4 ms·

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 pro

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.
      - Stupulous 5y ago
        No one is asking Young to acknowledge Rogan's existence, much less engage with him. He is refusing to associate himself with an entity because they are not censoring his idealogical adversaries. If Neil Young pulled his music from Spotify on a whim, sure, he "refused to participate". That's not what happened. Neil Young leveraged his art to limit the someone else's basic right to self-expression. If someone refused to put music on Spotify because Spotify has Jewish musicians on their platform, would we call them an antisemite, or would we say, "there's no obligation to put your music anywhere, so that's fine"?
    - vanusa 5y ago
      But being authoritarian is still morally abhorrent. You may want to look into what the term "authoritarian" actually means.
      - vba616 5y ago
        This is getting meta. You're assuming everybody agrees on an authority that defines the word "authoritarian". But do we?
      - Stupulous 5y ago
        Googling "define authoritarian" defines it exactly as I've used it: >favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom. So I'll ask that you do a little work and point me at the definition you'd prefer.
        vanusa 5y ago
        If someone is "authoritarian" that means they are consistently bullying or dominating in some situation with a power structure already in place -- like a boss, or of course a tyrannical head of state. You know, someone like Mussolini or Stalin. These musicians aren't bullies, and they aren't doing anything like that. They're just saying "if your platform presents an image we don't like, or conducts itself in way that appears genuinely harmful to others -- we're not going to lend our credibility to it." That's all. And it is perfectly within their free speech rights to do so.
  - trembonator 5y ago
  - RickJWagner 5y ago
    You're right, it is Young's right. But morally, it goes against free speech and aligns with fascism.
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.

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.
    - Stupulous 5y ago
      No one is asking Young to acknowledge Rogan's existence, much less engage with him. He is refusing to associate himself with an entity because they are not censoring his idealogical adversaries. If Neil Young pulled his music from Spotify on a whim, sure, he "refused to participate". That's not what happened. Neil Young leveraged his art to limit the someone else's basic right to self-expression. If someone refused to put music on Spotify because Spotify has Jewish musicians on their platform, would we call them an antisemite, or would we say, "there's no obligation to put your music anywhere, so that's fine"?
  - vanusa 5y ago
    But being authoritarian is still morally abhorrent. You may want to look into what the term "authoritarian" actually means.
    - vba616 5y ago
      This is getting meta. You're assuming everybody agrees on an authority that defines the word "authoritarian". But do we?
    - Stupulous 5y ago
      Googling "define authoritarian" defines it exactly as I've used it: >favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom. So I'll ask that you do a little work and point me at the definition you'd prefer.
      - vanusa 5y ago
        If someone is "authoritarian" that means they are consistently bullying or dominating in some situation with a power structure already in place -- like a boss, or of course a tyrannical head of state. You know, someone like Mussolini or Stalin. These musicians aren't bullies, and they aren't doing anything like that. They're just saying "if your platform presents an image we don't like, or conducts itself in way that appears genuinely harmful to others -- we're not going to lend our credibility to it." That's all. And it is perfectly within their free speech rights to do so.
- trembonator 5y ago
- RickJWagner 5y ago
  You're right, it is Young's right. But morally, it goes against free speech and aligns with fascism.

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.