8 ms·

> 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 h

by 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 ago
Neil 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 ago
Young 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 ago
    Regardless of the intellectually dishonest take of equating any two opposing ideas, Young is just in his right of refusing to participate.
    - Stupulous 5y ago
      A lot of people in this thread are correctly pointing out the Neil Young is within his rights to only allow his music to be played on censorious platforms. What's missing is anyone saying that he isn't. A racist is within their rights to publically discuss their views. I will happily argue that that is the way it should be until the heat death of the universe. But, importantly, you will never catch me saying the they're a decent person or they're doing the right thing. Young can be against basic human rights without exceeding the bounds of his own, but being authoritarian is still morally abhorrent.
      - manuelabeledo 5y ago
        > Young can be against basic human rights without exceeding the bounds of his own, but being authoritarian is still morally abhorrent. Refusing to participate is far from being "authoritarian". By that measure, any scientist refusing to engage with a crook, would be labeled as a fascist, when there are very good reasons for him or her not to do so.
        vba616 5y ago
        "Authoritarian", like a lot of words, can have multiple meanings. It's a moral condemnation. It also can mean someone using authority to coerce people. I agree with you that Neil Young ought not to be accused of either of these. He obviously has the moral right to control his own creations. He obviously doesn't have the authority to get rid of Rogan, based on what just happened. He obviously doesn't have the power to completely shut up Rogan. However, what seems true to me is that he disagrees with actions and speech of other people and has chosen not to try to convince them of his opinions through speech, but to fight them by other means. This fact pattern seems to me like a possible definition of "authoritarian" that some people could be using, without the other baggage.
- edmcnulty101 5y ago
  "I sincerely hope that other artists and record companies will move off the SPOTIFY platform and stop supporting SPOTIFY’s deadly misinformation about COVID." -Neil Young He's trying to cancel Spotify.
  - manuelabeledo 5y ago
    Young is calling for a boycott, that is his right.
    - edmcnulty101 5y ago
      It is his right! Absolutely! But censorship over dialogue is always a short sighted solution and it turns people from colleagues who disagree into enemies. There's been a 14 point shift in the United States from Democrat to Republican in the past YEAR. One of if not the biggest political shift in recorded history since the early 1900s. And Republicans no longer view Democrats as disagreeing colleagues but as enemies to be eliminated. Trump is now having some of the biggest crowds in political history. 2022 is republicans are predicted to take over the house and the Senate. 2024 Trump will win again. All over the country people who believe the election was stolen are running for political office in positions to manage voting. I personally think the Republicans will make major changes in the political process to ensure their permanent control even if it undermines the foundation of the country. Our two parties are going to be flavors of Republicanism. And it will be their right as well. https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd5353bf0-921f-4896-9fc3-0ab626a5082b_1240x718.png https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q...
  - kodemager 5y ago
    Which is his right, at least if you support free speech. It’s no different from people refusing to buy products that are made in sweatshops or whatever else you can think of. Spotify is a commercial product, if they make decisions that make people not want to buy it then that’s just the free market regulating itself. Until it’s the government doing it, it’s not a problem.
sjg007 5y ago
strathmeyer 5y ago
- rhino369 5y ago
  You are attacking a strawman. Nobody is saying Niel Young should be preventing from criticizing Joe Regan to uphold freedom of speech and I doubt you think they did.
- jstanley 5y ago
  Perhaps they wouldn't have stopped Neil Young at all. Being pro-free speech doesn't mean censoring those who are anti-free speech, which is the main difference between being pro- and anti-free speech in the first place.
- refurb 5y ago
  I don’t think anyone is suggesting to force anyone to do anything. It’s just an observation that someone clearly doesn’t support free speech if they give an ultimatum like that.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
fredophile 5y ago
That sounds pretty standard for how boycotts work. Spotify choosing to end their contract with Joe Rogan over this wouldn't infringe on his free speech. Having the right to say whatever you want doesn't mean any given company needs to let you broadcast it on their platform.
- rhino369 5y ago
  It is how boycotts work. But its a boycott based on spotify's refusal to engage in censorship. >Spotify choosing to end their contract with Joe Rogan over this wouldn't infringe on his free speech. Having the right to say whatever you want doesn't mean any given company needs to let you broadcast it on their platform. It's not government censorship, but it's still censorship. Freedom of speech as a concept isn't just limited to the first amendment.
  - garrickvanburen 5y ago
    Reminder: Spotify isn’t a US company.
  - fredophile 5y ago
    Based on your comments it sounds like you believe that Neil Young's statements are both censorship and free speech. If that's the case, what should we do about it? Clearly boycotting him for censorship would be censoring his speech. Is there any form of consequences for speech that would not be censorship?
  - xoa 5y ago
    >It's not government censorship, but it's still censorship. No, it's free speech, not censorship. Freedom of association, choosing NOT to say something, to NOT spend your own (including your organization's own) private resources supporting something, and advocating others don't either, is itself integral to Free Speech. You can't support a specific stance without NOT supporting all the ones opposed to it. And the idea isn't just to howl into the wind, it's to convince the rest of us hooting apes about it too! Free Speech is inherently a social endeavor to convince other minds which will result in their altering their behavior (including how they allocate their personal resources and power). You don't need it alone on an island. >Freedom of speech as a concept isn't just limited to the first amendment. Actually it pretty much is, or at least is limited to the area of "force". The point of free speech is to keeping the seeking of truth and debates around values to the social and economic circles vs those of force. Because we simply cannot trust coercive force to not solidify things into very bad positions that then stick across broad swaths of the population. There has to be room for people to advocate against even broad consensus, if they believe it enough. But within those spheres it's open season, a constant ever shifting dynamic back and forth that never ends. Indeed making sure "it never ends" is the essence of free speech. And just because even broad consensus can sometimes be wrong doesn't mean it's not often right. The people arguing against it may well be horrible people. Them being shunned, argued back against, and denied other people's support is Free Speech working 100% as intended. If they truly believe it they will just have to keep at it, and it may well take decades to shift society's overall views. They may fail, and it may be expensive. That's how it is. The point is that force can't be used to completely crush all potential to change minds.
teraflop 5y ago
I'm sincerely baffled by how many people seem to feel that the exact order of operations in this situation makes a big difference. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Young really did say "get rid of Rogan or I'll leave". How is that any different from saying "I'm leaving because you won't get rid of Rogan"? Or "I'm leaving, but I'll consider coming back if you get rid of Rogan"? In all of those cases, the end result (and the negotiating power of all parties) is essentially the same, so what makes one "free speech" and another "anti-free speech"?
- ksec 5y ago
  >I'm sincerely baffled by how many people seem to feel that the exact order of operations in this situation makes a big difference. Bias. If they disagree with Rogan in the first place, not on this specific subject but in a multiple different angle, although in modern days that tends to be politics, then they just need to find a narrative to make sure what they are doing is good. Gruber is extremely bias towards Apple. ( USB-C, AirPod sold at Cost, big.LITTLE, Unified Memory etc... ) So a narrative against Spotify wouldn't hurt.
- erik_seaberg 5y ago
  The principled way to do this is “I’m leaving indefinitely because I don’t approve of your editorial priorities,” not single out one guy and try to bribe or extort the company into breaking their commitments with him. Only customers en masse should be able to demand a change like this, because the company’s duty is to customers rather than competing vendors. And actually conspiring against this guy just fuels the conspiracy theories out there.
dataviz1000 5y ago
There is huge difference between a government censoring a private citizen and a non government company or private citizen censoring a private citizen. When governments censor history has shown over and over very bad things follow.
- emerged 5y ago
  There used to be a difference. That difference has been rapidly shrinking. Depending on which side of the censorship issue you’re on, you either realize this and push back or you keep pretending everything’s fine until they start censoring you too. By which point it may be too late. Do people really not believe that the Information Age has fundamentally changed the axioms which underlie things like “only governments can censor” ?

by tomp 5y ago

vanusa 5y ago

Neil 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 ago

Young 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 ago
  Regardless of the intellectually dishonest take of equating any two opposing ideas, Young is just in his right of refusing to participate.
  - Stupulous 5y ago
    A lot of people in this thread are correctly pointing out the Neil Young is within his rights to only allow his music to be played on censorious platforms. What's missing is anyone saying that he isn't. A racist is within their rights to publically discuss their views. I will happily argue that that is the way it should be until the heat death of the universe. But, importantly, you will never catch me saying the they're a decent person or they're doing the right thing. Young can be against basic human rights without exceeding the bounds of his own, but being authoritarian is still morally abhorrent.
    - manuelabeledo 5y ago
      > Young can be against basic human rights without exceeding the bounds of his own, but being authoritarian is still morally abhorrent. Refusing to participate is far from being "authoritarian". By that measure, any scientist refusing to engage with a crook, would be labeled as a fascist, when there are very good reasons for him or her not to do so.
      - vba616 5y ago
        "Authoritarian", like a lot of words, can have multiple meanings. It's a moral condemnation. It also can mean someone using authority to coerce people. I agree with you that Neil Young ought not to be accused of either of these. He obviously has the moral right to control his own creations. He obviously doesn't have the authority to get rid of Rogan, based on what just happened. He obviously doesn't have the power to completely shut up Rogan. However, what seems true to me is that he disagrees with actions and speech of other people and has chosen not to try to convince them of his opinions through speech, but to fight them by other means. This fact pattern seems to me like a possible definition of "authoritarian" that some people could be using, without the other baggage.
edmcnulty101 5y ago
"I sincerely hope that other artists and record companies will move off the SPOTIFY platform and stop supporting SPOTIFY’s deadly misinformation about COVID." -Neil Young He's trying to cancel Spotify.
- manuelabeledo 5y ago
  Young is calling for a boycott, that is his right.
  - edmcnulty101 5y ago
    It is his right! Absolutely! But censorship over dialogue is always a short sighted solution and it turns people from colleagues who disagree into enemies. There's been a 14 point shift in the United States from Democrat to Republican in the past YEAR. One of if not the biggest political shift in recorded history since the early 1900s. And Republicans no longer view Democrats as disagreeing colleagues but as enemies to be eliminated. Trump is now having some of the biggest crowds in political history. 2022 is republicans are predicted to take over the house and the Senate. 2024 Trump will win again. All over the country people who believe the election was stolen are running for political office in positions to manage voting. I personally think the Republicans will make major changes in the political process to ensure their permanent control even if it undermines the foundation of the country. Our two parties are going to be flavors of Republicanism. And it will be their right as well. https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd5353bf0-921f-4896-9fc3-0ab626a5082b_1240x718.png https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q...
- kodemager 5y ago
  Which is his right, at least if you support free speech. It’s no different from people refusing to buy products that are made in sweatshops or whatever else you can think of. Spotify is a commercial product, if they make decisions that make people not want to buy it then that’s just the free market regulating itself. Until it’s the government doing it, it’s not a problem.

sjg007 5y ago

strathmeyer 5y ago

rhino369 5y ago
You are attacking a strawman. Nobody is saying Niel Young should be preventing from criticizing Joe Regan to uphold freedom of speech and I doubt you think they did.
jstanley 5y ago
Perhaps they wouldn't have stopped Neil Young at all. Being pro-free speech doesn't mean censoring those who are anti-free speech, which is the main difference between being pro- and anti-free speech in the first place.
refurb 5y ago
I don’t think anyone is suggesting to force anyone to do anything. It’s just an observation that someone clearly doesn’t support free speech if they give an ultimatum like that.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

fredophile 5y ago

That sounds pretty standard for how boycotts work. Spotify choosing to end their contract with Joe Rogan over this wouldn't infringe on his free speech. Having the right to say whatever you want doesn't mean any given company needs to let you broadcast it on their platform.

rhino369 5y ago
It is how boycotts work. But its a boycott based on spotify's refusal to engage in censorship. >Spotify choosing to end their contract with Joe Rogan over this wouldn't infringe on his free speech. Having the right to say whatever you want doesn't mean any given company needs to let you broadcast it on their platform. It's not government censorship, but it's still censorship. Freedom of speech as a concept isn't just limited to the first amendment.
- garrickvanburen 5y ago
  Reminder: Spotify isn’t a US company.
- fredophile 5y ago
  Based on your comments it sounds like you believe that Neil Young's statements are both censorship and free speech. If that's the case, what should we do about it? Clearly boycotting him for censorship would be censoring his speech. Is there any form of consequences for speech that would not be censorship?
- xoa 5y ago
  >It's not government censorship, but it's still censorship. No, it's free speech, not censorship. Freedom of association, choosing NOT to say something, to NOT spend your own (including your organization's own) private resources supporting something, and advocating others don't either, is itself integral to Free Speech. You can't support a specific stance without NOT supporting all the ones opposed to it. And the idea isn't just to howl into the wind, it's to convince the rest of us hooting apes about it too! Free Speech is inherently a social endeavor to convince other minds which will result in their altering their behavior (including how they allocate their personal resources and power). You don't need it alone on an island. >Freedom of speech as a concept isn't just limited to the first amendment. Actually it pretty much is, or at least is limited to the area of "force". The point of free speech is to keeping the seeking of truth and debates around values to the social and economic circles vs those of force. Because we simply cannot trust coercive force to not solidify things into very bad positions that then stick across broad swaths of the population. There has to be room for people to advocate against even broad consensus, if they believe it enough. But within those spheres it's open season, a constant ever shifting dynamic back and forth that never ends. Indeed making sure "it never ends" is the essence of free speech. And just because even broad consensus can sometimes be wrong doesn't mean it's not often right. The people arguing against it may well be horrible people. Them being shunned, argued back against, and denied other people's support is Free Speech working 100% as intended. If they truly believe it they will just have to keep at it, and it may well take decades to shift society's overall views. They may fail, and it may be expensive. That's how it is. The point is that force can't be used to completely crush all potential to change minds.

teraflop 5y ago

I'm sincerely baffled by how many people seem to feel that the exact order of operations in this situation makes a big difference. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Young really did say "get rid of Rogan or I'll leave". How is that any different from saying "I'm leaving because you won't get rid of Rogan"? Or "I'm leaving, but I'll consider coming back if you get rid of Rogan"? In all of those cases, the end result (and the negotiating power of all parties) is essentially the same, so what makes one "free speech" and another "anti-free speech"?

ksec 5y ago
>I'm sincerely baffled by how many people seem to feel that the exact order of operations in this situation makes a big difference. Bias. If they disagree with Rogan in the first place, not on this specific subject but in a multiple different angle, although in modern days that tends to be politics, then they just need to find a narrative to make sure what they are doing is good. Gruber is extremely bias towards Apple. ( USB-C, AirPod sold at Cost, big.LITTLE, Unified Memory etc... ) So a narrative against Spotify wouldn't hurt.
erik_seaberg 5y ago
The principled way to do this is “I’m leaving indefinitely because I don’t approve of your editorial priorities,” not single out one guy and try to bribe or extort the company into breaking their commitments with him. Only customers en masse should be able to demand a change like this, because the company’s duty is to customers rather than competing vendors. And actually conspiring against this guy just fuels the conspiracy theories out there.

dataviz1000 5y ago

There is huge difference between a government censoring a private citizen and a non government company or private citizen censoring a private citizen. When governments censor history has shown over and over very bad things follow.

emerged 5y ago
There used to be a difference. That difference has been rapidly shrinking. Depending on which side of the censorship issue you’re on, you either realize this and push back or you keep pretending everything’s fine until they start censoring you too. By which point it may be too late. Do people really not believe that the Information Age has fundamentally changed the axioms which underlie things like “only governments can censor” ?