27 ms·

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

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.
  - rhino369 5y ago
    >Actually it pretty much is, or at least is limited to the area of "force". Freedom of speech is a principle--not the bare minimum allowable under the first amendment. You don't agree with the principle of freedom of speech if you support shunning from debate anyone who holds an opinion you disagree with. That said, you don't have to agree with the principle of free speech. And the freedom of speech / association gives you the right to shun people. But your behavior is contrary to the principle of freedom of speech.
    - sanderjd 5y ago
      This isn't true because shunning opinions is its own kind of speech. I think it is better captured as "freedom of association" but these are two sides of the same coin. People who see themselves as like free speech maximalists, beyond just being against the limitation of speech by government force, always seem to ignore this part.
      - rhino369 5y ago
        I literally explained how its speech but against the principle of free speech--and you just cherry picked around the explanation. Hardly ignoring it. Statement and actions that are against freedom of speech are still allowed under freedom of speech. That's not some GOTCHA against the freedom of speech. Young should be allowed to do what he's doing. But he should fully expect to be called a censoring blacklister.
        sanderjd 5y ago
        I didn't cherry pick. What you're saying here just doesn't really make sense. It isn't "against freedom of speech" to exercise your own freedom of association.
        rhino369 5y ago
        Obviously you can speak against freedom of speech. The freedom of speech would allow that speech (and nobody is saying Young should be prevented from what he is doing). But you'd still be advocating censorship. You can join a political group advocating for censorship. That's attempted censorship even if its allowed under freedom of speech. So yes, you can exercise your freedom of speech to speak against freedom of speech. There is no contradiction.
- calciphus 5y ago
  This is a confusing take on free speech - that not only must anyone host that speech (in this case, Spotify) - but that it is censorship to say "I don't want to be associated with that so I'm choosing to leave"? That is a pretty extreme view of what "free speech" entitles, to the point of significantly restricting the free speech of (in this case) Niel Young to preserve Joe Rogan's. If I walk out of the room because someone is spitting nonsense is that censorship?
  - rhino369 5y ago
    There is no association between two artists* because they are both on spotify. It's an open platform meant to have essentially everything available. That is a far cry from performing at the same event or socializing in the same room. I would 100% support Young if that was what he was objecting to. But Young's situation is more like refusing to play on a university that doesn't shun someone he thinks is wrong. That's censorship. *(not sure I'd call Rogan that but for lack of a better word)
    - sanderjd 5y ago
      Spotify is associated with both of these artists, and they are free to remain associated with them or not, and the artists are free to continue to associate with Spotify or not.
      - rhino369 5y ago
        The fact that all parties are allowed to associate with whomever they want does not determine whether Young is engaging in attempted censorship. If the Catholic Church organized a boycott of Amazon unless decided to de-platform controversial authors that is a clear example of censorship.
        sanderjd 5y ago
        Maybe so, but if the Catholic church said "we're not publishing our books on Amazon because they publish controversial authors" that would be totally fine. I honestly don't have trouble with referring to this as "attempted censorship" except that lots of people have this connotation of "censorship" as being always and definitionally bad, whereas I think that should mostly just apply when governments do it by law rather then when private entities do it by choice. Because of this nuance, I think the word "censorship" generates more heat than light. I may have less trouble with it if people consistently distinguished between "private censorship" and "legal censorship" (or something like that).
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  Does this mean Spotify is censoring me because it won’t give me a multi-million dollar podcast contract?
  - rhino369 5y ago
    No. And it's not censorship if Spotify doesn't renew Rogan for exclusivity either. But blacklisting people for political beliefs is quintessential censorship. Can't believe that has to be said. Young is asking for him to be banned from Spotify.
    - extra88 5y ago
      Young's objection to being on the same platform as Joe Rogan's podcast is over the podcast spreading of misinformation about vaccines. Misinformation about vaccines are not political beliefs. I'm sure Young also objects to many political beliefs expressed by Rogan's guests, and probably Rogan himself, that's unrelated to what Young did or said.
      - rhino369 5y ago
        Maybe public policy beliefs is the better word for it, but either way, undoubtedly the type of speech meant to be protected. Earnest misinformation cannot be an exception to freedom of speech without throwing away the entire concept. A lot of commonly accepted truths were dismissed as misinformation by the powers that be. It doesn't even work as a practical matter. You get too many false positives--how many CDC facts have been called into question. They've even deliberately lied. Should bigTech have banned people saying masks work in April 2020 and ban people saying they don't in April 2021? And its not effective. At best, you are playing wackamole. And banning people from taking opposing positions just entrenches opposing view points. If Donald Trump successfully lobbied bigTech to censor "misinformation" about covid, would you believe a fucking thing you heard from those sources?
        denton-scratch 5y ago
        > Earnest misinformation cannot be an exception to freedom of speech I agree with this. It is a matter for the audience to decide what speech they will listen to, and how they will evaluate it. It is cause for regret thaat so many people lack the means to evaluate the utterances of crackpots. But you can't start to evaluate it if you haven't heard it; there are "forbidden views" that you won't hear on MSM or the big internet platforms. I'm not a free-speech maximalist. Incitement to hatred or violence is forbidden here, and I'm cool with that. Lying, fakery and distortion are permitted (provided it's not in furtherance of selling stuff), and I'm OK with that too. I'm not OK with a whole swath of views being suppressed without any process. That's not what's happening with Young and Rogan. Rogan has been paid by Spotify for his podcast; if they decide to shut him down, well he has other platforms. And he gets to keep the money. There's no chance he'll be silenced. I'm not OK with the way the word "censorship" is being bandied around here. Once upon a time, when email blocklists started to become popular, spammers accused MSPs of censorship, which was ludicrous. Nobody has a right to use the private property of others to exercise their free speech. You can say what you like, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone, and I don't have to stand next to you on the platform while you say it.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > But its a boycott based on spotify's refusal to engage in censorship. Spotify dropping Rogan would not have been censorship: Rogan would have been able to continue talking as much as he wanted, just like he was before his deal with Spotify.

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.
- rhino369 5y ago
  >Actually it pretty much is, or at least is limited to the area of "force". Freedom of speech is a principle--not the bare minimum allowable under the first amendment. You don't agree with the principle of freedom of speech if you support shunning from debate anyone who holds an opinion you disagree with. That said, you don't have to agree with the principle of free speech. And the freedom of speech / association gives you the right to shun people. But your behavior is contrary to the principle of freedom of speech.
  - sanderjd 5y ago
    This isn't true because shunning opinions is its own kind of speech. I think it is better captured as "freedom of association" but these are two sides of the same coin. People who see themselves as like free speech maximalists, beyond just being against the limitation of speech by government force, always seem to ignore this part.
    - rhino369 5y ago
      I literally explained how its speech but against the principle of free speech--and you just cherry picked around the explanation. Hardly ignoring it. Statement and actions that are against freedom of speech are still allowed under freedom of speech. That's not some GOTCHA against the freedom of speech. Young should be allowed to do what he's doing. But he should fully expect to be called a censoring blacklister.
      - sanderjd 5y ago
        I didn't cherry pick. What you're saying here just doesn't really make sense. It isn't "against freedom of speech" to exercise your own freedom of association.
        rhino369 5y ago
        Obviously you can speak against freedom of speech. The freedom of speech would allow that speech (and nobody is saying Young should be prevented from what he is doing). But you'd still be advocating censorship. You can join a political group advocating for censorship. That's attempted censorship even if its allowed under freedom of speech. So yes, you can exercise your freedom of speech to speak against freedom of speech. There is no contradiction.
calciphus 5y ago
This is a confusing take on free speech - that not only must anyone host that speech (in this case, Spotify) - but that it is censorship to say "I don't want to be associated with that so I'm choosing to leave"? That is a pretty extreme view of what "free speech" entitles, to the point of significantly restricting the free speech of (in this case) Niel Young to preserve Joe Rogan's. If I walk out of the room because someone is spitting nonsense is that censorship?
- rhino369 5y ago
  There is no association between two artists* because they are both on spotify. It's an open platform meant to have essentially everything available. That is a far cry from performing at the same event or socializing in the same room. I would 100% support Young if that was what he was objecting to. But Young's situation is more like refusing to play on a university that doesn't shun someone he thinks is wrong. That's censorship. *(not sure I'd call Rogan that but for lack of a better word)
  - sanderjd 5y ago
    Spotify is associated with both of these artists, and they are free to remain associated with them or not, and the artists are free to continue to associate with Spotify or not.
    - rhino369 5y ago
      The fact that all parties are allowed to associate with whomever they want does not determine whether Young is engaging in attempted censorship. If the Catholic Church organized a boycott of Amazon unless decided to de-platform controversial authors that is a clear example of censorship.
      - sanderjd 5y ago
        Maybe so, but if the Catholic church said "we're not publishing our books on Amazon because they publish controversial authors" that would be totally fine. I honestly don't have trouble with referring to this as "attempted censorship" except that lots of people have this connotation of "censorship" as being always and definitionally bad, whereas I think that should mostly just apply when governments do it by law rather then when private entities do it by choice. Because of this nuance, I think the word "censorship" generates more heat than light. I may have less trouble with it if people consistently distinguished between "private censorship" and "legal censorship" (or something like that).
amanaplanacanal 5y ago
Does this mean Spotify is censoring me because it won’t give me a multi-million dollar podcast contract?
- rhino369 5y ago
  No. And it's not censorship if Spotify doesn't renew Rogan for exclusivity either. But blacklisting people for political beliefs is quintessential censorship. Can't believe that has to be said. Young is asking for him to be banned from Spotify.
  - extra88 5y ago
    Young's objection to being on the same platform as Joe Rogan's podcast is over the podcast spreading of misinformation about vaccines. Misinformation about vaccines are not political beliefs. I'm sure Young also objects to many political beliefs expressed by Rogan's guests, and probably Rogan himself, that's unrelated to what Young did or said.
    - rhino369 5y ago
      Maybe public policy beliefs is the better word for it, but either way, undoubtedly the type of speech meant to be protected. Earnest misinformation cannot be an exception to freedom of speech without throwing away the entire concept. A lot of commonly accepted truths were dismissed as misinformation by the powers that be. It doesn't even work as a practical matter. You get too many false positives--how many CDC facts have been called into question. They've even deliberately lied. Should bigTech have banned people saying masks work in April 2020 and ban people saying they don't in April 2021? And its not effective. At best, you are playing wackamole. And banning people from taking opposing positions just entrenches opposing view points. If Donald Trump successfully lobbied bigTech to censor "misinformation" about covid, would you believe a fucking thing you heard from those sources?
      - denton-scratch 5y ago
        > Earnest misinformation cannot be an exception to freedom of speech I agree with this. It is a matter for the audience to decide what speech they will listen to, and how they will evaluate it. It is cause for regret thaat so many people lack the means to evaluate the utterances of crackpots. But you can't start to evaluate it if you haven't heard it; there are "forbidden views" that you won't hear on MSM or the big internet platforms. I'm not a free-speech maximalist. Incitement to hatred or violence is forbidden here, and I'm cool with that. Lying, fakery and distortion are permitted (provided it's not in furtherance of selling stuff), and I'm OK with that too. I'm not OK with a whole swath of views being suppressed without any process. That's not what's happening with Young and Rogan. Rogan has been paid by Spotify for his podcast; if they decide to shut him down, well he has other platforms. And he gets to keep the money. There's no chance he'll be silenced. I'm not OK with the way the word "censorship" is being bandied around here. Once upon a time, when email blocklists started to become popular, spammers accused MSPs of censorship, which was ludicrous. Nobody has a right to use the private property of others to exercise their free speech. You can say what you like, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone, and I don't have to stand next to you on the platform while you say it.
throw0101a 5y ago
> But its a boycott based on spotify's refusal to engage in censorship. Spotify dropping Rogan would not have been censorship: Rogan would have been able to continue talking as much as he wanted, just like he was before his deal with Spotify.