4 ms·

Joe Rogan is a very good listener and his show is popular for a good reason and that's not political. Silencing this way is just cancel culture.

woodruffw 5y ago
Who, precisely, is "canceling" (much less "silencing") who in this scenario? As I recall, the Supreme Court has consistently recognized the freedom of association as a core component of free speech. And that seems to be what's happening.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  Perhaps you didn't know, but Neil Young tried to get Spotify to deplatform Joe Rogan (i.e., to cancel his Spotify distribution deal), and used his repertoire as an ultimatum. EDIT: I'm being downvoted to oblivion for stating an objective fact. This is unbecoming of HN. I'm out.
  - thisisnotatest1 5y ago
  - sbelskie 5y ago
    Is that not speech?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    The linguistic choice of "deplatform[ing]" is such a funny one: in any other era, we'd call withholding one's business a "boycott." But the history of the word "boycott" in the US has a distinctly anti-racial hue, and people who yammer about deplatforming seem to take extreme pains to avoid any comparison between today's boycotts and those good old lunch counters.
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      I've never heard this before. I and people I know boycott things all the time. There's also the popular "Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement"...
    - tomcat27 5y ago
      AFAIK boycott is temporary but de-platforming is permanent. -- closing a contract.
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        I don't think closing a contract is a permanent thing. You can always reopen it or start a new one if and when the complaints have been addressed. That seems to be what most people have in mind, at least in my experience.
        tomcat27 5y ago
        On closing a contract a new one is needed, unlike boycott.
  - mulmen 5y ago
    Is he not free to do that? I mean you can agree with it or not but how is that not a perfectly valid thing for a private individual to do? I don't have a philosophical objection to this. Young is saying "I have some number of people who listen to my content and if you want to distribute my content you have to do this thing". Spotify said "no thank you". Where's the problem?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- tomcat27 5y ago
  I do not know the nuances of free speech doctrines. I'll take your word. Assume all tech companies de-platform Joe Rogan fearing retribution from other customers He buys a Ubuntu box to host the videos. And now he needs a static IP and a domain name. Are DNS providers considered in association to Joe Rogan's speech if they sell him a domain name? Seems to be true going by the assumption that DNS providers are tech companies. If so, should the DNS providers decide not to sell Joe Rogan a domain name fearing retribution from other customers, and as a consequence Joe Rogan is practically NOT visible on the internet at all to any reasonable person, isn't that not in the spirit of free speech?
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    It is not in the spirit of free speech. The internet is the modern printing press. Anyone who can buy, rent, or borrow a printing press to speak his mind should have the right to do so.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
plussed_reader 5y ago
At this point in the pandemic misinformers deserve social derision despite how friendly they are to their guests. Joe made his willfully ignorant bed
TehCorwiz 5y ago
No, it’s “then invisible hand of the market”. Neil Young is removing his product from a marketplace he disagrees with. This is exactly what people keep saying we should be doing to affect change, let our wallets speak. Except when they don’t like it. The truth is that boycotts are ridiculously common across the political spectrum and throughout history.
HL33tibCe7 5y ago
The trouble with Joe Rogan is that he tends to invite people on who agree with his existing worldview (in this case, vaccine skepticism), and he tends not to challenge them whatsoever, so they are allowed to spout whatever nonsense with zero pushback. I don’t think this is out of malice by the way, I think he just doesn’t realise they’re spreading misinformation.
ykevinator2 5y ago
He's a good talker with a 7th grade education who lures weak minded people who are hurting with the comfort of shared persecution.

woodruffw 5y ago

Who, precisely, is "canceling" (much less "silencing") who in this scenario? As I recall, the Supreme Court has consistently recognized the freedom of association as a core component of free speech. And that seems to be what's happening.

torstenvl 5y ago
Perhaps you didn't know, but Neil Young tried to get Spotify to deplatform Joe Rogan (i.e., to cancel his Spotify distribution deal), and used his repertoire as an ultimatum. EDIT: I'm being downvoted to oblivion for stating an objective fact. This is unbecoming of HN. I'm out.
- thisisnotatest1 5y ago
- sbelskie 5y ago
  Is that not speech?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- woodruffw 5y ago
  The linguistic choice of "deplatform[ing]" is such a funny one: in any other era, we'd call withholding one's business a "boycott." But the history of the word "boycott" in the US has a distinctly anti-racial hue, and people who yammer about deplatforming seem to take extreme pains to avoid any comparison between today's boycotts and those good old lunch counters.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    I've never heard this before. I and people I know boycott things all the time. There's also the popular "Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement"...
  - tomcat27 5y ago
    AFAIK boycott is temporary but de-platforming is permanent. -- closing a contract.
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      I don't think closing a contract is a permanent thing. You can always reopen it or start a new one if and when the complaints have been addressed. That seems to be what most people have in mind, at least in my experience.
      - tomcat27 5y ago
        On closing a contract a new one is needed, unlike boycott.
- mulmen 5y ago
  Is he not free to do that? I mean you can agree with it or not but how is that not a perfectly valid thing for a private individual to do? I don't have a philosophical objection to this. Young is saying "I have some number of people who listen to my content and if you want to distribute my content you have to do this thing". Spotify said "no thank you". Where's the problem?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
tomcat27 5y ago
I do not know the nuances of free speech doctrines. I'll take your word. Assume all tech companies de-platform Joe Rogan fearing retribution from other customers He buys a Ubuntu box to host the videos. And now he needs a static IP and a domain name. Are DNS providers considered in association to Joe Rogan's speech if they sell him a domain name? Seems to be true going by the assumption that DNS providers are tech companies. If so, should the DNS providers decide not to sell Joe Rogan a domain name fearing retribution from other customers, and as a consequence Joe Rogan is practically NOT visible on the internet at all to any reasonable person, isn't that not in the spirit of free speech?
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  It is not in the spirit of free speech. The internet is the modern printing press. Anyone who can buy, rent, or borrow a printing press to speak his mind should have the right to do so.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

plussed_reader 5y ago

At this point in the pandemic misinformers deserve social derision despite how friendly they are to their guests. Joe made his willfully ignorant bed

TehCorwiz 5y ago

No, it’s “then invisible hand of the market”. Neil Young is removing his product from a marketplace he disagrees with. This is exactly what people keep saying we should be doing to affect change, let our wallets speak. Except when they don’t like it. The truth is that boycotts are ridiculously common across the political spectrum and throughout history.

HL33tibCe7 5y ago

The trouble with Joe Rogan is that he tends to invite people on who agree with his existing worldview (in this case, vaccine skepticism), and he tends not to challenge them whatsoever, so they are allowed to spout whatever nonsense with zero pushback. I don’t think this is out of malice by the way, I think he just doesn’t realise they’re spreading misinformation.

ykevinator2 5y ago

He's a good talker with a 7th grade education who lures weak minded people who are hurting with the comfort of shared persecution.