19 ms·
Regarding the Neil Young–Joe Rogan Spotify Saga
- gduzan 5y agoYes, Neil Young has the right not to associate with Spotify for whatever reasons he may have, assuming there is not a contractual agreement to the contrary. However, there is no reason to assume that his position is morally superior to anyone else's.
- sanderjd 5y agoI have defended Young in a few comments here, but just to say I totally agree with your last sentence. The person taking a moral stand is not always right. But neither does that mean that taking moral stands is wrong.
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago- it is about ethics, not moral. Young has one, Spotify doesn't. - a platform can't be everything. If Spotify wants to be the platform for disinformation, they are on the right path. Young simply gave voice to those who don't and kept his promise to not be on the same platform with someone he believes has no ethics. - OR Spotify could accept to be an editor and take responsibility for the bullshit that Rogan irradiates from their servers. Guess why they don't want to be recognized as such?
- nailer 5y agoRogan says you shouldn’t get medical or scientific advice from himself. He also has world leading doctors and scientists on his program. How is he “irradiating bullshit”?
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago[flagged]
- nailer 5y agoRogan’s own doctor advised him to treat coronavirus with ivermectin. Just like two hundred members of congress were treated with ivermectin. He mentioned what he was treated with as I imagine the congresspeople would.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- scantis 5y agoScience is certainly not about consensus.
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago> Science is certainly not about consensus. You are very confused. Certainty pertains to religions and turns into a cult when it becomes dogmatic. Science is all about consensus around different possibilities. They are called theories, not commandments.
- scantis 5y agoUsually science is the process of finding truth. First by observation then by modelling and then by testing. What you talk about is politics.
- peoplefromibiza 5y agonot *the* truth, but a scientific truth Which is one that the scientific community agrees on . Politics is about having the majority of the votes. Politics is not evaluated on the basis of falsifiability.
- nailer 5y agoScience is about finding the truth. The concept of ‘a truth’ based on ‘consensus science’ has the same relationship to the scientific method as homeopathy.
- Mountain_Skies 5y agoWhat's your current view on the lab leak theory and if anyone should be permitted to discuss the possibility or not. Is your view the same as it was a few months ago when the tech industry worked in lock step with each other to demonize the discussion of the possibility? What are you going to do if a few months from now if some of the "bullshit" turns out to be credible as has happened so many times already throughout the pandemic?
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago> What are you going to do if a few months from now if some of the "bullshit" turns out to be credible change idea. But it's a big if. what's Spotify gonna do if in a few months both the lab leak theory and Rogan's bullshit turns out to be propaganda backed by malevolent actors? what are Rogan's supporters do? I'm quite sure they would call it a conspiracy. But I could be wrong. > as has happened so many times already throughout the pandemic? it hasn't and absolutely not "so many times". on the contrary, at the beginning many times the alerts have been discarded as exagerated and then things happened exactly as foreseen if not worse. Think about what Trump administration said of Fauci for example (AKA 'Fauci and these idiots' as he called them) Even if we could prove that it was a lab leak, it has no relation with underestimating the danger of covid-19 as it happened in many countries
- spion 5y agoWe are all fighting here over what is ultimately not the fault of individuals, but of social media companies. SM optimize for engagement at any cost: that means novelty, anti establishment, outrage. We're all fighting because of algorithms and systems designed to promote content that induces fighting.
- RickJWagner 5y agoNeil Young is an angry old man who is inconsistent about what he throws temper tantrums about. It's not becoming for a counter-culture icon to try to impose his views through bullying.
- cannabis_sam 5y agoIt’s insane to me that people still claim that Joe Rogan is some kind of neutral observer, when he literally argued against evidence provided to him by his own crew in his discussion with Josh Zepps.. Now, to what degree did Joe Rogan push back against Robert Malone?
- cannabis_sam 5y agohttps://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/01/24/robert-malone-vaccine-misinformation-rogan-mandates/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/01/24/robert-malo... If anyone is unfamiliar with Robert Malone.
- h2odragon 5y agoMakes me wonder: could artists demand their songs not be played on radio stations that also aired Rush Limbaugh? Or did "ASCAP" and whatever other cartel schemes they had forestall that when they were set up? What happens when someone decides that its the device at fault, not the streaming service? Is the evil in the stone or in the signs inscribed upon it?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- hprotagonist 5y ago>Is the evil in the stone or in the signs inscribed upon it? in the people, surely.
- onionisafruit 5y agoThe Pretenders couldn’t even make Limbaugh stop using their song as his theme song.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y agoLimbaugh (or his producers and/or stations) paid for ASCAP and BMI licensing, and the Pretenders music was released with ASCAP or BMI licensing in the USA, which allows anyone with the license to play the music (on the radio). It specifically prohibits the copyright holder from picking and choosing who can play the music.
- onionisafruit 5y agoYou are right. I remembered there was controversy about him using the song, but I apparently misremembered just about every detail of it - including the song name which I thought was “Way to Go Ohio”.
- onionisafruit 5y agoReplying to myself to say I went to wikipedia to fact-check myself on this after posting, and I was 100% wrong. The Pretenders’ label made Limbaugh stop using their song, but when Chrissie Hynde found out about it she worked out a deal with him because her parents were Limbaugh fans.
- irthomasthomas 5y ago>Of course, Spotify could have chosen to break its $100 million exclusive contract with Rogan to host his show. But if they had, it’s worth considering what would have happened. When Rogan took his show to Spotify, exclusively, his listenership and apparent influence dropped significantly. That’s the nature of exclusivity. If Spotify broke up with him, Rogan’s show wouldn’t disappear or even miss a beat. Just because Young did not understand this, does not mean it was not an attempt at celebrity-sponsored-censorship. And anyway, if Rogan went back to YouTube, how long could he survive there? Once you cross a line, the tech companies tend to blacklist you in unison.
- sanderjd 5y agoWhat makes you think he didn't understand this? Nothing about what he's said or done implies that. He doesn't want to be associated with a platform that endorses Rogan. It's not the choice I would have made (though I'm not a Rogan fan at all either) but it's fair enough for him to make that choice.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- geodel 5y ago100%. Just as it is fastest ever to reach from zero to 100 million audience in history. It is even faster to reach 100 million to roughly zero if one find themselves on wrong side of big tech.
- tlear 5y agoHe would go to Rumble or whatever the name of that other platform is ;) (don't want to get banned for mentioning it). Anyway Joe Rogan would love that play.
- onionisafruit 5y agoIf Spotify bought exclusive rights to Joe’s podcasts, would he be allowed to go back to youtube if Spotify decided to stop publishing him?
- tomp 5y ago> free speech works both ways. It’s correct to argue that Joe Rogan has a right to say whatever he wants on his podcast, and that people who want to listen to his show should be able to. But it’s also correct that Neil Young has a right to make clear that he doesn’t want to be associated with a service that is associated with Rogan, and to publicize his stance. That’s not exactly a fair interpretation. Neil first asked Spotify to censor Rogan, then removed himself from the platform. Attempting to suppress someone else’s speech is definitely not being pro-free speech, in fact it’s complete opposite.
- vanusa 5y agoNeil first asked Spotify to censor Rogan, I don't buy this idea that stating firmly and publicly: "If you continue to host X on your platform, then I won't be associated with your platform" -- is equivalent to top-down, administrative censorship in the usual sense of the term. Which by most sources is specifically rooted in an exercise of state power (or of something more or less equivalent to it). Not the editorial decisions made by publishing entities.
- manuelabeledo 5y agoYoung didn't ask Spotify to censor Rogan. He said that Spotify could "have either Joe Rogan or Neil Young, but not both". Then, he followed through with his promise. There's a difference between censoring and enabling.
- lr1970 5y ago> He said that Spotify could "have either Joe Rogan or Neil Young, but not both". Why it has to be mutually exclusive like an XOR operation? In a civilized discourse it is OK to have both points of view present at the same time, so that a listener can listen to one or both or none. By insisting on just one (in whatever context) we diminish our intellectual pursuits. Is it now all about cheap publicity stunts?
- manuelabeledo 5y agoRegardless of the intellectually dishonest take of equating any two opposing ideas, Young is just in his right of refusing to participate.
- Applejinx 5y agoEven for a Neil Young, Spotify doesn't really pay artists anyway. It's like trying to make a living as a YouTuber. Neil and those who're following his lead are doing the right thing but they are NOT foregoing massive seventies-record-industry wealth here. If they're not happy with how Spotify acts there is very little to keep them on board. For anybody less significant than Neil Young, most likely they get nothing from Spotify in the first place. It's basically the bad old record industry all over again, but more so. Back in the day they used to care about setting up 'gotchas' like shellac breakage adjustments applied to CDs, so you'd sign off on a bad deal because it was the only one on offer but some effort would go into making a case why they deserved to not pay you. These days I don't think those in power feel a need to bother. This applies to Spotify. If they don't feel like paying you they just won't. Neil Young is likely losing nothing here.
- xfitm3 5y ago> Neil and those who're following his lead are doing the right thing but they are NOT foregoing massive seventies-record-industry wealth here. Does this mean you agree with censoring Rogan?
- dmitriid 5y ago> most likely they get nothing from Spotify in the first place. It's basically the bad old record industry all over again What makes you think the "old record industry" is gone? Spotify doesn't pay artists directly. All money goes to the "old record industry" which then pays the artists. No one asks where the money disappears when it reaches the "old record industry" because criticizing those companies likely means commercial death for many artists. However, it's easy to criticize Spotify because... they can't say anything either: they depend on those companies.
- nailer 5y ago> Neil and those who're following his lead are doing the right thing Which specific doctors and scientists do you think shouldn’t have appeared on Rogan’s podcast?
- sundaeofshock 5y ago
- hirundo 5y agoIt is perfectly within your free speech rights to decide not to associate with anyone for any reason, and to argue that others should do the same. It is not pro free speech to use your free speech rights to attempt to suppress the speech of others. Pro free speech would be for Young to use his visibility to highlight rebuttals of claimed misinformation. Arguments, not suppression, are how you win back people who have lost trust in institutions. Suppression just amplifies the distrust. It leaves a largely clear field for these heterodox doctors to command, because lacking rebuttals, many of their claims sound quite convincing. And people are being convinced in large numbers.
- prohobo 5y agoI agree with your comment, but disagree about the use of the word "misinformation". That word is clearly a propaganda tool used to suppress dissent, similar to "conspiracy theorist" or "white supremacist". If people are going to argue against views they don't approve of, they should do it fairly and not resort to what is essentially state-sponsored slander.
- hirundo 5y agoI agree, and changed the reference to "claimed misinformation".
- katzgrau 5y agoAgreed, although there exists the problem where it's a lot easier to produce bullshit than refute it. Perhaps it's just a reality we must contend with.
- scantis 5y agoTherefore information to refute BS becomes more valuable. That it's easy to lie is not a sufficient argument for censorship.
- tzs 5y agoNo one has yet proposed a mechanism other than some form of censorship that actually works to deal with the problem of the amount of BS totally overwhelming the time and ability of the average person to have even a ghost of chance of telling what is BS and what is not, except perhaps by becoming sufficiently authoritarian so take away the rights and powers of people to make decisions that believing the bullshit would affect. But sufficiently authoritarian regimes usually also heavily censor, so you still end up censorship even in that case. I'd love to hear an alternative that is actually known to work for societies that are both large and have near zero costs to produce and widely spread information.
- friendlydog 5y agoNeil had already sold the rights to his music to a label. They sold rights to Spotify. Imagine building a house then selling it, then when neighbors you personally find undesirable move into the neighborhood demanding the home owners association load one of the houses, of which you own neither, and truck it out. Edit: He may own half, and the label Warner was the one that made the deal with Spotify.
- manuelabeledo 5y agoAs far as I understand, Neil Young sold 50% of the rights to all his songs, meaning that the investment firm would make money off publishing rights. That doesn't mean that they get to unilaterally decide what to do with his music. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55557633 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55557633
- vnlpaper 5y agoNeil Young has certainly exercised his free speech privilege before: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2003/sep/17/popandrock.neilyoung https://www.theguardian.com/music/2003/sep/17/popandrock.nei... Politically-speaking, its hard to exorcise the ghost of his 1980s pronouncements, when he swung hard-right behind the Reagan presidency and lashed out at gays ("you go to the supermarket and you see a [censored] behind the fucking cash register, you don't want him to handle your potatoes") and welfare spongers. "Stop being supported by the government and get out and work," Neil advised. "You have to make the weak stand up on one leg, or half a leg, whatever they've got."
- pseudalopex 5y agoHis views changed in 37 years apparently.[1] [1] https://www.bad-news-beat.org/2015neil-young-supports-love https://www.bad-news-beat.org/2015neil-young-supports-love
- manuelabeledo 5y agoSo has Rogan. What's your point, anyway.
- fblqa 5y agoI'd say that the lesson is that most people make immensely stupid statements at times, and when you sit in a glass house you should not throw with stones. The other lesson is that some people are selectively punished and canceled for three stupid statements during their lifetime, while others (like Biden) are not.
- jancsika 5y agoIt's a worthwhile article to read for sure. But I can get past your troll-of-a-term "free speech privilege." It's as if you are attempting to downgrade the principle of freedom of speech to limit it to describing an annoying pattern of rich guys mouthing off. (And completing the example from the "other rich guy" in this instance.) What's the upshot here? Are you a staunch supporter of freedom of speech or not? I can't tell at all from your comment nor from the text of the article (which is merely a review of Neil Young's output).
- sAbakumoff 5y ago
- edmcnulty101 5y ago> Neil Young is an artist with a lifetime of principled credibility His principled credibility includes homophobia. "You go to a supermarket and you see a fa--ot behind the fuc--ng cash register, you don’t want him to handle your potatoes.”" - Neil Young Via L.A. Times https://t.co/uClB2YkeU3 https://t.co/uClB2YkeU3
- pseudalopex 5y agoHis views changed in 37 years apparently.[1] [1] https://www.bad-news-beat.org/2015neil-young-supports-love https://www.bad-news-beat.org/2015neil-young-supports-love
- edmcnulty101 5y agoHis marketing skills got better. That's the only thing we know for sure.
- pseudalopex 5y agoEveryone could be secretly homophobic by that logic.
- dopylitty 5y ago> Apple, clearly, does not host Steve Bannon’s podcast. Apple’s podcast directory is akin to a search engine; they index the feeds of open podcasts. They do have lines for content they won’t index (porno, of course, and hate speech) If you look at Apple's content guidelines[0] section 2.2 they do explicitly forbid "Encouragement of criminal activity or illegal acts" Given that treason, sedition, and advocating the overthrow of the government are illegal under 18 U.S.C[1] there's a good argument that Bannon's podcast should not be allowed. I'm not sure what Apple's mechanism is for enforcing their guidelines but it seems the argument could be made for delisting Bannon as well. 0. https://podcasters.apple.com/support/891-content-and-subscription-guidelines https://podcasters.apple.com/support/891-content-and-subscri... 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-11...
- yucky 5y ago>they do explicitly forbid "Encouragement of criminal activity or illegal acts" If only the rules were applied consistently.
- jdkjs 5y agoInteresting. That means that podcasts advocating for Catalan independence, of which there are several, will have to get delisted too.
- Jiejeing 5y agoCatalan independence is not generally advocating from sedition from the united states, which is obviously the only territory covered by this law.
- jdkjs 5y agoSpanish law makes sedition illegal as well. If apple is to remove encouragement of illegal acts they should remove all those podcasts.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y agoIt is worth noting the role that living memory plays: Both Neil Young and Joni Mitchell had Polio when they were children. They are old enough to remember the huge impact of mass vaccination on that terrifying disease, that they themselves suffered under. They might take anti-vaccination disinformation personally. When generational knowledge like this is lost; there is a danger that a lesson of history is forgotten and the same mistakes made again. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/neil-young-polio-joe-rogan-podcast-b2002631.html https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joni_Mitchell#1943%E2%80%931963:_Early_life_and_education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joni_Mitchell#1943%E2%80%93196...
- tzs 5y agoSpotify's policy on COVID misinformation is, according to a statement they gave last April [1]: > Spotify prohibits content on the platform which promotes dangerous false, deceptive, or misleading content about COVID-19 that may cause offline harm and/or pose a direct threat to public health. When content that violates this standard is identified it is removed from the platform. Spotify has removed episodes from other podcasters that violate this, but the won't touch Rogan's episodes. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/27/22406315/joe-rogan-vaccine-spotify-podcast-covid-19 https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/27/22406315/joe-rogan-vaccin...
- hartator 5y ago
- cletus 5y agoThis is what ultimately limits the size of companies: competing interests. Perfect example: Apple TV original programming. Apple having Apple money can (and do) throw big money at creating content. But Apple being Apple is also concerned about their overall image so none of that content is going to be too edgy or controversial and this limitation on artistic freedom is a recipe for mediocrity that, for example, HBO never had. When HBO made the Sopranos it was pretty edgy. That sort of risk will never happen on Apple TV. So Spotify has branched into podcasts from streaming music. Worse, it's not just a neutral host of such content (as, say, Youtube might be perceived). By paying a large amount for exclusivity this is de facto original Spotify programming. That means if there's anything controversial it can hurt Spotify's other business. Does Neil Young withdrawing his catalogue matter? Revenue-wise? Not at all. It's not necessarily the PR you want though. Does Joni Mitchell matter? Individually? No. But if this ever gets to the point of Taylor Swift or Ariana Grande? Oh boy, that's going to be rough. But the point is by buying into this separate market for original programming (effectively), Spotify has bought themselves a whole bunch of new problems they never would've had otherwise. For the record, I respect people who put their money where their mouth is (like Neil Young). Given the $100 million we all knew how this was going to go but hey, respect nonetheless.
- sanderjd 5y agoExcellent take. This limiting function on companies / platforms that I thought would just be unstoppable has been surprising to me, and this is a very good description of the problem facing these companies.
- JKCalhoun 5y ago> With the Neil Young situation it’s been fascinating to see the people who literally don’t understand the concept of a principled stand. That has, sadly, been my experience as well — so many people that treat life like a game where the only currency is ... currency?
- edmcnulty101 5y agoI think there are many who also fail to see Spotify and Rogan's principled stand.
- Mountain_Skies 5y agoAlso people who don't understand the concept of attention seeking for financial gain.
- denton-scratch 5y agoAre you suggesting that Young is attention-seeking for financial gain? He's already pretty wealthy, he loses money by leaving Spotify, and he's a muso, not a politico - people buy his records because they like the music, not because they admire his opinions.
- n8cpdx 5y agoSpotify, when they made the insane decision to pivot to podcasts, revealed a deep misunderstanding of the fundamental nature of audio. Or perhaps it would be clearer to say: music is not just “audio” and podcasts are not just “audio” and you can’t pretend they are equivalent. I recently had to drop Spotify because it was showing advertisements for gay fetish podcasts on my work computer. In large size, with graphic illustration, above the fold, with no way to disable. I never used Spotify for podcasts. I was a loyal subscriber for years but I had to drop them. This is one specific example, but there are many other consequences for a company that forgets what it’s product is - or perhaps hallucinates some connection between completely unrelated product categories, and tries to shove it down their customers’ throats; ironically reminiscent of some extreme BDSM content they advertise on my screen share-prone work computer. Spotify has been actively wasting money on a massive blunder in search of growth and it is going to backfire even more than it already has. And they still haven’t done the bare-minimum work to make a good podcast client. https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy82OGVhMjlkOC9wb2RjYXN0L3Jzcw https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy8... https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL2ZlZWRzLmZlZWRidXJuZXIuY29tL0pvY2tzdHJhcFN0b3JpZXM https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL2ZlZWRzLmZlZWRidXJ... (Notice how Google is smart enough to put an ‘E’ for explicit tag on the podcasts) Podcasts are not fucking music, but they are of course happy to fuck their users, the open podcast ecosystem, and in the long run their investors with them. Maybe they’ve been listening to too much https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL2ZlZWRzLmxpYnN5bi5jb20vODExNjgvcnNz https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL2ZlZWRzLmxpYnN5bi5... You can take a principled stand by dropping your subscription and blocking them with pihole, as I have. Be careful though, they’re sneaky with their domains.
- smashed 5y ago> and in the long run their investors with them In the short run as well. Most Tech stocks are down recently, but the Neil Young incident seems to have had a disproportionate effect. Still early to tell but so far investors are reacting strongly negatively.
- narag 5y agoBDSM content they advertise on my screen share-prone work computer. Excuse me if I stray a little from the main point but have you considered the possibility that someone is using computers in your workplace (maybe even yours) to listen/download this kind of content? I've had some bosses that I could easily picture in a black leather suit.
- tasha0663 5y agoSo Joni Mitchell is pulling her stuff now too? This could snowball into more than just a story about Neil Young being cranky. If it snowballs, Spotify will have to cave. Artists will have to hope they do because streaming platforms are only popular because they manage to be just cheap and convenient enough to edge out piracy.
- edmcnulty101 5y agoThat depends if most people think Neil Young is right or wrong. And other than Joni Mitchell so far, it looks like the rest of the artists in the world are siding with Spotify. Because even if you don't agree with Joe Rogan you have to agree that cancel culture is wrong and expression of a variety of views is valuable. Artists seem like the wrong group of people to try to get to side with you on censorship.
- telxosser 5y agoCome on, both Mitchell and Young will be trying to get back on Spotify in less than 2 years if that. The irony to me is they are just too old to know about all the rap songs glorifying drinking lean during an opioid epidemic. Not even misinformation about lean, actively promoting.
- pseudalopex 5y ago> The irony to me is they are just too old to know about all the rap songs glorifying drinking lean during an opioid epidemic. Not even misinformation about lean, actively promoting. Or they think misinformation is worse. Or they think Spotify hand picking Rogan's show to fund and promote came with responsibility just distribution doesn't.
- cloutchaser 5y agoHardly any rogan advocates are saying young shouldn’t be able to do this, at least according to my Twitter feed. In fact people are happy with young being able to do it and basically laughing at him. So I don’t think anti young people are somehow not understanding what free speech is. What they are critiquing is someone who spent his life being anti power and establishment doing the bidding of an establishment who’s also spread plenty of misinformation about Covid and many other things. (And on a side note, rogan actually had opposing sides on as well, the CNN health guy. I don’t see anyone on the public health side actually being willing to engage with any of the people questioning their judgement, they just dismiss them as anti science. And it turns out a lot of things they were right about. Cloth masks being the most recent example, but you can count the lab leak hypothesis and many other things among them)
- sanderjd 5y agoThat may be true of your Twitter feed but it does not seem to be true on this site.
- denton-scratch 5y ago> doing the bidding of an establishment I doubt he's doing anyone's bidding. He has good reason to oppose anti-vaxxers; he's a polio victim.
- danaris 5y agoI've seen, in the multiple discussions on this topic that have shown up on HN since it broke, a significant percentage of posts arguing precisely that Young shouldn't be able to do this, because, in their view, it's "censorship" and "violating free speech".
- josephcsible 5y agoI've seen a ton of people saying Young shouldn't have done it (which I agree with), but not a single one saying he shouldn't have been able to do it. There's a big difference.
- Mountain_Skies 5y agoThe amusing thing in all of this is that Neil Young has unleashed the Streisand Effect. People who never knew that a person called Joe Rogan exists are now not only aware of who he is but also have been told that his show contains forbidden information, which pretty much guarantees a bunch of new people will end up checking it out.
- extra88 5y agoNonsense. Joe Rogan is already plenty famous (or infamous), this story hasn't reached any further than a zillion others. If this exposed the existence of Rogan to anyone, it's probably old Neil Young fans who will accept Young's position and not seek out Rogan's show.
- sanderjd 5y agoThere are almost certainly more people unaware of Neil Young's existence than of Joe Rogan's. I suspect this is a case where the Streisand effect will go both ways: some will discover and appreciate Rogan because of this and others will discover and appreciate Neil Young because of it.
- throwawaylinux 5y agoAnd the effect itself will go both ways for the likes of Old Neil. Until his recent tantrum I had no idea what a disgusting vile hateful piece of shit he is. http://www.tunesdujour.com/neil-youngs-homophobia-aids-phobia/ http://www.tunesdujour.com/neil-youngs-homophobia-aids-phobi... My wonderful kind loving gentle uncle was a young gay man when Mr. Young said this, and the idea of this pathetic coward using his power to be stirring up hatred against him and everyone like him makes me feel physically ill. I wonder how many gay beatings and murders and how much bullying this piece of human garbage's outspoken hatred resulted in. Turns out he hasn't changed his spots either (which they never do they just try to blend in). https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1486388986973200393 https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/148638898697320039... This loser looks like a typical hypocrite limousine liberal to me, attaching itself like a parasite to "causes" that others have actually sweat and bled for, in order to feed off its popularity, while actually being a hateful selfish hypocrite. A sad, pathetic, angry, cowardly little loser. A washed-up irrelevant has-been. Fuck Neil Young, we still don't want him around. If Neil Young disagrees with something, it's worth looking into. Never listened to Rogan before, might give him a try now on Neil's glowing recommendation.
- sanderjd 5y agoThe way I would put this is that both the freedom of speech and the freedom of association are important. Sometimes they seem to be in tension, but they aren't really. Rogan is free to speak. Spotify is free to associate with him, or not. And Young is free to associate with Spotify, or not. And Young is free to speak about the reason he is choosing not to associate with Spotify, and they are free to ignore him. I don't really see any problems here, everyone seems to be speaking and acting for themselves, nobody seems to be forcing anybody to do anything. If someone passed a law to force Rogan off Spotify, or to force Young to stay on, then I'd have a problem with it, but as it is, this really seems like a nothingburger.
- D13Fd 5y agoIn my view neither of those rights are implicated here. Those are rights against interference by the government. Private individuals and corporations are free to interfere with each other’s speech as long as it doesn’t break any laws. To me, this is just a variety of boycott, and boycotts are something that we have been ok with for a long time.
- sanderjd 5y agoI agree, but many people recognize a freedom of speech that is broader than just the prohibition on its infringement by government, and many here are arguing from that school of thought. I believe that if you recognize that broader definition of free speech, that it must also include free association, otherwise you force people to associate with speech they abhor and the whole thing falls apart.