9 ms·

Yes, 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. How

by gduzan 5y ago

Yes, 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Rogan 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 ago
      Rogan’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 ago
      Science 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 ago
        Usually 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 ago
        not *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 ago
        Science is about finding the truth. The concept of ‘a truth’ based on ‘consensus science’ has the same relationship to the scientific method as homeopathy.
        edmcnulty101 5y ago
        "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." - Richard Feynman
        peoplefromibiza 5y ago
        A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. . . . An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth. — Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97 It means that it took several generations of doctors to reach a consensus around the fact that viruses are actually very dangerous and we can be reasonably sure that the Rogan's objections have already been presented and discarded as bullshit. More than one time. It also means that if Rogan, a man in his middle 50s, spreads disinformation on a platform where a large part of the audience is young, we risk that the future generation will be familiar with his bullshit theories. That's why he shouldn't be allowed to be a popular voice. Believing that science is always correct it's wrong, science gives us ranges, plausible certainties, risk evaluation strategies, but believing that people outside of science can disprove what people of science have studied and discussed for decades, it's idiotic.
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  What'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

by gduzan 5y ago

sanderjd 5y ago

I 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 ago
Rogan 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 ago
    Rogan’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 ago
    Science 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 ago
        Usually 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 ago
        not *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 ago
        Science is about finding the truth. The concept of ‘a truth’ based on ‘consensus science’ has the same relationship to the scientific method as homeopathy.
      - edmcnulty101 5y ago
        "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." - Richard Feynman
        peoplefromibiza 5y ago
        A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. . . . An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth. — Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97 It means that it took several generations of doctors to reach a consensus around the fact that viruses are actually very dangerous and we can be reasonably sure that the Rogan's objections have already been presented and discarded as bullshit. More than one time. It also means that if Rogan, a man in his middle 50s, spreads disinformation on a platform where a large part of the audience is young, we risk that the future generation will be familiar with his bullshit theories. That's why he shouldn't be allowed to be a popular voice. Believing that science is always correct it's wrong, science gives us ranges, plausible certainties, risk evaluation strategies, but believing that people outside of science can disprove what people of science have studied and discussed for decades, it's idiotic.
Mountain_Skies 5y ago
What'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