Hacker News Reader

It’s completely wild to me that anything other than what you’ve said here would be a common view.

Spotify is totally free to bankroll Joe Rogan. Others are equally free to feel that this is a bad decision, to criticise it, and to withdraw support in the form of subscriptions or platform participation because they don’t want to contribute to it. Support for freedom of speech does not come with a requirement to support or share a platform with any particular example of speech.

Spotify can make a decision about what has more value to them in the long term. Subscribers and content producers can decide if funding and promoting Rogan is a dealbreaker for them. Thats’s all this comes down to - a business decision.

Personally the real crime here is that this has become an issue at all - thanks to Spotify’s frankly desperate attempt to become something other than a music streaming service. I have at no point been interested in Spotify providing podcasts; it’s already an active anti-feature for me, so “now we give some of your subscription to this asshole!!” isn't going to do much than tip me further in the direction of moving to another service.

This is exactly the way I feel. The best way I heard this described just today was by Anthony Fantano on his Twitch stream, where he said that a music streaming service just shouldn’t be in the news this much. That is spot on in my opinion - too much controversy for nothing.

I have never listened to podcasts on Spotify and never will, I use the podcasts app for this and it works quite well for me. I would have been very happy for Spotify to be a music streaming service with a killer app and better support for artists (hell I’d even pay another $5 a month for this, I tried Tidal as I think they pay artists well but I found their app to just not be as good as Spotify’s). As it stands, Joe Rogan makes millions of dollars from his deal with Spotify, while most artists I listen to will probably make pocket money - certainly not nearly enough to make a living, especially during a pandemic when touring is so difficult.

Ultimately I think Joe Rogan isn’t going anywhere unless he sees the writing on the wall and decides to take his millions and build his own platform. Frankly, it means nothing to me - I think it would be great if he stopped bringing on guests who routinely lie about the pandemic, but I don’t listen to his podcast so I just don’t care enough to get up in arms about it. But I absolutely reject the idea that this is censorship and I call it out when I can - deplatforming isn’t censorship, and he isn’t even being deplatformed.

The music industry has exactly been this controversial and a battle ground over difficult free speech issues in my lifetime.

Frank Zappa vs Tiper Gore for instance.

This however is a business dispute. Zappa vs Gore, as well as the rest of the sick legacy of PMRC, was absolutely an issue of government overreach and real censorship. If this particular case should ever require a senate hearing then I’ll be shocked.

(Luckily for those of us growing up around this time, the ‘Parental Advisory’ sticker basically became a label of good taste - if it’s got that sticker, it might ge worth listening to.)

> Spotify is totally free to bankroll Joe Rogan. Others are equally free to feel that this is a bad decision, to criticise it, and to withdraw support in the form of subscriptions or platform participation because they don’t want to contribute to it. Support for freedom of speech does not come with a requirement to support or share a platform with any particular example of speech.

People understand distrinction between 'using your freedom to pursue your happiness' and 'using your freedom in order to punish someone'. Some action can be both 'exercising your liberty to free association' and 'using economic power to oppress others'.

Neil Young tried to censor Joe Rogan by telling Spotify "if you don't kick him off of your platform, then I'm leaving it". Thankfully, Spotify has a spine, so the censorship attempt failed.

That’s not censorship.

You are splitting hairs here, but if you want to be pedantic, it's technically extortion with them aim of getting someone censored.

Censorship is the suppression of speech. Neither Neil Young nor Joni Mitchell are advocating for this.

‘Extortion’ is a concept in criminal law. Unless Rogan takes them or Spotify to court, it’s entirely moot whether this is extortion - but he would have a tenuous argument, as neither of them have coerced Spotify to do anything.

This isn’t splitting hairs or pedantry. It is simply stating facts. While stating the fact of the matter might not be as trite as the GP of your comment calling it ‘censorship’, it is no less correct.

> Censorship is the suppression of speech. Neither Neil Young nor Joni Mitchell are advocating for this.

Neil Young and Joni Mitchell both wanted Spotify to suppress Joe Rogan's speech.

Extortion: the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.

Neil Young made a threat to obtain something - the removal of Joe Rogan from Spotify. The term "extortion" isn't limited to criminal law any more than censorship is limited to government action.

You are indeed splitting hairs and being pedantic. You are more worried about the exact technical wording (vs common usage and connotation) rather than the actual point of the debate.

Young told his management to tell Spotify to pull his music. No if.[1]

[1] https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/neil-youngs-sp...

It's not that these people shouldn't be free to leave this or that platform, it's that they shouldn't want to. It's illiberal to refuse association with someone over a disagreement. It's even worse to try to "deplatform" them. If Joni Mitchell wants to spread some message about public health or vaccinations, she can do so without all these histronics.

Some other things occur to me:

1. It's not like Joe Rogan owes his audience to Spotify.

2. Rogan is not "alt-right". The people who claim that he is are either lying or have adopted a creepy consequentialist mindset wherein someone is "alt-right" if they act in a way that they believe helps the "alt-right". In the latter case, I'm "alt-right" for writing this post.

3. Nothing Rogan says is ever that extreme. Dumb? Sure. But "young, healthy people don't need to get vaccinated" is not extreme. He's a controversial figure because he's a convenient foil for the legacy media.

I don't think anyone is saying Neil Young or Joni Mitchell shouldn't be allowed to do this.

In fact most people on Rogan's side are cheering them on to get their music removed.

People are just saying they are hysterical and childish, and it's ironic how these people were the icons of counter culture 30-40 years ago and now are doing the bidding of the powerful.

People generally don't like hypocrites, and like to point out hypocrisy. That's all.

> I don't think anyone is saying Neil Young or Joni Mitchell shouldn't be allowed to do this.

The GP of your post says that this censorship. Another person who replied to me earlier said that this is immoral and possibly illegal. So no, there are in fact some people who are saying that Young and Mitchell either should not do this or should not be allowed to do this.

> doing the bidding of the powerful.

What a silly idea. There is nothing ironic, hysterical, or childish about people who stood against _real_ oppression (the struggles of the Civil Rights movement, conscription into a liar’s war in Vietnam) refusing to associate 50 years later with a business which provides a platform to people telling tales about _fake_ oppression (antivax sentiment, public health measures). Humour me and tell me more about the powerful figures they are doing the bidding of.

It’s entirely on you if you think there is any hypocrisy here. Maybe you just don’t understand what values were espoused by (some) people in the 60s counter culture. There are counter cultures and counter cultures, and while the counter culture of today in the USA might be simple contrarianism, the same cannot be said for that of the 60s, and there is no straight line from one to the other.

> Humour me and tell me more about the powerful figures they are doing the bidding of.

Let me give you a quote, you can guess who said it. Hint, he also had 3 different views on masks depending on what suited him:

“ When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent. Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, “I can nudge this up a bit,” so I went to 80, 85.”

It takes a special type of ignorance of human nature and history to think that questioning authority is not always something that is important, whether you agree with it or not. I have a lot more respect for liberals like glen greenwald to stand up to authority whoever they are, rather than sing about it for 30 years and then try and shut up someone who’s doing it currently.

Btw there’s nothing childish about the 70s counter culture, good for them at the time. What they are doing now is childish and hypocritical.

I’m stumped, tell me who said this quote.

As for questioning authority: the notion that COVID is more harmful to the elderly than the young is generally true - but then a line is drawn through some alchemy from this to the notion that COVID is not dangerous for most young people, which regardless of how completely dubious a statement it is, still leads to a host of bad public outcomes.

We know that vaccines reduce the incidence of infection and the the severity of infection, and also that masks effectively reduce the incidence of infection. There is a popular sentiment that these things are either generally wrong (or lies), or that they should only apply to people with underlying health conditions making them more susceptible to infection. I don’t agree with the people who claim the latter, but I can’t and wouldn’t say they are lying or being dishonest - it’s a perfectly valid opinion to hold (and after all, it’s not illegal or immoral to be wrong :-) ). It’s the former case which is much more concerning, when people deny or contort the facts to suit their own agenda.

The concerns that people like Neil Young have is that bogus science from bogus professionals is being peddled to large audiences of platforms they share. It is their right to withdraw such association and, if they desire, to give an explanation for doing so. You have to really stretch the issue here to culture-war proportions to make this a matter of pro-government censorship etc.

Fauci.

Here we have someone in a position of authority literally admitting to lying or adjusting figures based on public sentimen.

That is not science. That is politics, and people are literally saying things Fauci and others say about the pandemic are unquestionable. Yet this guy is literally admitting to not telling the truth to manipulate the public.

If I were you I would at least question why you didn’t know about this, and whether trusting public health officials and politicians (on any side) is the truthful and scientific way to live. And why these people want to censor, if they are so right.

I’m interested - pass on a source.

Start here, actual journalists and actual "liberals":

https://taibbi.substack.com

My quote was from here: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-folly-of-pandemic-censorsh...

Also: https://greenwald.substack.com

Your first link appears to be the mouthpiece for Matt Taibbi. I don’t know anything about him, and I appreciate independent investigative journalism, but I hope you expose yourself to more than his work. His substack clearly has an editorial stance towards COVID-19, which I think is generally a good indicator of a non-neutral position on the issue - maybe not ‘bias’ (sometimes you have a particular stance because you have assessed the facts and are generally correct), but if you question authority you should also question the veracity of the statements your independent sources make, especially in this day and age of social media grifters. I haven’t read Greenwald’s work for a long time, for no particular reason.

I really can’t account for Fauci’s statement here - it doesn’t look very good from what I can see, but the context is buried in a NYT article which is behind a paywall for me. Still, it doesn’t directly inform my position here - you can be broadly in favour of particular government policies without being all around the implementation. I think that liberal veneration of Fauci has elevated him to this position where he’s considered a saint for moderates, which is gross - he’s a public health official, nothing more and nothing less; the obsession with a public hero of the people, especially one who is non-elected, is just wrong, and makes it especially awkward when people inevitably find out that they are imperfect people and imperfect at their job. That being said, I think Trump’s politicisation of the office of a particular public servant was much more significant and repulsive.

I'm not the one not questioning one side.

You've basically admitted fauci has god like unquestionable status, and is lying, yet you still agree with people trying to censor the only large public figure talking to people questioning authority (note he also interviewed CNNs health expert, so both sides, which i listened to and agreed to on many points btw).

I rest my case.

Joe Rohan routinely invites frauds onto his program to lie about COVID-19. Whatever Fauci says is irrelevant here - you’re the one who brought him up, I couldn’t care less.

Rest your case, we’re clearly not going to see eye to eye.

It is so bizarre to believe we have epistemological certainty in what we currently know that anyone should be shut up about anything.

It is literally the feature of our system that lays the golden eggs that there is no such thing as a heretical thought.

Nonsense like qanon are the waste products of 100% open mindedness but you can't have it both ways. You will just end up with endless super hero movies in all realms of thought. A process that is already well under way.

> there are in fact some people who are saying that Young and Mitchell either should not do this or should not be allowed to do this.

It's disingenuous to lump these two things together. There's a bunch of things that people should be allowed to do, but that they shouldn't do.

It wasn’t my intention to lump these two things together and treat them as one in the same. I know that legality and morality are two entirely separate concepts. I just happen to believe he is acting morally within the bounds of law, while others believe he is acting immorally and possibly also illegally. Though I think most of us would agree that ultimately what is most important is the morality of the issue - if the law contradicts this, the law is wrong.

> It’s entirely on you if you think there is any hypocrisy here

I like Neil Young, and I don’t care what he chooses to do with his music. Pull it from Spotify, it’s going to hurt him financially more than hurt his fans, we have already purchased his music. If I can’t stream it, no biggie. If I really want to listen to NY, I’ll dust off the vinyl.

I am sure he has a sincerely held belief that to him that allows him to carve out an authoritarian pro-government exception that satisfies his own moral values. He has done it on a couple of songs.

However, I personally feel like a person who made his fame on anti-authoritarian, free speech, anti-government themes in his art should not be surprised at people drawing a conclusion that he is a hypocrite when he takes a public position that is pro-authoritarian, pro-government, and requesting corporate suppression of another person’s opinion.

You and other people have said that he is being pro-government, pro-authoritarian, doing the bidding of the powerful, etc. - without qualification. But I just don’t see what exactly taking an active stance against misinformation concerning COVID is any of these things. What am I missing here?

Basically he is taking the official US government informational position and the government has gone as far as trying to mandate and force their will regarding the topic. Therefore it has a political and also a corporatist connotation in that there a few companies making billions on the number of vaccines that are distributed and some of those companies despite government help in fast tracking and help financing the development, are holding on to the IP.

Like I said…I don’t care what he does with his art, or whatever his opinion may be on a given subject, but he is literally known for activism and protest…and a focus on freedom, freedom of speech (Literally had a tour called “The Freedom of Speech Tour”), and anti-corporatism. In this case it appears that he attempted to financially force a corporation to silence someone who’s ideas and speech he didn’t like. It’s at the very least thematically out of character for him, and a bit contrary to one of the reasons I was a fan.

In this respect the ‘US government informational position’ appears to be substantially correct. It really makes counter cultural sentiments seem silly if the _cannot_ come to the same conclusions about public health outcomes as government officials lest they be considered pro-government, doesn’t it? Isn’t it more charitable to both Young and Mitchell, as well as many others who might have plenty of grievances with government policy in many areas, to allow the thought that their agreement with a particular policy or policies might be a case if a broken clock?

On more specific issues like a handful of companies benefiting financially from the pandemic … I absolutely agree, but dismissing the entire thing out of hand is really throwing the baby out with the bath water.

No one is silencing anyone. Do you really think Joe Rogan will just disappear if he is dropped from Spotify? He has the reach and means to build his own platform if he really wanted to.

> In this respect the ‘US government informational position’ appears to be substantially correct

Perhaps. The conventional wisdom and majority opinion of the US public in 1968 would have had the same opinion of the Vietnam war. If something happens that shows vaccines to have some as yet unknown long term side effect, in 20 years Rogan could be seen as right for his skepticism. We have already seen some recent pushback on masks and lockdown policies…even from folks on the left. Things can change…and fast.

Honestly I don’t think Spotify is going to do anything to piss off Rogan. His demographic is right in their sweet spot and he can’t go away without a huge cost to them. They are better to just ride it out. They bought him because his listeners are loyal, he goes away and lands on Rumble, so does his listeners.

If I don’t like the deal you made with me, fine, I’ll walk away, that’s negotiation.

If I don’t like the deal you made with someone else, that’s extortion. It might be legal but it’s unethical. IANAL but it might even be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference#Tortious....

Nope, that is perfectly fine. If I work for you, and you decide to contract with the military, I will walk away from the job. Acceptable by any measure. This situation is largely the same.

Why is it unethical? Again, the alternative here is that both Young and Mitchell are forced to maintain an association with Spotify against their will, or change their opinion on Rogan (an opinion which many people share and hold to be correct, regardless of whether they believe Rogan should be able to express himself and allow his guests to express themselves in the way he does - and many also do believe he should). Do you consider any of these things to be more just outcomes? No one is being forced to do anything here, there are just two people laying out the conditions under which they continue their relationship with a third party. Neither Young nor Mitchell have actually made any demands here, they have simply stated that they will not continue their relationship with Spotify while they maintain their present relationship with Joe Rogan. Many things can give here - Spotify could drop Rogan, or detail the conditions under which they maintain their relationship, or nothing might happen and Rogan stays on Spotify while Young and Mitchell do not.

I don’t know or care about the law here, unless someone starts getting litigious then it’s really all naval gazing nonsense - like you said, you are not a lawyer, so I’m not going to entertain your theories on how this might be illegal. This is purely a matter of values - I value freedom of speech, and I also value people being able to freely associate with who they like, and that includes saying to someone that they will not associate with them while they maintain an association with someone else.

The principled way to do this is “I’m leaving indefinitely because I don’t approve of your editorial priorities,” not single out one guy and try to bribe or extort the company into breaking their commitments with him. Only customers en masse should be able to demand a change like this, because the company’s duty is to customers rather than competing vendors.