4 ms·

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 dist

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.
        gonehome 5y ago
        I don’t think pulling his music is effective in persuading people he wants to persuade (likely this stunt has the opposite effect), but I also think it’s better to engage in good faith than just argue to suppress speech. You can’t always if the other party won’t engage in good faith, but from what I’ve seen of Rogan he does. Harder with cases like Brett Weinstein where I think engaging is a waste of time imo. So there’s a pragmatic argument here about getting the outcome you want. For the latter rather than pulling with a “me or him” framing. It is possible to reaffirm the shared freedom of speech yet saying you disagree and don’t want to share the platform directly (because it indirectly helps fund it). That’s probably what I’d do in that situation.
        AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        Not if I understand the chronology correctly. If I understand correctly (and I may not), Young gave his "me or Rogan" statement to Spotify (or maybe indirectly, simply making a public pronouncement). Spotify didn't pull Rogan's content, so a couple of days later, then Young pulled his content off of Spotify. As I said, my understanding. And I haven't gone groveling through the back news items to prove it. Just my recollection of how I heard it reported over a few days.
    - LMYahooTFY 5y ago
      He didn't ask? This is ridiculously disingenuous. He made an ultimatum, and his position is very clear. This is too obvious to honestly debate. If his desire isn't for Spotify to remove/censor Rogan, I imagine he'll clarify. Because he's blatantly calling for it.
      - pseudalopex 5y ago
        Young told his management to tell Spotify to remove his music. He didn't tell them to negotiate. Is your problem he said why he wanted his music removed? "I support free speech. I have never been in favor of censorship. Private companies have the right to choose what they profit from, just as I can choose not to have my music support a platform that disseminates harmful information."[1] [1] https://neilyoungarchives.com/news/1/article?id=Spotify-More-Songs-Less-Sound https://neilyoungarchives.com/news/1/article?id=Spotify-More...
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.

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.
        gonehome 5y ago
        I don’t think pulling his music is effective in persuading people he wants to persuade (likely this stunt has the opposite effect), but I also think it’s better to engage in good faith than just argue to suppress speech. You can’t always if the other party won’t engage in good faith, but from what I’ve seen of Rogan he does. Harder with cases like Brett Weinstein where I think engaging is a waste of time imo. So there’s a pragmatic argument here about getting the outcome you want. For the latter rather than pulling with a “me or him” framing. It is possible to reaffirm the shared freedom of speech yet saying you disagree and don’t want to share the platform directly (because it indirectly helps fund it). That’s probably what I’d do in that situation.
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        Not if I understand the chronology correctly. If I understand correctly (and I may not), Young gave his "me or Rogan" statement to Spotify (or maybe indirectly, simply making a public pronouncement). Spotify didn't pull Rogan's content, so a couple of days later, then Young pulled his content off of Spotify. As I said, my understanding. And I haven't gone groveling through the back news items to prove it. Just my recollection of how I heard it reported over a few days.
  - LMYahooTFY 5y ago
    He didn't ask? This is ridiculously disingenuous. He made an ultimatum, and his position is very clear. This is too obvious to honestly debate. If his desire isn't for Spotify to remove/censor Rogan, I imagine he'll clarify. Because he's blatantly calling for it.
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      Young told his management to tell Spotify to remove his music. He didn't tell them to negotiate. Is your problem he said why he wanted his music removed? "I support free speech. I have never been in favor of censorship. Private companies have the right to choose what they profit from, just as I can choose not to have my music support a platform that disseminates harmful information."[1] [1] https://neilyoungarchives.com/news/1/article?id=Spotify-More-Songs-Less-Sound https://neilyoungarchives.com/news/1/article?id=Spotify-More...

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.