Joni Mitchell joins Neil Young in protest against Spotify

What I find distasteful is the framing of “Rogan or me” as a way to pressure Spotify to pull Rogan from the platform.

Sure Spotify could do that, but they shouldn’t.

I believe you're arguing semantics here.

When people say "freedom of speech", they're referencing (sometimes unknowingly) hundreds of years of discussion in philosophy, politics, etc. A big part of that debate is whether censorship of so-called "bad" ideas is a good thing or a bad thing for "the public".

One side here is trying to pressure, commercially and via public opinion, a big platform. They're trying to pressure this platform to not publish certain information because it is "bad". Of course they have a right to do so! But I think it should be fairly clear that they are the side that is "against" freedom of speech, because they are literally against Spotify publishing certain information.

What's more, this isn't happening without context. This is happening in a world in which there is a lively debate happening around whether platforms should be liable for content that they allow to be published, in a world in which increasingly people are hesitant to associate with other people for voicing opinions they don't like.

There is. Rogan is not trying to remove Neil Young's music from anywhere.

I've heard this unfruitful line of argument too often recently. Besides being unfruitful, I think it is based on a subtle fallacy/diversion.

The idea of free expression reasonably includes the right to criticize the principle itself. For example, in the US, you absolutely have the legal right to criticize the First Amendment. However, by doing so you would rightly be labelled as being against free expression.

If you like free expression, I think you should be cheering for Spotify and Rogan in this case.

I'm not sure I agree. Young and Mitchell (how many decades ago were they culturally relevant?) are certainly free to participate on Spotify or not. They certainly cannot be forced to. However, if Rogan were booted from Spotify based on their threats (or others), he would certainly be a loser.

Further, if someone demands a second party take some action against a third party by making a quid pro quo threat, that is not clearly protected speech. If the threat involves revealing defamatory information, it constitutes blackmail; if the threat involves criminal harm, it is extortion; and if the threat involves breach of contract, it may be tortious interference, a civil tort. This is not to argue that Mitchell & Young are committing a crime, because they clearly aren't (though they may possibly be perpetrating a civil tort against Rogan depending on his contractual terms with Spotify and their demands), but that threats are not necessarily protected speech in the same category as merely making–or withholding–personal self-expression.

Yes, they can protest. But they can't demand to shut up others (Rogan) which is what they seem to be doing.

Personally, people should double down on their protest, hope others join against Joe Rogan's batshit insane science.

But, I will never stand behind people wanting to deny him the exact rights they're exercising. Young and others are doing exactly that. Isn't it bullying?

The GMO case was an example of a position Young may hold that is likely political and wrong. There are many examples across the political spectrum.

[0] I’d argue this is because as a society we understand the risks here with speech restriction leading to less truth on net.

GMO panic is at the heart of a lot of COVID vaccine refusal, so I think it at least has a somewhat negative effect on public health.

The complete lack of awareness of the hypocrisy is why it's relevant.

If you took crop GMO, got rid of the one-time gene modification, but instead, started growing the unmodified plant...

and then just directly injected those modified genes such that billions of cells began expressing/building proteins from the modified genes...

...you'd end up with almost exactly the mRNA vaccine technology. (Well, if it worked on plants.)

But the 100% plant process that doesn’t rely on in-situ gene transfer or modification is dangerous to grow and eat,

while the viral process that involves intentional gene transfer into human cells, and said cells manufacturing the very part of the virus that makes it so effective at cellular invasion...is unquestionably safe to inject?

That's why opposition to GMO is relevant. It's completely contradictory and heretical to question the science of one while faithfully crusading for the other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

-- On the other hand what does this people want? Like I have 3 shots, I have done whatever the government and science asked, I did the first 2 booster and I've listened to the campaign where they said that it would lead us to be open and live again, then we went again in lockdown closed inside (I'm european), despite the vast majority having the vaccines (85%++), Then there was a third shot, now they're talking about the fourth one, meanwhile people still goes to ICU and people is still dying, and still getting infected (100k a day), I want to understand science and politicians, but at this point can we just like following blindly whatever is said and maybe start asking some questions? Can we start having some doubts about effectiveness of meds and/or measures or we just need to keep silent?

And speaking of parroting, I'll agree that much of what joe and by proxy his guests say is dangerous. Where we disagree is whether or not these things are "untrue" and to whom they are dangerous towards.

Like what? I feel like almost everyone parroting this accusation against Joe Rogan doesn’t actually listen to his podcast.

There’s so much discussion of Joe Rogan and the problem of what he’s actually said is curiously, conspicuously missing from the conversation.

But, that's precisely what Young is not doing. He wants to silence (and deny the FoS) Rogan. That is the distinction that keeps being ignored in this thread and elsewhere.

I wonder if Mr. Young will apply the same moral stringency to the rest of his distributors. I also wonder if his fans are aware of his own unscientific misinformation campaigns in regards to GMO foods.

I think most wonder - where does it end? What heterodox positions are tolerated and which ones aren’t? Especially in the context of something like a broad based music distributor.

They are both survivors of childhood polio, making a very timely point about vaccinations.

[downvoted for this? really?]

He buys a Ubuntu box to host the videos. And now he needs a static IP and a domain name. Are DNS providers considered in association to Joe Rogan's speech if they sell him a domain name?

Seems to be true going by the assumption that DNS providers are tech companies. If so, should the DNS providers decide not to sell Joe Rogan a domain name fearing retribution from other customers, and as a consequence Joe Rogan is practically NOT visible on the internet at all to any reasonable person, isn't that not in the spirit of free speech?

EDIT: I'm being downvoted to oblivion for stating an objective fact. This is unbecoming of HN. I'm out.

I think that is probably right in terms of stuff you can spend. What he probably does care about is relevance and a sense of importance. If you look at anyone with that kind of money, they've got more than they can spend, more than their family and grandchildren can meaningfully spend and yet frequently they don't stop working at their business. One rich guy in Australia a few decades ago made that point and said he considered money from his deals as a substitute for applause.

I strongly doubt Neil Young would be willing to take up a public position that involved a real sacrifice on his part, where he was rejected by the orthodoxy of his tribe. He's had plenty of opportunity to take a strong position and hasn't until this one which will probably lose him very, very few admirers. I could be wrong about that and he could prove me so too.