Hacker News Reader

Comment by gonehome | Hacker News Reader

Based on the recent Stratechery Neil Young advocates against GMOs which is the “anti-science” position on that issue.

I think independent of my views on Rogan personally this kind of ultimatum to silence someone is just wrong. The free speech position is the principled one.

Spotify wouldn’t be in this position if they weren’t trying to aggregate podcast ownership and ruin the open ecosystem anyway. Still, if I were Spotify the move is to take the free speech position and tell these other people to fuck off (imo).

View on HN

Young and Mitchell pulling their music is literally freedom of speech (free expression). Neil Young can do whatever he wants with his content (speech), just like Rogan. This is competition in the free marketplace of ideas.

You're absolutely entitled to your opinion on these actions and you're free to support Spotify or Young or Mitchell or any combination of the three. But there is no "freedom of speech" side here.

I view it as a freedom of speech issue because one side is advocating for another side to be silenced. These musicians aren’t just pulling their content - they’re trying to use power to shut someone else down. To me that is clearly a freedom of speech issue.

Yeah, for clarity Young and Mitchell are totally within their right to pull their music as an exercise of their speech and I’m fine with that.

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.

It wasn't an ultimatum. Young directed his management to pull his music and explained why.

"I am doing this because Spotify is spreading fake information about vaccines – potentially causing death to those who believe the disinformation being spread by them ... They can have Rogan or Young. Not both."

I read this as if you want me get rid of him, but I’ll paste it here for clarity. Others may see it differently.

You left out the important part. "I want you to let Spotify know immediately TODAY that I want all my music off their platform". Probably he would reconsider if they dropped Rogan. He didn't expect it or ask.

I honestly don’t think that matters? He said pull my music and explicitly said you can have one of us not both.

So he should pull his music and tell no one why?

Imo he shouldn’t pull it.

If he is uncomfortable sharing the platform so wants to remove his music fine, I’d just say that without the “you can’t have both of us” implication.

> Imo he shouldn’t pull it.

Why not?

> If he is uncomfortable sharing the platform so wants to remove his music fine, I’d just say that without the “you can’t have both of us” implication.

The 1st part implies the 2nd.

I don’t think pulling his music is effective in persuading people he wants to persuade (likely this stunt has the opposite effect), but I also think it’s better to engage in good faith than just argue to suppress speech.

You can’t always if the other party won’t engage in good faith, but from what I’ve seen of Rogan he does. Harder with cases like Brett Weinstein where I think engaging is a waste of time imo.

So there’s a pragmatic argument here about getting the outcome you want.

For the latter rather than pulling with a “me or him” framing. It is possible to reaffirm the shared freedom of speech yet saying you disagree and don’t want to share the platform directly (because it indirectly helps fund it). That’s probably what I’d do in that situation.

Not if I understand the chronology correctly. If I understand correctly (and I may not), Young gave his "me or Rogan" statement to Spotify (or maybe indirectly, simply making a public pronouncement). Spotify didn't pull Rogan's content, so a couple of days later, then Young pulled his content off of Spotify.

As I said, my understanding. And I haven't gone groveling through the back news items to prove it. Just my recollection of how I heard it reported over a few days.

Monday Young wrote a letter to his management and posted it on his blog briefly. It was what we quoted. Wednesday Spotify confirmed his music was being removed.

He didn't ask?

This is ridiculously disingenuous. He made an ultimatum, and his position is very clear. This is too obvious to honestly debate. If his desire isn't for Spotify to remove/censor Rogan, I imagine he'll clarify. Because he's blatantly calling for it.

Young told his management to tell Spotify to remove his music. He didn't tell them to negotiate. Is your problem he said why he wanted his music removed?

"I support free speech. I have never been in favor of censorship. Private companies have the right to choose what they profit from, just as I can choose not to have my music support a platform that disseminates harmful information."[1]

[1] https://neilyoungarchives.com/news/1/article?id=Spotify-More...

Why shouldn't they? Forget the names and the details of this situation for a moment.

Spotify is a business that offers a catalog of content for a fee. Their value proposition is that they provide content people want to consume. Perhaps some content has fallen out of favor for some reason. Could be objectionable or just stale, public opinion is always shifting. If someone with more appealing content comes along and says "you have to get rid of that other thing in order to distribute my content" then how is there some moral choice Spotify has to make? They can do anything they want, and as a business they will probably choose based on what will make them money. This is a proxy for doing the thing that best aligns with their customer's interests. It is impossible for any one organization to satisfy everyone's opinions. This is literally the point of freedom of expression.

Well in this specific case a couple of easy reasons.

Rogan’s deal was $100M which is way more money than Young. So if it’s a business move than keeping Rogan is the obvious choice as he provides way more value to Spotify.

I care less about that though and more about the principled position here. In this case I think they’re the same.

And I don't think your principles are sound. We are also participating in a marketplace of ideas. I'm not buying what you are selling. You are free to continue as you are, as am I.

I think private companies/platforms are able to exercise their speech in order to decide who is or isn’t on them.

Keeping or removing Rogan is an exercise of their speech and within their right to decide.

Still, I think it’s generally a bad idea to remove someone because of this kind of pressure. In Rogan’s specific case I also think it would be the wrong decision.

I’m against internet cancel mobs as a general rule.

> Still, I think it’s generally a bad idea to remove someone because of this kind of pressure.

I can't agree with this in general. I can imagine a situation where it may be reasonable so I wouldn't tie my hands. In fact making this decision on a case by case basis is the business Spotify is in.

> In Rogan’s specific case I also think it would be the wrong decision.

Sure but that's just this case, it's not a fundamental question of freedom of expression. This is what I mean when I say "there is no freedom of speech position". Literally everyone involved including Spotify, Rogan, Young, Mitchell, you, me, and anyone who reads and decides to reply or not is exercising their right to free expression.

In a strictly technical sense I agree.

In a practical sense, one side is arguing to suppress someone’s ability to speak/express themselves via a popular platform and one side is not.

We are triggering HN's flamewar algorithm so this is my last reply. I have not argued the merits of this case at all. I don't really care about it to be honest. You supported your opinions on this case in terms of being in favor of freedom of speech. I don't think that is a sound framing. You have stated opinions as is your right, that doesn't mean whoever disagrees with you opposes freedom of speech in any way.

> Why shouldn't they?

"I will not defend your opinion, but I will defend your right to express it." Something along those lines.

With these actions,Joni and Neil are saying: "I will not defend your right to express them, in fact I will try to stop you from expressing it."

> Why shouldn't they?

"I will not defend your opinion, but I will defend your right to express it." Something along those lines.

With these actions,Joni and Neil say: "I will not defend your right to express them, in fact I will try to stop you from expressing it."

Of course anyone who believes in freedom of speech would agree that Young and Mitchell have the right to pull their music. That doesn’t change the fact that one can disagree with that decision.

> That doesn’t change the fact that one can disagree with that decision.

Obviously, but that's not the topic at hand.

> I were Spotify the move is to take the free speech position

There is no "free speech position". Spotify, Rogan, Young, and Mitchell are all exercising their right to free expression here.

Using leverage in an attempt to convince a business to silence someone else...

is not an argument for free expression.

It's free expression arguing against allowing others to exercise free expression.

>There is no "free speech position".

Who is Rogan trying to silence?

Spotify didn't give into demands to censor.

Those are free speech positions.

Why not? I can say "dang should ban beerandt or I will stop posting" (I don't believe this and I am not making such a claim). dang can do whatever he wants in response, including nothing at all. HN is free to downvote me or say they disagree, or not. That's the competitive marketplace of ideas. If you offer something unappealing it will fail.

> Spotify didn't give into demands to censor.

Censorship is a loaded term in conversations about freedom of speech, especially in the United States. IMHO Spotify, Young, Mitchell and Rogan are incapable of censorship in the first amendment sense because they are not government entities.

>I can say "dang should ban.."

It is your free expression to make that argument, but the argument itself is against free expression.

>incapable of censorship

That's a mighty narrow definition of censorship. (I didn't say government censorship or even mention the 1st amendment.)

What is it that you would call Young's implied request to Spotify, if not an ultimatum to censor? Especially given the context that his demand is founded on opposing the content of Rogan's speech, and that he is attempting to leverage an authoritative power (Spotify) to unilaterally remove Rogan's published media and prevent it's distribution.

Sure there is; Young and Mitchell have made an active decision to shutdown their own speech or the speech of another. The difference is taking an action against another vs taking an action against yourself.

I am sure that you will agree that determining your own outcome is freedom but forcing an outcome for others is oppression.

They are not shutting down their speech. They are exercising it by choosing who to associate with. The first amendment does not protect you from the actions of other private parties, it protects you from the government. I realize this is a cliche but it is critical to understand. Freedom of speech means you can say "I don't like what that person says and they shouldn't say it." And everyone else is free to agree with you or not.

> The first amendment does not protect you from the actions of other private parties, it protects you from the government.

Nobody in this thread was talking about the First Amendment. The concept of freedom of speech is much broader than its particular realization in US constitutional law.

Fair enough. I do not believe anyone is or should be entitled to an audience. I do not believe anyone is obligated to speak.

Yes there is. Young and Mitchell should argue their position on its merits, not throw a hissy fit and take their toys and go home.

They are arguing their position on its merits. This case is being tried in the court of public opinion.

> Young and Mitchell pulling their music is literally freedom of speech (free 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?

What evidence is there Young or Mitchell would deny Rogan the right to pull his podcast from any platform with their music?

None. But no one is making that claim.

> None. But no one is making that claim.

They did.

> But, I will never stand behind people wanting to deny him the exact rights they're exercising. Young and others are doing exactly that.

You are half right! (I didn't write the text you challenged). But I did misread the OP's comments. He does make that claim. Clearly Joe could pull his content if he wanted.

pseudalopex is just being a pedant - op clearly meant that Young can use Spotify and Rogan is not trying to stop that.

> But there is no "freedom of speech" side here.

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.

Young wasn't trying to remove Rogan's music. He was exercising his positive liberty, to act as he wanted: which was to not be on a platform with people he perceived as ultra-shitty & socially-ruinous.

Young had (nearly) no expectation of causing change. There's a possibility he thought this really would, right now, have enacted change, but I highly doubt he was so deluded. Young simply knew he couldn't be party to such a system, and said he was unwilling to remain affiliated with it in it's current dangerous fallen state.

> Young wasn't trying to remove Rogan's music.

I very much disagree. We could be a bit more accurate/pedantic by saying "he's trying to mount pressure to remove Rogan's podcast from Spotify" instead, but that doesn't change much.

> not be on a platform with people he perceived as ultra-shitty & socially-ruinous.

I cancelled my Spotify a long time ago, but I don't think it's much of a social platform. If you don't want to interact with Rogan, you simply can. I think you could even mute an artist, so Spotify wouldn't even suggest their content to you.

whether or not Spotify is a social platform is irrelevant. Young didn't want to be involved with a business so directly supporting & fostering his/our worlds foes.

Imagine a TV network hosting a show called neo-nazis throwing eggs at Jews at 8pm, and then you at 9pm for an important discussion on your favourite subject.

You’d have every right to rethink your association with that platform, and demand they not air the neo-nazis if they want to have you on.

This is not about free speech. It’s about freedom of association. You can’t force Neil Young to be associated with Joe Rogan if he doesn’t want to, and you can’t argue he doesn’t have a right to tell Spotify they can’t have both of them.

> You're absolutely entitled to your opinion on these actions and you're free to support Spotify or Young or Mitchell or any combination of the three. But there is no "freedom of speech" side here.

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.

> (how many decades ago were they culturally relevant?)

We're talking about them now.

> threats

They didn't threaten. Young directed his management to remove his music. Mitchell said she decided to remove hers. Is your problem they said why?

> We're talking about them now.

Not as artists that have anything currently to say, though. We're talking about them as people who are trying to keep someone else from talking.

> Not as artists that have anything currently to say, though. We're talking about them as people who are trying to keep someone else from talking.

We're talking about them as people who just said something.

Young sold half his music rights for $150 million last year. He signed a deal with SiriusXM within days after he left Spotify. Mitchell won a Grammy in 2016 and was nominated this year. Their music continued to be relevant to someone obviously.

[deleted]

> Please read what I wrote again. I said Mitchell & Young were entirely free to participate in Spotify or not.

I didn't say you didn't.

> I'll leave it up to you to decide if that constitutes a threat.

It doesn't. A threat is an signal of intent before an action. Young jumped to the action.

I was wrong and stand corrected: it is not a threat.

What Young said is more of an opening offer of a quid pro quo.

The overall point I was making stands, that freedom of speech (both the legal protection and the ethical principle) does not extend to coercive speech like it does to persuasive and expressive speech.

If some artist simply said, "Take my music off of Spotify because I have no confidence in the platform," then that would clearly be fully protected. If another said, "Spotify has until Feb 1 to remove Joe Rogan, or I'm pulling my catalog until they do," I think that'd be a lot more risky, especially if the artist had prominence.

What Young said was more of a parting.

Tortious interference requires the defendant's conduct was illegal in some other way apparently. In California at least.[1]

[1] https://www.bonalaw.com/insights/legal-resources/what-are-th...

> But there is no "freedom of speech" side here.

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.

Money. Money is the most important thing in this discussion. Spotify is not merely providing information in the classical sense, they have decided to massively invest in Joe Rogan. To signal that their podcasting efforts are centred around his dangerous entertainment product. It’s absolutely reasonable to consider this bad form, and wish for Spotify to revise.

Would we have this discussion about free speech if Spotify invested 100 million in a neo-nazi? No, we’d be appalled about the money.

It’s always about the money.

That's a very good point.

My understanding of the GMO debate is that there are two kinds of GMO development: there's GMO for the purposes of making crops themselves hardier, more nutritious, etc., and then there's GMO for the purposes of making crops more resistant to novel pesticides, herbicides, etc. The agricultural industry likes to conflate the two, since the latter is much harder to defend.

I have no idea what Neil Young actually believes (and I don't especially care), but I do know that it's possible to be pro-GMO (or even just neutral) in the first sense and anti-GMO in the latter sense. And that's the position that I've seen otherwise scientifically informed people take.

(This is ignoring some other reasonable responses, such as "what do GMOs have to do with Spotify?" and "why do you think that being anti-GMO makes you anti-science?", but there are only so many hours in the day.)

There are also other pro science reasons to be against GMO crops. A couple example. GMO based industrial farms grow monocultures that ultimately reduce the variety of foods people traditionally grew and ate, leading to less varied diets and loss of culture. GMO crops also have yields that are unsustainably high, leading to disruption of water cycles (see Ogalalla aquifer depletion).

If GMO opponents stuck with the slogan "the yields are too high" they would be a lot more respectable. At least it's an honest position to hold.

It has to do with speech, that people often hold stupid positions that are not aligned with the truth but we don’t usually demand that they’re silenced. [0]

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.

Isn' t there another kind of GMO whose sole purpose is IP so farmers can' t reuse seeds from one season to the next ?

Well they're in the seed selling business and make seeds that can survive being sprayed with herbicide. Farmers agree not to save the seed when they purchase them. But no one is forcing them to buy those seeds, they could buy different ones and use different and less effective herbicides. The one guy they drug into court was not only saving them, he was reselling them to other farmers which seems like a straightforward violation of the agreement he signed.

> But no one is forcing them to buy those seeds

This isn't true. Those seeds produce fertile plants that reproduce with plants from surrounding farms and farmers are prevented for saving those seeds. I don't know what you mean by "one guy" as they do it all the time in India from what I've read.

> Those seeds produce fertile plants that reproduce with plants from surrounding and farmers are prevented for saving those seeds.

This isn't true. While they do cross pollinate, farmers aren't being sued for picking up some stray genes, this is a myth.[1][2] They seem like total assholes, but there's no evidence that they're suing people who are accidentally picking up the roundup ready genes. Every case I could find where a farmer claims that, they're able to show that the farmer in question intentionally selected those crops, replanted entire fields with those seeds, and were often selling them to neighbors.

> I don't know what you mean by "one guy"

I'm referring to the famous case in the US that made it's way into a Netflix documentary.

[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/to....

[2] https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/06/01/dissecting-cla...

> Every case I could find where a farmer claims that, they're able to show that the farmer in question intentionally selected those crops, replanted entire fields with those seeds, and were often selling them to neighbors.

As I said, there are many cases in India that it seems you're not aware of [1]. Who would have guessed a multinational corporation would win in court against peasants the world over... It's not just Monsanto either [2].

1. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-monsanto-idUSKCN1P5...

2. https://www.rt.com/news/457812-indian-farmers-pepsico-potato...

Th first article about India not allowing the seed until after people started buying them on the grey market, after Monsanto withdrew an application over a royalty dispute with the Indian government. Monsanto didn't sue any farmer there.

The second article is about farmers intentionally planting the potatoes and refusing to stop as part of a settlement deal that offered them either purchasing contracts or asked them to simply stop.

Neither of these is an example of an agro-tech company suing farmers for accidentally growing patented seeds. Did you read the articles?

> accidentally growing patented seeds

First, that's moving the goalpost. Second, "who would have guessed a multinational corporation would win in court against peasants the world over..." You're just repeating their side of the story.

The whole thing was about who they were actually suing. My original claim was that it’s a myth that they sue people for accidentally planting the seeds. If people choose to illegally buy and plant the patented seeds, then they should expect legal trouble.

I’m not actually a fan of these gene patents, but I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people trying to use them on the cheap then pretending to take an anti GMO stance when they get caught.

> But no one is forcing them to buy those seeds

Oh yes, lobbying, price gouging and all other means to force someone don't exist.

Almost Hobson's choice.

How do lobbying and price gouging make someone plant a seed in their field?

Ever pre-GMO farmers preferred buying hybrid seeds over heirloom for their stability and traits. Nothing has changed in this way with GMO's.

That's a contractual agreement made when buying the seeds.

Neil Young doesn't have a GMO podcast nor any kind of political show on Spotify, nor is opposition to GMO technology an immediate grave threat to public health. Your point is completely irrelevant.

> nor is opposition to GMO technology an immediate grave threat to public health

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.

TBH I can't blame people for being weary of GMO in general after the decades of pumping people full or garbage hormones and whatever else

it's a trust issue not a "science" one

GMO crops are exactly not "garbage hormones", and people consume them all of the time without complaint. I don't see anyone picketing the yogurt cases in their local super markets. Lot's of hormones survive intact through digestion and can enter the blood stream, but your body doesn't absorb the genetic material of food[1]. DNA is fragile and it's really hard to get foreign DNA into a cell, much less the nucleus. Our cells evolved a lot of specific defenses to prevent that. This is why DNA vaccines are so hard to develop and administer. Conflating things like rbST or rBGH in milk with novel genes in corn is nothing but scientific illiteracy.

TL;DR it's really hard to get DNA into eukaryotic cells (yours) and you definitely can't do that with food.

[1]https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170223102128.h...

you misunderstand

> Conflating things like rbST or rBGH in milk with novel genes in corn is nothing but scientific illiteracy.

Yeah, so what? Nobody said anything else. It's still "a trust issue not a 'science' one", because most people are scientifically illiterate and probably always will be. To make a majority trust science (again [?]) in stead of distrusting it will have to be done by some other means than educating everyone into scientists.

>nor is opposition to GMO technology an immediate grave threat to 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.

here is why people don't like GMOs. it has nothing to do with the genetic modification. it is due to the rationale by which GMOs are used in the US, which are exactly: 1. to allow much greater use of herbicides 2. to allow much greater use of pesticides 3. to allow seeds to be patented and subject to license fees such that control of the food supply is handed over to multinational corporations.

now you can get into debating that glyophosphate is just fine and you could just drink a whole jar of it no problem (yeah right) and all that, you could get into how it's just fine if there's no more seeds available to humanity that don't come with license fees, but that's what the actual debate is about.

> The free speech position is the principled one.

He will still have his free speech off Spotify. Don’t confuse freedom of speech with freedom of promotion.

fReeDoM oF sPeeCh is so ridiculous but 10x in this situation. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, this has to do with not backing a platform that is ok with misinformation. Rogan isn't a guy that wants all sides heard, he's just trying to get even more rich than he currently is. He knows his audience and he caters to them no matter the ethical cost.

Neil Young doesn't want to be associated with it. This is as much about freedom of speech as Fox News cutting off people who go off agenda.

Free speech? On a platform that is explicitly designed for profit? Despite knowing the story about how wealth and money works and how class mobility is essentially non existent?

Americans and American-lite people have just adopted this weird view on free speech that doesn't really make sense when you actually realize it's all about wealth and money.

> which is the “anti-science” position

Young didn't justify his position with some appeal to science in the abstract, so not sure what this point is but whataboutism.

can't tell from your post - are you OK with major platforms publishing vaccine disinformation? Overall is that good for society?

Whether you are or not, is it ok for people to decide to peace out from that platform and move to another one, based on their own beliefs?

Don't see where any silencing is occurring at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com