's podcast or whatever won't make a dent in the cause he supposedly is fighting for) and also not particularly effective unless there is a cataclysm of high profile musicians removing their music from Spotify.
- subpixel 5y ago
  Neil Young has, as far as I’m aware, made a point of arguing against GMO policy, not science. He’s anti-corporate, greed and an environmentalist, and Monsanto and glysophate are credible threats to farmers and the environment, respectively. I know less about the plight of farmers being forced to use GM seed, but I am intimately familiar with the decimation of insect life in the last decade.

lowdose 5y ago

Joe Rogan has been right a lot, he can’t be right about everything. I think this is an ego problem of an icon turned to insignificance, irritated he doesn’t get an invite to the biggest show of the world.

assttoasstmgr 5y ago

It literally mirrors the plot to "Caddyshack": A couple of old, out of touch rich people throwing a tantrum because they have to share a club with a loud gregarious buffoon that's wildly popular with others.

tomjakubowski 5y ago
In that analogy, who is the gopher?
- jhorogueon 5y ago
  Jamie
unfocussed_mike 5y ago
"Out of touch"? They are both survivors of childhood polio, making a very timely point about vaccinations. [downvoted for this? really?]
- torstenvl 5y ago
  Are they childhood survivors of authoritarian governments that turned into oligarchies? Maybe if they had been, they wouldn't be so convinced that rich and famous people should get to decide what ideas other people are exposed to.
  - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
    In what way are they deciding that? They are simply deciding that they don't want to share a platform with Joe Rogan. Neil Young made it clear it's an either/or; Spotify went with "or". Their prerogative on both sides.
  - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
    > Are they childhood survivors of authoritarian governments that turned into oligarchies? Yep. They are both Canadian.

tomjakubowski 5y ago

To me it's no different than pulling your art from a gallery which is selling the paintings of John Wayne Gacy next to your work - except that music recordings are reproducible, so you can sell the same thing on multiple platforms. (Artists in physical media can still distribute their work across many galleries - or "platforms")

unfocussed_mike 5y ago

You mean in the interests of free speech, artists who you think have an inflated sense of their own importance should necessarily sacrifice their freedom of speech for someone who is parroting dangerous untruths? Pulling their music from Spotify is speech. Why can they _not_ do it? What makes what they are doing a "horrible precedent"?

olivierestsage 5y ago
I didn't actually mention free speech in my comment, which (although I do passionately believe in it!) I don't consider the main issue here. If a precedent is set for artists being rewarded for demanding that other artists be removed from platforms, where will it end? How will the line be drawn? How much content will the people listening on these platforms be deprived of simply because of rivalries and the like? It doesn't seem like it's in the interest of listeners or customers to behave this way.
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  In what sense are Mitchell and Young being _rewarded_? They're going to lose some money, right? And they've certainly lost a few Joe Rogan fans. Both of them simply asserted their right not to share a platform with someone they believe is doing significant harm. They owe him and their (Spotify's) customers nothing in particular. It'll either work out for them and they'll get what they want, or it won't.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    He makes 600,000 a month from his own streaming service. Some protests are commercials.
  - olivierestsage 5y ago
    They would be rewarded if Spotify dropped Joe Rogan to appease them.
xioren00 5y ago
Yes let them exercise their free speech so they can collectively silence others; You're on to something. And speaking of parroting, I'll agree that much of what joe and by proxy his guests say is dangerous. Where we disagree is whether or not these things are "untrue" and to whom they are dangerous towards.

spaceisballer 5y ago

Lol. People can’t take a stance? I think it’s well within their right to pull their music for what they believe in.

eej71 5y ago
Of course he can take a stance. And by the same token the rest of us are free to criticize it.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  As they are free to criticize Spotify by putting their money where opinions are and taking their content elsewhere. Free speech all the way around.
throwawaysea 5y ago
Within their legal rights? Sure. But they are advocating for others to be silenced in the same breath, not just silently pulling their content. In other words, they are using power (financial power, celebrity influence) to silence others. That is incompatible with the ideas underlying a classically liberal free society.
- zapataband1 5y ago
  Sorry Neil Young isn't the all powerful boogeyman that you think he is. He isn't censoring joe rogan because he doesn't have that power.
  - dazilcher 5y ago
    > Neil Young [...] joe rogan Interesting capitalization choice. Intentional?
    - zapataband1 5y ago

ykevinator2 5y ago

Joe Rogan is an artist too, we have 3 entertainers, they are here to entertain us. I suspect you are more educated than the 3 of them combined, don't fall into to trap of picking which kardashian is best.