Edit: Too late now to save myself from downvote land, but I just spoke poorly. I meant it shouldn't be tolerated in the form of Spotify acquiescing to the demands. Obviously the artists can do whatever they want.
[0] Kind of
Pulling their music from Spotify is speech. Why can they _not_ do it? What makes what they are doing a "horrible precedent"?
Both of them simply asserted their right not to share a platform with someone they believe is doing significant harm. They owe him and their (Spotify's) customers nothing in particular.
It'll either work out for them and they'll get what they want, or it won't.
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.
There are plenty of examples through history of mass speech overturning things.
And there are plenty of boycotts organised by both left and right wing media the world over.
In the last four or five years, Trump urged boycotts of MLB, Coke, Goodyear, AT&T, Delta, JP Morgan Chase, Viacom, Merck, Cisco the NFL.
Trump _supporters_ (major and minor) have urged boycotts of Meetup, Nike, Nordstrom, Starbucks, Netflix, Pepsi, Nabisco, Anheuser Busch, Amazon, Ben & Jerry's, Apple, Ford, Bank of America... and Tucker Carlson is currently nursing very public hurt feelings about anthropomorphic chocolate CGI characters.
This stuff happens. It's how change of all kinds happens. It shouldn't be surprising if it is aimed at Joe Rogan, since he's so fond of being outspoken.
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?
https://nassimtaleb.org/2016/08/intolerant-wins-dictatorship...
About Neil Young not being willing to participate along with other people, I would appreciate more Neil Young to go to participate with people and counter-argumenting their ideas with words, instead of being a little kid acting like "Gne gne gne I don't want to talk to you, teacher please can you send him out of the class?", I mean we're adult and capable of expressing complex ideas and counter-arguments, there's no need to running away, imho, but he's free all he wants to be a kid, just let's not consider him a paladine of anything
These artists are attempting to use pressure to silence someone else. That's 100% a "free speech" issue.
Quoted word by word from the article: "Last Monday, Young announced that he had asked his management and record label to remove his music from Spotify in protest of the streaming service's decision to host Joe Rogan's podcast"
If that doesn't mean that he wants to ban Joe Rogan from spotify, then what does it mean?
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.
If you create your own newspaper, Spotify or YouTube you also control its editorial policy (what gets selected for publication, what gets taken down). But you can not demand that the New York Times, Spotify or Google change their editorial policy to let you publish your views. Access is a privilege, not a right.
What Young is doing here is calling in question Spotify's editorial policy for giving Rogan such a visible position on the platform. He is within his rights to do so. IF Spotify had removed Rogan instead, Rogan would need to find a new publisher but his FoS would not have been violated at any point.
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.
“This doctor was saying ivermectin is 99 percent effective in treating Covid, but you don’t hear about it because you can’t fund vaccines when it’s an effective treatment”
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/covid-misi...
No responsible doctor said that -- it's a two-part untruth. First off, there's not the evidence to support the 99% claim. Second, it's not really particularly evident that an effective treatment for a disease has much impact on a search for a vaccine; there are effective treatments for HIV but the search for a vaccine continues, for example.
It's dangerous to make claims like that without evidence.
Bonus content:
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/joe-rogan-...
(Artists in physical media can still distribute their work across many galleries - or "platforms")
I do not condone censorship and I’m more concerned about the surgeon general suggesting that Spotify should censor Joe Rogan but these actions are also falling in the lines of free expression, which should be protected.
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.
For example, there are a number of artists who seem to glorify killing police. Should we consider it normal that big time artist XYZ would feel the need to remove their music from the service? Yes, it would be their right (I don't think anyone disputes that)... but... is that a good cultural trend?
To my eyes, this looks more like tribalistic posturing than some sort of principled stand for something.
But to try and answer your question; no, I think it's kind of silly. Someone like Neil Young can only do this sort of thing once and trying to use it to deplatform another entertainer doesn't seem to be the most useful (removing Joe Rogan's podcast or whatever won't make a dent in the cause he supposedly is fighting for) and also not particularly effective unless there is a cataclysm of high profile musicians removing their music from Spotify.
I know less about the plight of farmers being forced to use GM seed, but I am intimately familiar with the decimation of insect life in the last decade.
A couple of old, out of touch rich people throwing a tantrum because they have to share a club with a loud gregarious buffoon that's wildly popular with others.
They are both survivors of childhood polio, making a very timely point about vaccinations.
[downvoted for this? really?]
They are simply deciding that they don't want to share a platform with Joe Rogan. Neil Young made it clear it's an either/or; Spotify went with "or". Their prerogative on both sides.
Yep. They are both Canadian.
I mean, a lot has been said on Rogan's podcast over the years. Not all of it is likely to be correct. Even if we restrict ourselves to considering topics related to the Sars-Cov-2 epidemic, Rogan has spoken to many people, about many aspects of the situation.
I for one, quite enjoy his podcast. He speaks to many, varied very interesting and intelligent people, on range of topics. Politicians, scientists, doctors, special operators, hunters, actors, comedians, philosophers, ethicists.
But Joni Mitchell & Neil Young want Spotify to remove him from Spotify, because they disagree with something (or things) that was said on his podcast? And everyone agrees that this is a sound and reasonable thing?
Free speech all the way around.
Interesting capitalization choice. Intentional?