5 ms·

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

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).
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  Young didn't pull his music from every platform Rogan used. Just the platform where revenue from Young's music funded Rogan.
  - rhino369 5y ago
    Spotify making money selling Young's music doesn't mean Young's music is "funding" Rogan. Isn't Rogan only on the one platform?
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      Spotify making money from Young's music and giving Rogan $100 million means Young's music and many others funded Rogan. Apple and Amazon have Rogan's comedy specials.

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).
pseudalopex 5y ago
Young didn't pull his music from every platform Rogan used. Just the platform where revenue from Young's music funded Rogan.
- rhino369 5y ago
  Spotify making money selling Young's music doesn't mean Young's music is "funding" Rogan. Isn't Rogan only on the one platform?
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    Spotify making money from Young's music and giving Rogan $100 million means Young's music and many others funded Rogan. Apple and Amazon have Rogan's comedy specials.