It's the only sane decision to be made. I wonder if Neil Young actually listened to the podcast episode. I really doubt it.
But yeah, it's the only sane decision not to let one content creator strong arm you into booting other content creators he doesn't like.
I don't care if you're right or wrong (because he is right, Rogan is misinformation these days), but you don't get to control who gets to say what.
One difference is that in the case of Young and most other content creators on Spotify, their content is available all over the place. Spotify pays them royalties based on how many people listen to it on Spotify.
If Young were saying that he didn't want his music on Spotify unless they dropped, say, Nickleback that would just be ridiculous because Spotify isn't doing anything special with Nickleback. They didn't specifically chose to have Nickleback, and if Nickleback gets any money from Spotify it is proportional to how many people choose to listen that way.
With Rogan, Spotify has paid him in advance to make his content exclusively for Spotify. There's a much closer relationship between Rogan and Spotify than between Nickelback and Spotify.
Of course you do! If you have more leverage and power than the person you’re trying to silence, then you get to silence them.
See: Nearly every cop who killed an innocent person up until about the last 5 years.
It’s naive to think that if a person with enough power wants to censor me, they won’t be able to accomplish it. Accept it as the way of the world.
Yeah. And it turned out Young didn't have more leverage in this case.
$0.004 per play
https://www.makeuseof.com/how-much-spotify-pay-per-stream/
~6M monthly listeners
https://www.newsweek.com/spotify-unlikely-drop-joe-rogan-ove...
$24k/month
~$300k/year
Not sure how much goes directly to Neil and how much of a cut the record label gets.
Neil Young’s net worth is ~$200M
https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/rock-s...
So, he’s losing about 0.15% of his net worth as a result.
Or, if he had a $100k/year salary, about $150 before taxes, maybe around $75 after taxes.
> Several things come into play for Spotify artist payouts like the listener's subscription tier and country of origin, the number of streams a song has, advertising revenue per market, and distribution contracts.
> In a tweet, classical violinist Tasmin Little with 755,000 monthly subscribers has disclosed earning £12.34 ($17) for five to six million streams.
The only way we'll know is if they release the information, and my guess is that neither party will do so publicly. I would guess $2k/mo. but I could be wrong. This is still pretty good considering there are multiple streaming platforms.
Just checking out Neil Young on YouTube Music he has only approx 440k subscribers, vs someone like Jason Mraz with 3.4M. I am guessing that the numbers on Spotify are likely skewed by a bit as well.
People having open discussions with people I don't like and disagree with is "giving a platform" and must be punished.
You can refer to almost any political talk radio, any hosted segments on cable TV news networks and any opinion piece in the newspaper for starters. Almost no fact checking and incredibly biased, or downright misinformation.
Think about what you’re saying: No open discussion can possibly contain misinformation. That’s certainly not true by any stretch of the imagination. That fact that a statement is made in public doesn’t make it true.
That is not what I'm saying. I am opposed to the boiling down of a non-establishment discussion podcast to the singular word "misinformation. Just as I'm sure the commenter I replied to would object if I referred to any news source he cited - NYT, WaPo, WSJ, CDC, FDA, etc. - and defined it simply as "misinformation".
The word in and of itself is misinformation, typically meant to steer people away from reading, hearing, and seeing information they don't like. And it shouldn't be tolerated. We as a society need to start fostering open discussion of topics and viewpoints that the establishment and its followers doesn't like or approve of.
Right, but they are calling some of the specific content misinformation. The fact that it’s an open discussion on a non-establishment podcast is irrelevant to the content being verifiable or reliable or rational.
And no, we don’t need more open discussions about every single viewpoint, regardless of feasibility. Just being anti-establishment doesn’t mean you have something worth saying or sharing. You need to have a little more substance than just doubting the establishment for the sake of doubting the establishment.
If you doubt the vaccine efficacy because you’re a virologist and have a theory that can be tested or a question about the research or development process that the establishment can’t answer adequately, great, let’s get that view out there. If you doubt the vaccine efficacy because doing so gets you attention from Rogan’s ~11M listeners per episode, or because you just want to challenge the establishment then sorry, you’re not adding value to the national conversation.
Joe rogan claiming that Texas won’t give vaccines to obese elderly white people because he knows one person that was denied. Denies official source. https://youtu.be/tR0bO1KKl60
Joe Rogan saying young healthy adults don’t need the vaccine because his two children didn’t have bad symptoms https://mobile.twitter.com/AlexPattyy/status/138707714515606...
Some of the recent data on the risk factors for myocarditis in young people (particularly males) is, however, at the very least, interesting. I’m not a doctor, biologist or immunologist though, so I don’t have any reason to suggest anything regarding vaccine use in young adults either way.