5 ms·

Young and Mitchell pulling their music is literally freedom of speech (free expression). Neil Young can do whatever he wants with his content (speech), just li

by mulmen 5y ago

Young and Mitchell pulling their music is literally freedom of speech (free expression). Neil Young can do whatever he wants with his content (speech), just like Rogan. This is competition in the free marketplace of ideas. You're absolutely entitled to your opinion on these actions and you're free to support Spotify or Young or Mitchell or any combination of the three. But there is no "freedom of speech" side here.

throwawayboise 5y ago
Yes there is. Young and Mitchell should argue their position on its merits, not throw a hissy fit and take their toys and go home.
- mulmen 5y ago
  They are arguing their position on its merits. This case is being tried in the court of public opinion.
throwawaysea 5y ago
I view it as a freedom of speech issue because one side is advocating for another side to be silenced. These musicians aren’t just pulling their content - they’re trying to use power to shut someone else down. To me that is clearly a freedom of speech issue.
gonehome 5y ago
Yeah, for clarity Young and Mitchell are totally within their right to pull their music as an exercise of their speech and I’m fine with that. What I find distasteful is the framing of “Rogan or me” as a way to pressure Spotify to pull Rogan from the platform. Sure Spotify could do that, but they shouldn’t.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  It wasn't an ultimatum. Young directed his management to pull his music and explained why.
  - gonehome 5y ago
    "I am doing this because Spotify is spreading fake information about vaccines – potentially causing death to those who believe the disinformation being spread by them ... They can have Rogan or Young. Not both." I read this as if you want me get rid of him, but I’ll paste it here for clarity. Others may see it differently.
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      You left out the important part. "I want you to let Spotify know immediately TODAY that I want all my music off their platform". Probably he would reconsider if they dropped Rogan. He didn't expect it or ask.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - gonehome 5y ago
        I honestly don’t think that matters? He said pull my music and explicitly said you can have one of us not both.
        pseudalopex 5y ago
        So he should pull his music and tell no one why?
        gonehome 5y ago
        Imo he shouldn’t pull it. If he is uncomfortable sharing the platform so wants to remove his music fine, I’d just say that without the “you can’t have both of us” implication.
        pseudalopex 5y ago
        > Imo he shouldn’t pull it. Why not? > If he is uncomfortable sharing the platform so wants to remove his music fine, I’d just say that without the “you can’t have both of us” implication. The 1st part implies the 2nd.
- mulmen 5y ago
  Why shouldn't they? Forget the names and the details of this situation for a moment. Spotify is a business that offers a catalog of content for a fee. Their value proposition is that they provide content people want to consume. Perhaps some content has fallen out of favor for some reason. Could be objectionable or just stale, public opinion is always shifting. If someone with more appealing content comes along and says "you have to get rid of that other thing in order to distribute my content" then how is there some moral choice Spotify has to make? They can do anything they want, and as a business they will probably choose based on what will make them money. This is a proxy for doing the thing that best aligns with their customer's interests. It is impossible for any one organization to satisfy everyone's opinions. This is literally the point of freedom of expression.
  - gonehome 5y ago
    Well in this specific case a couple of easy reasons. Rogan’s deal was $100M which is way more money than Young. So if it’s a business move than keeping Rogan is the obvious choice as he provides way more value to Spotify. I care less about that though and more about the principled position here. In this case I think they’re the same.
    - mulmen 5y ago
      And I don't think your principles are sound. We are also participating in a marketplace of ideas. I'm not buying what you are selling. You are free to continue as you are, as am I.
      - gonehome 5y ago
        I think private companies/platforms are able to exercise their speech in order to decide who is or isn’t on them. Keeping or removing Rogan is an exercise of their speech and within their right to decide. Still, I think it’s generally a bad idea to remove someone because of this kind of pressure. In Rogan’s specific case I also think it would be the wrong decision. I’m against internet cancel mobs as a general rule.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
School-Cotton 5y ago
Of course anyone who believes in freedom of speech would agree that Young and Mitchell have the right to pull their music. That doesn’t change the fact that one can disagree with that decision.
- mulmen 5y ago
  > That doesn’t change the fact that one can disagree with that decision. Obviously, but that's not the topic at hand. > I were Spotify the move is to take the free speech position There is no "free speech position". Spotify, Rogan, Young, and Mitchell are all exercising their right to free expression here.
  - mmcgaha 5y ago
    Sure there is; Young and Mitchell have made an active decision to shutdown their own speech or the speech of another. The difference is taking an action against another vs taking an action against yourself. I am sure that you will agree that determining your own outcome is freedom but forcing an outcome for others is oppression.
    - mulmen 5y ago
      They are not shutting down their speech. They are exercising it by choosing who to associate with. The first amendment does not protect you from the actions of other private parties, it protects you from the government. I realize this is a cliche but it is critical to understand. Freedom of speech means you can say "I don't like what that person says and they shouldn't say it." And everyone else is free to agree with you or not.
      - School-Cotton 5y ago
        > The first amendment does not protect you from the actions of other private parties, it protects you from the government. Nobody in this thread was talking about the First Amendment. The concept of freedom of speech is much broader than its particular realization in US constitutional law.
systemvoltage 5y ago
> Young and Mitchell pulling their music is literally freedom of speech (free expression). Yes, they can protest. But they can't demand to shut up others (Rogan) which is what they seem to be doing. Personally, people should double down on their protest, hope others join against Joe Rogan's batshit insane science. But, I will never stand behind people wanting to deny him the exact rights they're exercising. Young and others are doing exactly that. Isn't it bullying?
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  What evidence is there Young or Mitchell would deny Rogan the right to pull his podcast from any platform with their music?
  - eej71 5y ago
    None. But no one is making that claim.
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      > None. But no one is making that claim. They did. > But, I will never stand behind people wanting to deny him the exact rights they're exercising. Young and others are doing exactly that.
      - eej71 5y ago
        You are half right! (I didn't write the text you challenged). But I did misread the OP's comments. He does make that claim. Clearly Joe could pull his content if he wanted.
        gonehome 5y ago
        pseudalopex is just being a pedant - op clearly meant that Young can use Spotify and Rogan is not trying to stop that.
finite_jest 5y ago
> But there is no "freedom of speech" side here. There is. Rogan is not trying to remove Neil Young's music from anywhere. I've heard this unfruitful line of argument too often recently. Besides being unfruitful, I think it is based on a subtle fallacy/diversion. The idea of free expression reasonably includes the right to criticize the principle itself. For example, in the US, you absolutely have the legal right to criticize the First Amendment. However, by doing so you would rightly be labelled as being against free expression. If you like free expression, I think you should be cheering for Spotify and Rogan in this case.
- philistine 5y ago
  Imagine a TV network hosting a show called neo-nazis throwing eggs at Jews at 8pm, and then you at 9pm for an important discussion on your favourite subject. You’d have every right to rethink your association with that platform, and demand they not air the neo-nazis if they want to have you on. This is not about free speech. It’s about freedom of association. You can’t force Neil Young to be associated with Joe Rogan if he doesn’t want to, and you can’t argue he doesn’t have a right to tell Spotify they can’t have both of them.
- rektide 5y ago
  Young wasn't trying to remove Rogan's music. He was exercising his positive liberty, to act as he wanted: which was to not be on a platform with people he perceived as ultra-shitty & socially-ruinous. Young had (nearly) no expectation of causing change. There's a possibility he thought this really would, right now, have enacted change, but I highly doubt he was so deluded. Young simply knew he couldn't be party to such a system, and said he was unwilling to remain affiliated with it in it's current dangerous fallen state.
  - finite_jest 5y ago
    > Young wasn't trying to remove Rogan's music. I very much disagree. We could be a bit more accurate/pedantic by saying "he's trying to mount pressure to remove Rogan's podcast from Spotify" instead, but that doesn't change much. > not be on a platform with people he perceived as ultra-shitty & socially-ruinous. I cancelled my Spotify a long time ago, but I don't think it's much of a social platform. If you don't want to interact with Rogan, you simply can. I think you could even mute an artist, so Spotify wouldn't even suggest their content to you.
baryphonic 5y ago
> You're absolutely entitled to your opinion on these actions and you're free to support Spotify or Young or Mitchell or any combination of the three. But there is no "freedom of speech" side here. I'm not sure I agree. Young and Mitchell (how many decades ago were they culturally relevant?) are certainly free to participate on Spotify or not. They certainly cannot be forced to. However, if Rogan were booted from Spotify based on their threats (or others), he would certainly be a loser. Further, if someone demands a second party take some action against a third party by making a quid pro quo threat, that is not clearly protected speech. If the threat involves revealing defamatory information, it constitutes blackmail; if the threat involves criminal harm, it is extortion; and if the threat involves breach of contract, it may be tortious interference, a civil tort. This is not to argue that Mitchell & Young are committing a crime, because they clearly aren't (though they may possibly be perpetrating a civil tort against Rogan depending on his contractual terms with Spotify and their demands), but that threats are not necessarily protected speech in the same category as merely making–or withholding–personal self-expression.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  > (how many decades ago were they culturally relevant?) We're talking about them now. > threats They didn't threaten. Young directed his management to remove his music. Mitchell said she decided to remove hers. Is your problem they said why?
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    > We're talking about them now. Not as artists that have anything currently to say, though. We're talking about them as people who are trying to keep someone else from talking.
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      > Not as artists that have anything currently to say, though. We're talking about them as people who are trying to keep someone else from talking. We're talking about them as people who just said something. Young sold half his music rights for $150 million last year. He signed a deal with SiriusXM within days after he left Spotify. Mitchell won a Grammy in 2016 and was nominated this year. Their music continued to be relevant to someone obviously.
edanm 5y ago
> But there is no "freedom of speech" side here. I believe you're arguing semantics here. When people say "freedom of speech", they're referencing (sometimes unknowingly) hundreds of years of discussion in philosophy, politics, etc. A big part of that debate is whether censorship of so-called "bad" ideas is a good thing or a bad thing for "the public". One side here is trying to pressure, commercially and via public opinion, a big platform. They're trying to pressure this platform to not publish certain information because it is "bad". Of course they have a right to do so! But I think it should be fairly clear that they are the side that is "against" freedom of speech, because they are literally against Spotify publishing certain information. What's more, this isn't happening without context. This is happening in a world in which there is a lively debate happening around whether platforms should be liable for content that they allow to be published, in a world in which increasingly people are hesitant to associate with other people for voicing opinions they don't like.
- philistine 5y ago
  Money. Money is the most important thing in this discussion. Spotify is not merely providing information in the classical sense, they have decided to massively invest in Joe Rogan. To signal that their podcasting efforts are centred around his dangerous entertainment product. It’s absolutely reasonable to consider this bad form, and wish for Spotify to revise. Would we have this discussion about free speech if Spotify invested 100 million in a neo-nazi? No, we’d be appalled about the money. It’s always about the money.
  - edanm 5y ago
    That's a very good point.

by mulmen 5y ago

throwawayboise 5y ago

Yes there is. Young and Mitchell should argue their position on its merits, not throw a hissy fit and take their toys and go home.

mulmen 5y ago
They are arguing their position on its merits. This case is being tried in the court of public opinion.

throwawaysea 5y ago

I view it as a freedom of speech issue because one side is advocating for another side to be silenced. These musicians aren’t just pulling their content - they’re trying to use power to shut someone else down. To me that is clearly a freedom of speech issue.

gonehome 5y ago

Yeah, for clarity Young and Mitchell are totally within their right to pull their music as an exercise of their speech and I’m fine with that. What I find distasteful is the framing of “Rogan or me” as a way to pressure Spotify to pull Rogan from the platform. Sure Spotify could do that, but they shouldn’t.

pseudalopex 5y ago
It wasn't an ultimatum. Young directed his management to pull his music and explained why.
- gonehome 5y ago
  "I am doing this because Spotify is spreading fake information about vaccines – potentially causing death to those who believe the disinformation being spread by them ... They can have Rogan or Young. Not both." I read this as if you want me get rid of him, but I’ll paste it here for clarity. Others may see it differently.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    You left out the important part. "I want you to let Spotify know immediately TODAY that I want all my music off their platform". Probably he would reconsider if they dropped Rogan. He didn't expect it or ask.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - gonehome 5y ago
      I honestly don’t think that matters? He said pull my music and explicitly said you can have one of us not both.
      - pseudalopex 5y ago
        So he should pull his music and tell no one why?
        gonehome 5y ago
        Imo he shouldn’t pull it. If he is uncomfortable sharing the platform so wants to remove his music fine, I’d just say that without the “you can’t have both of us” implication.
        pseudalopex 5y ago
        > Imo he shouldn’t pull it. Why not? > If he is uncomfortable sharing the platform so wants to remove his music fine, I’d just say that without the “you can’t have both of us” implication. The 1st part implies the 2nd.
mulmen 5y ago
Why shouldn't they? Forget the names and the details of this situation for a moment. Spotify is a business that offers a catalog of content for a fee. Their value proposition is that they provide content people want to consume. Perhaps some content has fallen out of favor for some reason. Could be objectionable or just stale, public opinion is always shifting. If someone with more appealing content comes along and says "you have to get rid of that other thing in order to distribute my content" then how is there some moral choice Spotify has to make? They can do anything they want, and as a business they will probably choose based on what will make them money. This is a proxy for doing the thing that best aligns with their customer's interests. It is impossible for any one organization to satisfy everyone's opinions. This is literally the point of freedom of expression.
- gonehome 5y ago
  Well in this specific case a couple of easy reasons. Rogan’s deal was $100M which is way more money than Young. So if it’s a business move than keeping Rogan is the obvious choice as he provides way more value to Spotify. I care less about that though and more about the principled position here. In this case I think they’re the same.
  - mulmen 5y ago
    And I don't think your principles are sound. We are also participating in a marketplace of ideas. I'm not buying what you are selling. You are free to continue as you are, as am I.
    - gonehome 5y ago
      I think private companies/platforms are able to exercise their speech in order to decide who is or isn’t on them. Keeping or removing Rogan is an exercise of their speech and within their right to decide. Still, I think it’s generally a bad idea to remove someone because of this kind of pressure. In Rogan’s specific case I also think it would be the wrong decision. I’m against internet cancel mobs as a general rule.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

School-Cotton 5y ago

Of course anyone who believes in freedom of speech would agree that Young and Mitchell have the right to pull their music. That doesn’t change the fact that one can disagree with that decision.

mulmen 5y ago
> That doesn’t change the fact that one can disagree with that decision. Obviously, but that's not the topic at hand. > I were Spotify the move is to take the free speech position There is no "free speech position". Spotify, Rogan, Young, and Mitchell are all exercising their right to free expression here.
- mmcgaha 5y ago
  Sure there is; Young and Mitchell have made an active decision to shutdown their own speech or the speech of another. The difference is taking an action against another vs taking an action against yourself. I am sure that you will agree that determining your own outcome is freedom but forcing an outcome for others is oppression.
  - mulmen 5y ago
    They are not shutting down their speech. They are exercising it by choosing who to associate with. The first amendment does not protect you from the actions of other private parties, it protects you from the government. I realize this is a cliche but it is critical to understand. Freedom of speech means you can say "I don't like what that person says and they shouldn't say it." And everyone else is free to agree with you or not.
    - School-Cotton 5y ago
      > The first amendment does not protect you from the actions of other private parties, it protects you from the government. Nobody in this thread was talking about the First Amendment. The concept of freedom of speech is much broader than its particular realization in US constitutional law.

systemvoltage 5y ago

> Young and Mitchell pulling their music is literally freedom of speech (free expression). Yes, they can protest. But they can't demand to shut up others (Rogan) which is what they seem to be doing. Personally, people should double down on their protest, hope others join against Joe Rogan's batshit insane science. But, I will never stand behind people wanting to deny him the exact rights they're exercising. Young and others are doing exactly that. Isn't it bullying?

pseudalopex 5y ago
What evidence is there Young or Mitchell would deny Rogan the right to pull his podcast from any platform with their music?
- eej71 5y ago
  None. But no one is making that claim.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    > None. But no one is making that claim. They did. > But, I will never stand behind people wanting to deny him the exact rights they're exercising. Young and others are doing exactly that.
    - eej71 5y ago
      You are half right! (I didn't write the text you challenged). But I did misread the OP's comments. He does make that claim. Clearly Joe could pull his content if he wanted.
      - gonehome 5y ago
        pseudalopex is just being a pedant - op clearly meant that Young can use Spotify and Rogan is not trying to stop that.

finite_jest 5y ago

> But there is no "freedom of speech" side here. There is. Rogan is not trying to remove Neil Young's music from anywhere. I've heard this unfruitful line of argument too often recently. Besides being unfruitful, I think it is based on a subtle fallacy/diversion. The idea of free expression reasonably includes the right to criticize the principle itself. For example, in the US, you absolutely have the legal right to criticize the First Amendment. However, by doing so you would rightly be labelled as being against free expression. If you like free expression, I think you should be cheering for Spotify and Rogan in this case.

philistine 5y ago
Imagine a TV network hosting a show called neo-nazis throwing eggs at Jews at 8pm, and then you at 9pm for an important discussion on your favourite subject. You’d have every right to rethink your association with that platform, and demand they not air the neo-nazis if they want to have you on. This is not about free speech. It’s about freedom of association. You can’t force Neil Young to be associated with Joe Rogan if he doesn’t want to, and you can’t argue he doesn’t have a right to tell Spotify they can’t have both of them.
rektide 5y ago
Young wasn't trying to remove Rogan's music. He was exercising his positive liberty, to act as he wanted: which was to not be on a platform with people he perceived as ultra-shitty & socially-ruinous. Young had (nearly) no expectation of causing change. There's a possibility he thought this really would, right now, have enacted change, but I highly doubt he was so deluded. Young simply knew he couldn't be party to such a system, and said he was unwilling to remain affiliated with it in it's current dangerous fallen state.
- finite_jest 5y ago
  > Young wasn't trying to remove Rogan's music. I very much disagree. We could be a bit more accurate/pedantic by saying "he's trying to mount pressure to remove Rogan's podcast from Spotify" instead, but that doesn't change much. > not be on a platform with people he perceived as ultra-shitty & socially-ruinous. I cancelled my Spotify a long time ago, but I don't think it's much of a social platform. If you don't want to interact with Rogan, you simply can. I think you could even mute an artist, so Spotify wouldn't even suggest their content to you.

baryphonic 5y ago

> You're absolutely entitled to your opinion on these actions and you're free to support Spotify or Young or Mitchell or any combination of the three. But there is no "freedom of speech" side here. I'm not sure I agree. Young and Mitchell (how many decades ago were they culturally relevant?) are certainly free to participate on Spotify or not. They certainly cannot be forced to. However, if Rogan were booted from Spotify based on their threats (or others), he would certainly be a loser. Further, if someone demands a second party take some action against a third party by making a quid pro quo threat, that is not clearly protected speech. If the threat involves revealing defamatory information, it constitutes blackmail; if the threat involves criminal harm, it is extortion; and if the threat involves breach of contract, it may be tortious interference, a civil tort. This is not to argue that Mitchell & Young are committing a crime, because they clearly aren't (though they may possibly be perpetrating a civil tort against Rogan depending on his contractual terms with Spotify and their demands), but that threats are not necessarily protected speech in the same category as merely making–or withholding–personal self-expression.

pseudalopex 5y ago
> (how many decades ago were they culturally relevant?) We're talking about them now. > threats They didn't threaten. Young directed his management to remove his music. Mitchell said she decided to remove hers. Is your problem they said why?
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  > We're talking about them now. Not as artists that have anything currently to say, though. We're talking about them as people who are trying to keep someone else from talking.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    > Not as artists that have anything currently to say, though. We're talking about them as people who are trying to keep someone else from talking. We're talking about them as people who just said something. Young sold half his music rights for $150 million last year. He signed a deal with SiriusXM within days after he left Spotify. Mitchell won a Grammy in 2016 and was nominated this year. Their music continued to be relevant to someone obviously.

edanm 5y ago

> But there is no "freedom of speech" side here. I believe you're arguing semantics here. When people say "freedom of speech", they're referencing (sometimes unknowingly) hundreds of years of discussion in philosophy, politics, etc. A big part of that debate is whether censorship of so-called "bad" ideas is a good thing or a bad thing for "the public". One side here is trying to pressure, commercially and via public opinion, a big platform. They're trying to pressure this platform to not publish certain information because it is "bad". Of course they have a right to do so! But I think it should be fairly clear that they are the side that is "against" freedom of speech, because they are literally against Spotify publishing certain information. What's more, this isn't happening without context. This is happening in a world in which there is a lively debate happening around whether platforms should be liable for content that they allow to be published, in a world in which increasingly people are hesitant to associate with other people for voicing opinions they don't like.

philistine 5y ago
Money. Money is the most important thing in this discussion. Spotify is not merely providing information in the classical sense, they have decided to massively invest in Joe Rogan. To signal that their podcasting efforts are centred around his dangerous entertainment product. It’s absolutely reasonable to consider this bad form, and wish for Spotify to revise. Would we have this discussion about free speech if Spotify invested 100 million in a neo-nazi? No, we’d be appalled about the money. It’s always about the money.
- edanm 5y ago
  That's a very good point.