4 ms·
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 s
by 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 agoIn 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 agoHe makes 600,000 a month from his own streaming service. Some protests are commercials.
- olivierestsage 5y agoThey would be rewarded if Spotify dropped Joe Rogan to appease them.