Regarding the Neil Young–Joe Rogan Spotify Saga
daringfireball.net
daringfireball.net
That’s not exactly a fair interpretation. Neil first asked Spotify to censor Rogan, then removed himself from the platform. Attempting to suppress someone else’s speech is definitely not being pro-free speech, in fact it’s complete opposite.
There's a difference between censoring and enabling.
He's trying to cancel Spotify.
But censorship over dialogue is always a short sighted solution and it turns people from colleagues who disagree into enemies.
There's been a 14 point shift in the United States from Democrat to Republican in the past YEAR.
One of if not the biggest political shift in recorded history since the early 1900s.
And Republicans no longer view Democrats as disagreeing colleagues but as enemies to be eliminated.
Trump is now having some of the biggest crowds in political history.
2022 is republicans are predicted to take over the house and the Senate.
2024 Trump will win again.
All over the country people who believe the election was stolen are running for political office in positions to manage voting.
I personally think the Republicans will make major changes in the political process to ensure their permanent control even if it undermines the foundation of the country.
Our two parties are going to be flavors of Republicanism.
And it will be their right as well.
https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q...
Until it’s the government doing it, it’s not a problem.
Why it has to be mutually exclusive like an XOR operation? In a civilized discourse it is OK to have both points of view present at the same time, so that a listener can listen to one or both or none. By insisting on just one (in whatever context) we diminish our intellectual pursuits. Is it now all about cheap publicity stunts?
A racist is within their rights to publically discuss their views. I will happily argue that that is the way it should be until the heat death of the universe. But, importantly, you will never catch me saying the they're a decent person or they're doing the right thing. Young can be against basic human rights without exceeding the bounds of his own, but being authoritarian is still morally abhorrent.
Refusing to participate is far from being "authoritarian".
By that measure, any scientist refusing to engage with a crook, would be labeled as a fascist, when there are very good reasons for him or her not to do so.
It's a moral condemnation. It also can mean someone using authority to coerce people.
I agree with you that Neil Young ought not to be accused of either of these. He obviously has the moral right to control his own creations. He obviously doesn't have the authority to get rid of Rogan, based on what just happened. He obviously doesn't have the power to completely shut up Rogan.
However, what seems true to me is that he disagrees with actions and speech of other people and has chosen not to try to convince them of his opinions through speech, but to fight them by other means.
This fact pattern seems to me like a possible definition of "authoritarian" that some people could be using, without the other baggage.
If Neil Young pulled his music from Spotify on a whim, sure, he "refused to participate". That's not what happened. Neil Young leveraged his art to limit the someone else's basic right to self-expression. If someone refused to put music on Spotify because Spotify has Jewish musicians on their platform, would we call them an antisemite, or would we say, "there's no obligation to put your music anywhere, so that's fine"?
You may want to look into what the term "authoritarian" actually means.
>favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.
So I'll ask that you do a little work and point me at the definition you'd prefer.
These musicians aren't bullies, and they aren't doing anything like that. They're just saying "if your platform presents an image we don't like, or conducts itself in way that appears genuinely harmful to others -- we're not going to lend our credibility to it."
That's all. And it is perfectly within their free speech rights to do so.
But morally, it goes against free speech and aligns with fascism.
Spotify choosing to end their contract with Joe Rogan over this wouldn't infringe on his free speech. Having the right to say whatever you want doesn't mean any given company needs to let you broadcast it on their platform.
>Spotify choosing to end their contract with Joe Rogan over this wouldn't infringe on his free speech. Having the right to say whatever you want doesn't mean any given company needs to let you broadcast it on their platform.
It's not government censorship, but it's still censorship.
Freedom of speech as a concept isn't just limited to the first amendment.
No, it's free speech, not censorship. Freedom of association, choosing NOT to say something, to NOT spend your own (including your organization's own) private resources supporting something, and advocating others don't either, is itself integral to Free Speech. You can't support a specific stance without NOT supporting all the ones opposed to it. And the idea isn't just to howl into the wind, it's to convince the rest of us hooting apes about it too! Free Speech is inherently a social endeavor to convince other minds which will result in their altering their behavior (including how they allocate their personal resources and power). You don't need it alone on an island.
>Freedom of speech as a concept isn't just limited to the first amendment.
Actually it pretty much is, or at least is limited to the area of "force". The point of free speech is to keeping the seeking of truth and debates around values to the social and economic circles vs those of force. Because we simply cannot trust coercive force to not solidify things into very bad positions that then stick across broad swaths of the population. There has to be room for people to advocate against even broad consensus, if they believe it enough. But within those spheres it's open season, a constant ever shifting dynamic back and forth that never ends. Indeed making sure "it never ends" is the essence of free speech.
And just because even broad consensus can sometimes be wrong doesn't mean it's not often right. The people arguing against it may well be horrible people. Them being shunned, argued back against, and denied other people's support is Free Speech working 100% as intended. If they truly believe it they will just have to keep at it, and it may well take decades to shift society's overall views. They may fail, and it may be expensive. That's how it is. The point is that force can't be used to completely crush all potential to change minds.
Freedom of speech is a principle--not the bare minimum allowable under the first amendment.
You don't agree with the principle of freedom of speech if you support shunning from debate anyone who holds an opinion you disagree with. That said, you don't have to agree with the principle of free speech. And the freedom of speech / association gives you the right to shun people. But your behavior is contrary to the principle of freedom of speech.
Statement and actions that are against freedom of speech are still allowed under freedom of speech. That's not some GOTCHA against the freedom of speech. Young should be allowed to do what he's doing. But he should fully expect to be called a censoring blacklister.
You can join a political group advocating for censorship. That's attempted censorship even if its allowed under freedom of speech.
So yes, you can exercise your freedom of speech to speak against freedom of speech. There is no contradiction.
Yes, the principle that force should not be used to compel speech since no single oracle can be trusted to it. Not that all ideas and values are equal, and indeed on the contrary the entire point of freedom of speech is that they aren't. Freedom of speech is a process, a system to try to let us grope our way towards truth and better values and adapt to changing circumstances, to maintain a dynamic equilibrium that leaves open the chance we're wrong or that what makes sense now won't in the future. Culling out the crap is a huge part of what it's all about.
>But your behavior is contrary to the principle of freedom of speech.
Nope, yours is! A mushy "everything is the same" implicitly negates any need for protection.
Culling out whatever you think is crap by organizing a boycott unless people literally ban that content is censorship.
No, it's free speech. It's literally engaging in freedom of association yourself and speech to try to convince other people to exercise their freedoms of association and speech towards ideas and values one considers important. And it isn't without risk or personal cost either. Boycotts necessarily involve sacrificing some value the entity offers. If other people won't go along with it because they don't agree obviously it goes nowhere. Even if lots of people do go along with it, the entity people are trying to convince may well reject it anyway and just take the hit, or calculate they can outlast it, or argue back and convince people the other way.
You're arguing that free speech shouldn't cover trying to convince anyone else of your own values, or that people shouldn't be allowed to act on said values if they are won over and wish to. That's wild stuff.
Fair enough; but it's only one principle. It doesn't override all the other principles. Some people from the land of the 1st Amendment seem to think it does.
> not the bare minimum allowable under the first amendment.
The 1st Amendment is not a "bare minimum" - AFAIAA it's the most maximalist free-speech legal provision in the world.
Someone upthread spoke of "cancelling Spotify". Cancelling is about denying people a platform, no? How is Young denying Spotify a platform, by encouraging others to stay away from Spotify? That's called a boycott, which amounts to individuals choosing freely what to do with their time and money. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
It's not bare minimum with regard to its restrictions on government action. But it doesn't apply to (and is not meant to) apply to other institutions.
For example, nobody would anti-discrimination principles by the 14th amendment and conclude that its therefore not discrimination for a private citizen to discriminate against minorities.
[1]you can certain shun them from actual organizations that aren't meant to be open platforms for everyone. Most organizations are not open platforms, and their employers represent the organization.
Well, that's an interesting sentence-construction. How does person A shun person B from group X? "Shunning" isn't normally a thing that you do to someone from something.
IOW, If you are shunned by society as a whole, then it is society as a whole that has shunned you.
[Edit] And if Spotify is shunned by its users, it's the users that shunned it; nobody shunned the users "from" Spotify.
There is no contraction. A call for censorship is allowed under freedom of speech.
I would never force spotify to platform anyone they don't want to. But I will criticize those who demand others blacklist.
Answer this: Was the Hollywood self-enforced blacklist of communists censorship?
Fortunately Neil Young lacks the power to enforce his view, but make no doubt, his view is censorship.
Whether you succeed or not depends on other things (in particular, an individual’s power).
All else is a red herring. As the saying goes, ”In the Soviet Union, we have freedom of speech. But in the US, you have freedom after* speech.”
You can't mean that seriously. If I successfully form the intention to stop someone speaking, but fail to carry through (perhaps because I don't own a police force), are you really saying that I've succeeded in censoring them?
It seems to be the fashion these days to construct arguments based on redefining words. If "censorship" is a kind of intention, then there doesn't appear to be much wrong with censorship. You've redefined a word that is generally considered to refer to something bad, to mean something that isn't bad. That's sort-of OK, but it means that we have to put a glossary of definitions at the top of anything we say.
Intent matters. Fortunately, Neil Young failed.
Same with censorship.
That is a pretty extreme view of what "free speech" entitles, to the point of significantly restricting the free speech of (in this case) Niel Young to preserve Joe Rogan's.
If I walk out of the room because someone is spitting nonsense is that censorship?
That is a far cry from performing at the same event or socializing in the same room. I would 100% support Young if that was what he was objecting to.
But Young's situation is more like refusing to play on a university that doesn't shun someone he thinks is wrong. That's censorship.
*(not sure I'd call Rogan that but for lack of a better word)
If the Catholic Church organized a boycott of Amazon unless decided to de-platform controversial authors that is a clear example of censorship.
Isn't Rogan only on the one platform?
Apple and Amazon have Rogan's comedy specials.
But blacklisting people for political beliefs is quintessential censorship. Can't believe that has to be said.
Young is asking for him to be banned from Spotify.
I'm sure Young also objects to many political beliefs expressed by Rogan's guests, and probably Rogan himself, that's unrelated to what Young did or said.
Earnest misinformation cannot be an exception to freedom of speech without throwing away the entire concept. A lot of commonly accepted truths were dismissed as misinformation by the powers that be.
It doesn't even work as a practical matter. You get too many false positives--how many CDC facts have been called into question. They've even deliberately lied. Should bigTech have banned people saying masks work in April 2020 and ban people saying they don't in April 2021? And its not effective. At best, you are playing wackamole. And banning people from taking opposing positions just entrenches opposing view points.
If Donald Trump successfully lobbied bigTech to censor "misinformation" about covid, would you believe a fucking thing you heard from those sources?
I agree with this. It is a matter for the audience to decide what speech they will listen to, and how they will evaluate it. It is cause for regret thaat so many people lack the means to evaluate the utterances of crackpots. But you can't start to evaluate it if you haven't heard it; there are "forbidden views" that you won't hear on MSM or the big internet platforms.
I'm not a free-speech maximalist. Incitement to hatred or violence is forbidden here, and I'm cool with that. Lying, fakery and distortion are permitted (provided it's not in furtherance of selling stuff), and I'm OK with that too.
I'm not OK with a whole swath of views being suppressed without any process.
That's not what's happening with Young and Rogan. Rogan has been paid by Spotify for his podcast; if they decide to shut him down, well he has other platforms. And he gets to keep the money. There's no chance he'll be silenced.
I'm not OK with the way the word "censorship" is being bandied around here. Once upon a time, when email blocklists started to become popular, spammers accused MSPs of censorship, which was ludicrous. Nobody has a right to use the private property of others to exercise their free speech. You can say what you like, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone, and I don't have to stand next to you on the platform while you say it.
Spotify dropping Rogan would not have been censorship: Rogan would have been able to continue talking as much as he wanted, just like he was before his deal with Spotify.
Is there any form of consequences for speech that would not be censorship?
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Young really did say "get rid of Rogan or I'll leave". How is that any different from saying "I'm leaving because you won't get rid of Rogan"? Or "I'm leaving, but I'll consider coming back if you get rid of Rogan"?
In all of those cases, the end result (and the negotiating power of all parties) is essentially the same, so what makes one "free speech" and another "anti-free speech"?
Bias. If they disagree with Rogan in the first place, not on this specific subject but in a multiple different angle, although in modern days that tends to be politics, then they just need to find a narrative to make sure what they are doing is good.
Gruber is extremely bias towards Apple. ( USB-C, AirPod sold at Cost, big.LITTLE, Unified Memory etc... ) So a narrative against Spotify wouldn't hurt.
And actually conspiring against this guy just fuels the conspiracy theories out there.
Do people really not believe that the Information Age has fundamentally changed the axioms which underlie things like “only governments can censor” ?
I don't buy this idea that stating firmly and publicly: "If you continue to host X on your platform, then I won't be associated with your platform" -- is equivalent to top-down, administrative censorship in the usual sense of the term. Which by most sources is specifically rooted in an exercise of state power (or of something more or less equivalent to it). Not the editorial decisions made by publishing entities.
If someone passed a law to force Rogan off Spotify, or to force Young to stay on, then I'd have a problem with it, but as it is, this really seems like a nothingburger.
To me, this is just a variety of boycott, and boycotts are something that we have been ok with for a long time.
Perfect example: Apple TV original programming. Apple having Apple money can (and do) throw big money at creating content. But Apple being Apple is also concerned about their overall image so none of that content is going to be too edgy or controversial and this limitation on artistic freedom is a recipe for mediocrity that, for example, HBO never had. When HBO made the Sopranos it was pretty edgy. That sort of risk will never happen on Apple TV.
So Spotify has branched into podcasts from streaming music. Worse, it's not just a neutral host of such content (as, say, Youtube might be perceived). By paying a large amount for exclusivity this is de facto original Spotify programming. That means if there's anything controversial it can hurt Spotify's other business.
Does Neil Young withdrawing his catalogue matter? Revenue-wise? Not at all. It's not necessarily the PR you want though. Does Joni Mitchell matter? Individually? No. But if this ever gets to the point of Taylor Swift or Ariana Grande? Oh boy, that's going to be rough.
But the point is by buying into this separate market for original programming (effectively), Spotify has bought themselves a whole bunch of new problems they never would've had otherwise.
For the record, I respect people who put their money where their mouth is (like Neil Young). Given the $100 million we all knew how this was going to go but hey, respect nonetheless.
Neil and those who're following his lead are doing the right thing but they are NOT foregoing massive seventies-record-industry wealth here. If they're not happy with how Spotify acts there is very little to keep them on board.
For anybody less significant than Neil Young, most likely they get nothing from Spotify in the first place. It's basically the bad old record industry all over again, but more so. Back in the day they used to care about setting up 'gotchas' like shellac breakage adjustments applied to CDs, so you'd sign off on a bad deal because it was the only one on offer but some effort would go into making a case why they deserved to not pay you.
These days I don't think those in power feel a need to bother. This applies to Spotify. If they don't feel like paying you they just won't. Neil Young is likely losing nothing here.
Does this mean you agree with censoring Rogan?
What makes you think the "old record industry" is gone? Spotify doesn't pay artists directly. All money goes to the "old record industry" which then pays the artists.
No one asks where the money disappears when it reaches the "old record industry" because criticizing those companies likely means commercial death for many artists.
However, it's easy to criticize Spotify because... they can't say anything either: they depend on those companies.
Which specific doctors and scientists do you think shouldn’t have appeared on Rogan’s podcast?
There is nothing "right" about trying to strongarm a platform into censoring someone.
How about telling a platform that they are associating with someone (who you think) is a bad person doing bad things, and they should stop supporting this (according to you) bad person?
Are we allowed to say that certain people are (at least in our opinion) bad people? Are we allow to do that?
Was telling Coca-Cola that they should stop associating with apartheid in South Africa "censorship"?
* https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1986-09-18-860309...
* your chances of catching getting COVD by 2.5x (508 vs. 221),
* your chances of being hospitalized by 5x (993 vs 172), and
* your chance of going to the ICU by 11x (263 vs 22).
* https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/ontario-dashboard/#riskbyvac...
is doing a bad thing. Rogan is causing needless pain, suffering, and probably even death by spreading information. I would qualify that as "bad".
See also his taking ivermectin, a deworming veterinary drug formulated for use in cows and horses:
* https://www.npr.org/2021/09/01/1033485152/joe-rogan-covid-iv...
I'm sure that are some good qualities to Rogan, but what he's doing with respect to COVID is not among them.
>Of course, Spotify could have chosen to break its $100 million exclusive contract with Rogan to host his show. But if they had, it’s worth considering what would have happened. When Rogan took his show to Spotify, exclusively, his listenership and apparent influence dropped significantly. That’s the nature of exclusivity. If Spotify broke up with him, Rogan’s show wouldn’t disappear or even miss a beat.
And his contract might very well include provisions covering exactly this sort of situation. No agent/lawyer worth their salt would let a public figure sign an exclusive deal that lets the company black list their client.
I doubt Spotify can pull him off their platform without breaching their end of the contract.
Right. It's not like the internet mob is going to stop at Spotify or stop at Joe Rogan.
What happens when someone decides that its the device at fault, not the streaming service? Is the evil in the stone or in the signs inscribed upon it?
in the people, surely.
http://www.tunesdujour.com/neil-youngs-homophobia-aids-phobi...
My wonderful kind loving gentle uncle was a young gay man when Mr. Young said this, and the idea of this pathetic coward using his power to be stirring up hatred against him and everyone like him makes me feel physically ill. I wonder how many gay beatings and murders and how much bullying this piece of human garbage's outspoken hatred resulted in.
Turns out he hasn't changed his spots either (which they never do they just try to blend in).
https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/148638898697320039...
This loser looks like a typical hypocrite limousine liberal to me, attaching itself like a parasite to "causes" that others have actually sweat and bled for, in order to feed off its popularity, while actually being a hateful selfish hypocrite. A sad, pathetic, angry, cowardly little loser. A washed-up irrelevant has-been. Fuck Neil Young, we still don't want him around.
If Neil Young disagrees with something, it's worth looking into. Never listened to Rogan before, might give him a try now on Neil's glowing recommendation.
In his 2002 biography of Neil Young, Shakey, Jimmy McDonough writes “I had found out that Young was planning on donating the proceeds from the ‘Philadelphia’ track to the Gay Men’s Health Crisis center. He acknowledged it was true but didn’t seem anxious to publicize the fact. I got the feeling there were other chartable acts I didn’t know about
Funny how he allegedly wanted to keep his "good deeds" private and yet somehow his biographer found out about it ("planned" donation? Did he even donate or just claim he would?), and said-biographer can assure us there were other charitable acts too. Wow. Great PR.
But no, as I've already seen he doesn't change his spots, very few actually do in my experience. And even if he had, what does he want some sort of medal for not being a hatemonger? That wouldn't absolve him of what he did or make him worthy of a second chance. His reward for that is not living as a piece of shit for some years of his life.
There's an infinite number of people who deserve attention and respect, there's absolutely no need to go back and look for reasons why hatemongers and their ilk should get more chances.
Has Joe Rogan ever used his position of power to stir up hate against those weaker than him? If Joe is the evil one and Neil is the pious one here in this twisted hypocrite world, I'll take my chances in secular-hell. Much better company. The "fa---ts" that Saint Neil hates so much would be quite welcome too.
- a platform can't be everything. If Spotify wants to be the platform for disinformation, they are on the right path. Young simply gave voice to those who don't and kept his promise to not be on the same platform with someone he believes has no ethics.
- OR Spotify could accept to be an editor and take responsibility for the bullshit that Rogan irradiates from their servers. Guess why they don't want to be recognized as such?
change idea.
But it's a big if.
what's Spotify gonna do if in a few months both the lab leak theory and Rogan's bullshit turns out to be propaganda backed by malevolent actors?
what are Rogan's supporters do?
I'm quite sure they would call it a conspiracy.
But I could be wrong.
> as has happened so many times already throughout the pandemic?
it hasn't and absolutely not "so many times".
on the contrary, at the beginning many times the alerts have been discarded as exagerated and then things happened exactly as foreseen if not worse.
Think about what Trump administration said of Fauci for example (AKA 'Fauci and these idiots' as he called them)
Even if we could prove that it was a lab leak, it has no relation with underestimating the danger of covid-19 as it happened in many countries
If you look at Apple's content guidelines[0] section 2.2 they do explicitly forbid "Encouragement of criminal activity or illegal acts" Given that treason, sedition, and advocating the overthrow of the government are illegal under 18 U.S.C[1] there's a good argument that Bannon's podcast should not be allowed.
I'm not sure what Apple's mechanism is for enforcing their guidelines but it seems the argument could be made for delisting Bannon as well.
0. https://podcasters.apple.com/support/891-content-and-subscri... 1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-11...
> If a podcast contains harmful or objectionable content that is disputed by authoritative sources, Apple may label the podcast to reflect the dispute. [emphasis added]
Those "may"s gives Apple a nice out here. They do not state that they will take any action, only that they may take some action (including possible removal).
If only the rules were applied consistently.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2003/sep/17/popandrock.nei...
Politically-speaking, its hard to exorcise the ghost of his 1980s pronouncements, when he swung hard-right behind the Reagan presidency and lashed out at gays ("you go to the supermarket and you see a [censored] behind the fucking cash register, you don't want him to handle your potatoes") and welfare spongers. "Stop being supported by the government and get out and work," Neil advised. "You have to make the weak stand up on one leg, or half a leg, whatever they've got."
What's your point, anyway.
The other lesson is that some people are selectively punished and canceled for three stupid statements during their lifetime, while others (like Biden) are not.
But I can get past your troll-of-a-term "free speech privilege." It's as if you are attempting to downgrade the principle of freedom of speech to limit it to describing an annoying pattern of rich guys mouthing off. (And completing the example from the "other rich guy" in this instance.)
What's the upshot here? Are you a staunch supporter of freedom of speech or not? I can't tell at all from your comment nor from the text of the article (which is merely a review of Neil Young's output).
[1] https://www.bad-news-beat.org/2015neil-young-supports-love
And other than Joni Mitchell so far, it looks like the rest of the artists in the world are siding with Spotify.
Because even if you don't agree with Joe Rogan you have to agree that cancel culture is wrong and expression of a variety of views is valuable.
Artists seem like the wrong group of people to try to get to side with you on censorship.
The irony to me is they are just too old to know about all the rap songs glorifying drinking lean during an opioid epidemic. Not even misinformation about lean, actively promoting.
Or they think misinformation is worse. Or they think Spotify hand picking Rogan's show to fund and promote came with responsibility just distribution doesn't.
Now, to what degree did Joe Rogan push back against Robert Malone?
If anyone is unfamiliar with Robert Malone.
I recently had to drop Spotify because it was showing advertisements for gay fetish podcasts on my work computer. In large size, with graphic illustration, above the fold, with no way to disable. I never used Spotify for podcasts.
I was a loyal subscriber for years but I had to drop them. This is one specific example, but there are many other consequences for a company that forgets what it’s product is - or perhaps hallucinates some connection between completely unrelated product categories, and tries to shove it down their customers’ throats; ironically reminiscent of some extreme BDSM content they advertise on my screen share-prone work computer.
Spotify has been actively wasting money on a massive blunder in search of growth and it is going to backfire even more than it already has. And they still haven’t done the bare-minimum work to make a good podcast client.
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9hbmNob3IuZm0vcy8...
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL2ZlZWRzLmZlZWRidXJ...
(Notice how Google is smart enough to put an ‘E’ for explicit tag on the podcasts)
Podcasts are not fucking music, but they are of course happy to fuck their users, the open podcast ecosystem, and in the long run their investors with them. Maybe they’ve been listening to too much https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL2ZlZWRzLmxpYnN5bi5...
You can take a principled stand by dropping your subscription and blocking them with pihole, as I have. Be careful though, they’re sneaky with their domains.
In the short run as well. Most Tech stocks are down recently, but the Neil Young incident seems to have had a disproportionate effect. Still early to tell but so far investors are reacting strongly negatively.
Excuse me if I stray a little from the main point but have you considered the possibility that someone is using computers in your workplace (maybe even yours) to listen/download this kind of content?
I've had some bosses that I could easily picture in a black leather suit.
I work from home and my work computer is used only for work and only by me. The recommendations are specific to the account, not the device; recommendations were always the same between my iPhone and the desktop client.
> Spotify prohibits content on the platform which promotes dangerous false, deceptive, or misleading content about COVID-19 that may cause offline harm and/or pose a direct threat to public health. When content that violates this standard is identified it is removed from the platform.
Spotify has removed episodes from other podcasters that violate this, but the won't touch Rogan's episodes.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/27/22406315/joe-rogan-vaccin...
His principled credibility includes homophobia.
"You go to a supermarket and you see a fa--ot behind the fuc--ng cash register, you don’t want him to handle your potatoes.”" - Neil Young
Via L.A. Times https://t.co/uClB2YkeU3
[1] https://www.bad-news-beat.org/2015neil-young-supports-love
That has, sadly, been my experience as well — so many people that treat life like a game where the only currency is ... currency?
He's already pretty wealthy, he loses money by leaving Spotify, and he's a muso, not a politico - people buy his records because they like the music, not because they admire his opinions.
Both Neil Young and Joni Mitchell had Polio when they were children. They are old enough to remember the huge impact of mass vaccination on that terrifying disease, that they themselves suffered under. They might take anti-vaccination disinformation personally.
When generational knowledge like this is lost; there is a danger that a lesson of history is forgotten and the same mistakes made again.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joni_Mitchell#1943%E2%80%93196...
In fact people are happy with young being able to do it and basically laughing at him.
So I don’t think anti young people are somehow not understanding what free speech is.
What they are critiquing is someone who spent his life being anti power and establishment doing the bidding of an establishment who’s also spread plenty of misinformation about Covid and many other things.
(And on a side note, rogan actually had opposing sides on as well, the CNN health guy. I don’t see anyone on the public health side actually being willing to engage with any of the people questioning their judgement, they just dismiss them as anti science. And it turns out a lot of things they were right about. Cloth masks being the most recent example, but you can count the lab leak hypothesis and many other things among them)
As another example, imagine a group of protesters arguing for the repeal of the Bill of Rights. Since that includes the First Amendment, their position is clearly anti-free speech, but they're not infringing on anyone's free speech by having their protest. (And in fact, if someone tried to ban that protest, they'd be the ones infringing on free speech.)
Just because some people are saying it infringes on free speech (it could), or that it's censorship (which it's a call for), doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed.
From where I'm standing, I'll say again, hardly anyone says Young shouldn't be able to do it. Even if it is a call for censorship.
Indeed, and I'm pretty astonished.
Obviously Young himself isn't infringing anyone's freedom to speak. Maybe he is inviting Spotify to remove Rogan; I don't see that, but even if he is, that doesn't remove Rogan's freedom to speak.
One could argue that he's called for a boycott. I don't see that either; but even if he has, that just amounts to inviting individuals to make informed choices about which services they patronize, and which they don't.
I guess there's just a lot of HNers that like to listen to Young on Spotify, and are pissed off.
I doubt he's doing anyone's bidding. He has good reason to oppose anti-vaxxers; he's a polio victim.
Pro free speech would be for Young to use his visibility to highlight rebuttals of claimed misinformation. Arguments, not suppression, are how you win back people who have lost trust in institutions. Suppression just amplifies the distrust. It leaves a largely clear field for these heterodox doctors to command, because lacking rebuttals, many of their claims sound quite convincing. And people are being convinced in large numbers.
But sufficiently authoritarian regimes usually also heavily censor, so you still end up censorship even in that case.
I'd love to hear an alternative that is actually known to work for societies that are both large and have near zero costs to produce and widely spread information.
This goes both ways
This is also isomorphous to the problem that exists when deciding how tolerant to be of intolerance.
Your insistence that the only response to "the wrong thing" is "do the right thing" is a major weakness with "the right thing". I'm not saying that "do the right thing" is a bad idea, just that if that is your only response, you've got a massive weak spot that can be disastrously exploited by bad actors.
Are you calling for an end to argumentation, and instead a resort to force? Are you saying Joe Rogan is a politically motivated misinformation source, intentionally trying to destabilize our society?
I am pointing out a paradox. Since you seem particularly motivated by the misinformation context, I'll just point more the paradox of tolerance.
I believe that is good to be tolerant, even of intolerance. But there's also no doubt in my mind that if you are too tolerant of intolerance, you can end up allowing the destruction of a tolerant society. So what should one do? Clearly the answer is not "Don't be tolerant". But how can you know where the line is, or should be? The point is that certain stances toward the world, such as tolerance, have an inherent weak spot that can exploited by people who want to do so, and that AFAIK there is no way of defending that weak spot without risking violating those positions.
So it's a paradox.
So to repeat: I'm not calling for anything, I'm pointing out that things are not as simple as "defeat bad speech with more speech".
Misinformation is an artifact of our decaying society, so what exactly is the "paradox" here? The paradox of suppressing discussion that tries to deal with societal rot? To what end? Why not actually fix the problem?
This problem should be easy to solve, but isn't because someone is getting in the way.
That must explain why people have written about the paradox of tolerance for hundreds of years, across many different cultures. Clearly, the authors must all have come from weak cultures, since it's so fucking obvious that there's no issue with this all.
Misinformation can be in part an artifact of a decaying society, it can also be be the result of deliberate attempts to undermine part of, or even the entirety of, an existing social order.
The paradox is that "the only (acceptable) way to defeat bad speech is with more speech that explains why the bad speech is wrong" is that simply by flooding a culture with bad speech, you can completely jam things up as everyone tries to respond to the flood of bullshit.
This is a documented strategy for both intra- and inter-national actors.
So who do you think is spreading said misinformation? Again, are you saying fucking Joe Rogan is trying to destroy social order? Think about this for one god damn second.
Do I think that Rogan is trying to destroy the social order? No, of course not. Do I think that Rogan doesn't see any downside to long extended chitchats, stoned or otherwise, about any random idea that is floating in the cultural ether? No, I don't think he does. Do I think that there are downsides to the "every POV is legitimate, lets just put it all out there" model of contemporary discourse? Yes, I do.
Imagine building a house then selling it, then when neighbors you personally find undesirable move into the neighborhood demanding the home owners association load one of the houses, of which you own neither, and truck it out.
Edit:
He may own half, and the label Warner was the one that made the deal with Spotify.