5 ms·

Are you so sure it’s not due to customers voting with their wallets forcing the change? It’s easier than ever to pick up and leave a streaming service. I downl

Are you so sure it’s not due to customers voting with their wallets forcing the change? It’s easier than ever to pick up and leave a streaming service. I downloaded all my playlists from Spotify and will move to any other streaming service I want to (one which has Neil Young—whom I enjoy). Who are these “pressure groups?” Are they individual musicians and customers? When do individuals morph into these straw men?

CivBase 5y ago
I doubt this has anything to do with "customers voting with their wallets". I suspect it's due to investors realizing the fragility of Spotify's business model - thanks to some (high profile? ish?) artists abandoning them at the drop of the hat - and selling their stocks, resulting in a huge drop in market value. The company has already been steadily and significantly loosing value for the last year, so it probably didn't take much to convince a lot of investors to bail.
coldtea 5y ago
>Are you so sure it’s not due to customers voting with their wallets forcing the change? It’s easier than ever to pick up and leave a streaming service. I don't think people left Spotify because of Joe Rogan, not in any real numbers anyway (and we can see that next they publish their user statistics). It's a few pundits and musicians making a negative publicity fuss... >Who are these “pressure groups?” Are they individual musicians and customers? When do individuals morph into these straw men? You could have written: "I don't believe there are pressure groups involved, just individual musicians and customers". Instead, you opted to insinuate that I disingenuously created some "straw men" (and thus, am not to be trusted, or whatever). How about the principle of charity, and just making your case, instead on shitting on the person you're discussing with? There were never just some individuals and musicians, but also major media calling for cancelling the show again and again, group petitions such as: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/covid-misinformation-joe-rogan-spotify-petition-1282240/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/covid-misi... and even White House statements addressing the JR issue.
- throw_nbvc1234 5y ago
  > and even White House statements addressing the JR issue. Which I think you can argue is a problem (to the original question). Dragging company execs to testify in front of congress about misinformation and then framing any (in)action as monopolistic (during a time of anti-trust inquires) isn't exactly "free market" either. I'm not convinced that influence has fundamentally changed the outcome in the past year but it seems a bit naive to think the government has no influence in these moderation decisions. It's not hard to imagine an example where this would be less defensible; "WH strong disapproves of these 'powerful' tech companies amplifying content that contains misinformation about our justifications to invade Iraq".
  - mattzito 5y ago
    As I pointed out elsewhere, the White House didn’t criticize anyone, they were asked about how they felt about the disclaimer that Spotify had added, and the White House said they were in favor of calling out misinformation and uplifting accurate information. That’s pretty different than how you portrayed it.
- adregan 5y ago
  Apologies if you felt shitted on, but I do believe that you are inventing straw men pressure groups and ignoring the fact that there might be a legitimate organic movement. So I am, in fact, making my case. > It's a few [...] musicians making a negative publicity fuss One thing I'd like to add on this point is that this kind of negative publicity fuss, raised by musicians, can be incredibly powerful. If you aren't familiar with the work and impact of Neil Young, especially songs like "Southern Man" and "Alabama," I encourage you to consider his work. His music likely opened some eyes in the 70s while the American South was still gripped in racist fervor (as someone who grew up in the south, I too was impacted by these songs when I encountered them in the early 2000s). Musicians have the power to influence public opinion. That public opinion is influenced by them does not imply that all influence is the result of a greater agenda.
  - brandall10 5y ago
creaghpatr 5y ago
- adregan 5y ago
  The White House responding over a week after Neil Young made his initial statement implies that they are following the sentiment rather than leading it does it not?
- mattzito 5y ago
  The White House said nothing about taking joe rogan podcasts down: Q Sure. Last week, the Surgeon General also was asked on MSNBC about Joe Rogan’s vaccine comments on Spotify. And he said that tech companies have an “important role to play” in stopping misinformation because he — they are the “predominant places” where misinformation spreads. Spotify is putting out advisory warnings on episodes that have to do with COVID-19. Does the White House and the administration think this is a satisfactory step? Or do you — do you think that companies like Spotify should go further than just, you know, putting a label on there to say, “Hey, go do your own — you know, check this out. You know, there’s more research you can look at — you know, scientific research regarding COVID”? MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, last July, I — you probably know, but the Surgeon General also took the unprecedented step to issue an advisory on the risk of misinformation and public health, which is a very significant step. And amid that, he talked about the role social media platforms have. So our hope is that all major tech platforms — and all major news sources, for that matter — be responsible and be vigilant to ensure the American people have access to accurate information on something as significant as COVID-19. And that certainly includes Spotifly [sic]. So, this disclaimer — it’s a positive step. But we want every platform to continue doing more to call out misinform- — mis- and disinformation while also uplifting accurate information. I mean, look at the facts, right? You are 16 times more likely to be hospitalized if you’re unvaccinated and 68 times more likely to die than someone who is boosted if you’re unvaccinated. That’s pretty significant.
  - TrispusAttucks 5y ago

CivBase 5y ago

I doubt this has anything to do with "customers voting with their wallets". I suspect it's due to investors realizing the fragility of Spotify's business model - thanks to some (high profile? ish?) artists abandoning them at the drop of the hat - and selling their stocks, resulting in a huge drop in market value. The company has already been steadily and significantly loosing value for the last year, so it probably didn't take much to convince a lot of investors to bail.

coldtea 5y ago

>Are you so sure it’s not due to customers voting with their wallets forcing the change? It’s easier than ever to pick up and leave a streaming service. I don't think people left Spotify because of Joe Rogan, not in any real numbers anyway (and we can see that next they publish their user statistics). It's a few pundits and musicians making a negative publicity fuss... >Who are these “pressure groups?” Are they individual musicians and customers? When do individuals morph into these straw men? You could have written: "I don't believe there are pressure groups involved, just individual musicians and customers". Instead, you opted to insinuate that I disingenuously created some "straw men" (and thus, am not to be trusted, or whatever). How about the principle of charity, and just making your case, instead on shitting on the person you're discussing with? There were never just some individuals and musicians, but also major media calling for cancelling the show again and again, group petitions such as: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/covid-misinformation-joe-rogan-spotify-petition-1282240/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/covid-misi... and even White House statements addressing the JR issue.

throw_nbvc1234 5y ago
> and even White House statements addressing the JR issue. Which I think you can argue is a problem (to the original question). Dragging company execs to testify in front of congress about misinformation and then framing any (in)action as monopolistic (during a time of anti-trust inquires) isn't exactly "free market" either. I'm not convinced that influence has fundamentally changed the outcome in the past year but it seems a bit naive to think the government has no influence in these moderation decisions. It's not hard to imagine an example where this would be less defensible; "WH strong disapproves of these 'powerful' tech companies amplifying content that contains misinformation about our justifications to invade Iraq".
- mattzito 5y ago
  As I pointed out elsewhere, the White House didn’t criticize anyone, they were asked about how they felt about the disclaimer that Spotify had added, and the White House said they were in favor of calling out misinformation and uplifting accurate information. That’s pretty different than how you portrayed it.
adregan 5y ago
Apologies if you felt shitted on, but I do believe that you are inventing straw men pressure groups and ignoring the fact that there might be a legitimate organic movement. So I am, in fact, making my case. > It's a few [...] musicians making a negative publicity fuss One thing I'd like to add on this point is that this kind of negative publicity fuss, raised by musicians, can be incredibly powerful. If you aren't familiar with the work and impact of Neil Young, especially songs like "Southern Man" and "Alabama," I encourage you to consider his work. His music likely opened some eyes in the 70s while the American South was still gripped in racist fervor (as someone who grew up in the south, I too was impacted by these songs when I encountered them in the early 2000s). Musicians have the power to influence public opinion. That public opinion is influenced by them does not imply that all influence is the result of a greater agenda.
- brandall10 5y ago

creaghpatr 5y ago

adregan 5y ago
The White House responding over a week after Neil Young made his initial statement implies that they are following the sentiment rather than leading it does it not?
mattzito 5y ago
The White House said nothing about taking joe rogan podcasts down: Q Sure. Last week, the Surgeon General also was asked on MSNBC about Joe Rogan’s vaccine comments on Spotify. And he said that tech companies have an “important role to play” in stopping misinformation because he — they are the “predominant places” where misinformation spreads. Spotify is putting out advisory warnings on episodes that have to do with COVID-19. Does the White House and the administration think this is a satisfactory step? Or do you — do you think that companies like Spotify should go further than just, you know, putting a label on there to say, “Hey, go do your own — you know, check this out. You know, there’s more research you can look at — you know, scientific research regarding COVID”? MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, last July, I — you probably know, but the Surgeon General also took the unprecedented step to issue an advisory on the risk of misinformation and public health, which is a very significant step. And amid that, he talked about the role social media platforms have. So our hope is that all major tech platforms — and all major news sources, for that matter — be responsible and be vigilant to ensure the American people have access to accurate information on something as significant as COVID-19. And that certainly includes Spotifly [sic]. So, this disclaimer — it’s a positive step. But we want every platform to continue doing more to call out misinform- — mis- and disinformation while also uplifting accurate information. I mean, look at the facts, right? You are 16 times more likely to be hospitalized if you’re unvaccinated and 68 times more likely to die than someone who is boosted if you’re unvaccinated. That’s pretty significant.
- TrispusAttucks 5y ago