Neil Young demands Spotify remove his music.

[bluethrunthru]

To answer your question, I actually think the anti Vax conspirasists vulnerable to this mis information will likely see bans like this as evidence that big pharma, the govt, the freemasons or whoever they think is behind the vaccine are indeed involved in mass conspiracy. You can't censor or indeed vaccinate your way out of stupid.

Is it censorship? Young and now Mitchell have decided the material which they created and presumably own will no longer be supplied to that platform. If its theirs and they can do it then its up to them surely? Young even said its him or Rogan and Spotify went with Rogan as is their right. They presumably factored in to that decision what the impact was going to be on the value of the business? We shall see if they are the only ones - interestingly Taylor Swift has said one of her big influences is Joni Mitchell - Spotify could be taking on a big constituency

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Is it censorship? Young and now Mitchell have decided the material which they created and presumably own will no longer be supplied to that platform. If its theirs and they can do it then its up to them surely? Young even said its him or Rogan and Spotify went with Rogan as is their right. They presumably factored in to that decision what the impact was going to be on the value of the business? We shall see if they are the only ones - interestingly Taylor Swift has said one of her big influences is Joni Mitchell - Spotify could be taking on a big constituency

Swift won't leave. She's spent ages putting her own versions of her recordings on there because someone else owns the originals. So if she leaves, all of her stuff will still be on there, but someone else will be profiting.

 

[meltonblue]

These were his exact words - ‘They can have Rogan or Young. Not both,’

It's that specific statement that I'm extremely uncomfortable with.

I don’t get how that makes anyone feel uncomfortable. I think the opposite is a more uncomfortable thought in that his record company could have said no and he didn’t have a choice of which platforms his music is available (which is the case for a lot of artists).

Spotify is not an open platform. They paid Rogan 100m for exclusivity. Would you have an issue with a writer choosing to move publisher or newspaper because they also published a writer that knowingly spread false information?

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Couldn't agree more. Cancel culture again. I hope Spotify just say 'crack on lad, you're not censuring us'.

It's getting beyond a joke all this bollocks.

No one would listen to a word many posters here ever said if they didn’t have a free, worldwide platform with instantaneous distribution (which is frequently unedited) to give them a platform.

No TV station or radio would interview them; no newspaper would write about them, publish anything they wrote nor care about what they thought.

In the days before technology, you had to be talented, thoughtful or an expert to earn a chance at a wide scale distribution pulpit.

But now, the talentless think they “deserve one” despite the face that in the real physical world, they’re nobodies as far as the general populace goes. Traditional media and its distribution/content limitations and editors “cancelled” billions more people proactively or inadvertently than technology-based media ever will.

The idea that “cancel culture” exists is the all-time king of clueless takes. Technology has spoiled people rotten and given them a massively inflated sense of their own self-worth, me included.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

I don’t get how that makes anyone feel uncomfortable. I think the opposite is a more uncomfortable thought in that his record company could have said no and he didn’t have a choice of which platforms his music is available (which is the case for a lot of artists).

Spotify is not an open platform. They paid Rogan 100m for exclusivity. Would you have an issue with a writer choosing to move publisher or newspaper because they also published a writer that knowingly spread false information?

I think it's the (perhaps subtle) difference between exercising the right to leave in protest vs saying I'll stay if you shut down someone else who's ideas I don't like down. However well intended that doesn't feel quite right (to me).

 

[meltonblue]

I think it's the (perhaps subtle) difference between exercising the right to leave in protest vs saying I'll stay if you shut down someone else who's ideas I don't like down. However well intended that doesn't feel quite right (to me).

It’s not shutting down an idea he doesn’t like. It’s shutting down deliberate false information. There’s a huge distinction between the two. Also bear in mind that statement was an open letter to his record company giving the reason for leaving. His next sentence was that he wanted his music off it immediately. He was exercising the right to leave in protest and his record company backed him.

I highly doubt he likes the musical ideas of the band Aqua. He’d never leave a platform because of it though.

 

[chesterbells]

No one would listen to a word many posters here ever said if they didn’t have a free, worldwide platform with instantaneous distribution (which is frequently unedited) to give them a platform.

No TV station or radio would interview them; no newspaper would write about them, publish anything they wrote nor care about what they thought.

In the days before technology, you had to be talented, thoughtful or an expert to earn a chance at a wide scale distribution pulpit.

But now, the talentless think they “deserve one” despite the face that in the real physical world, they’re nobodies as far as the general populace goes. Traditional media and its distribution/content limitations and editors “cancelled” billions more people proactively or inadvertently than technology-based media ever will.

The idea that “cancel culture” exists is the all-time king of clueless takes. Technology has spoiled people rotten and given them a massively inflated sense of their own self-worth, me included.

Just did the numbers. Spotify has 2.2% of the population on board; Twitter has a prodigious 5%. I haven’t worked out the Bluemoon percentage ;-)
There’s a whiff of goldfish bowl about all this.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I don’t get how that makes anyone feel uncomfortable

It makes me feel uncomfortable because Thursday was Holocaust Memorial Day and that didn't begin with people being shot and gassed. It started with books being burned and a platform being denied to those who were considered "wrong" by the Nazis.

Now Neil Young is far from being a Nazi, entirely the opposite I'd imagine, but the principle is the same. He absolutely has the right, that others have already exercised, to question Spotify's moderation policy. But he's going beyond that and I don't get how some can't see the difference.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

On a more positive note, whatever your opinion on this I do think it's good to see that some artists still retain the right to control their own catalog.

 

[meltonblue]

It makes me feel uncomfortable because Thursday was Holocaust Memorial Day and that didn't begin with people being shot and gassed. It started with books being burned and a platform being denied to those who were considered "wrong" by the Nazis.

Now Neil Young is far from being a Nazi, entirely the opposite I'd imagine, but the principle is the same. He absolutely has the right, that others have already exercised, to question Spotify's moderation policy. But he's going beyond that and I don't get how some can't see the difference.

He has the right to do whatever he likes, Spotify is a private company, the are not the world arbiter on music and nor is it an open platform. He can absolutely choose if he wants his music available on a platform or not.

I don’t agree with your analogy at all either. Your argument about Spotify is more analogous to saying the nazis should have been allowed to print whatever propaganda they liked and anyone seeking to limit that was in the wrong.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

He has the right to do whatever he likes, Spotify is a private company, the are not the world arbiter on music and nor is it an open platform. He can absolutely choose if he wants his music available on a platform or not.

I don’t agree with your analogy at all either. Your argument about Spotify is more analogous to saying the nazis should have been allowed to print whatever propaganda they liked and anyone seeking to limit that was in the wrong.

I've said, more than once, that he has absolutely the right to decide if his music is on the platform or not. He absolutely has the right to criticise Spotify's moderation policy.

But he doesn't have the right to demand someone else is removed. Critical thinking demands that you sometimes have to listen to arguments that you fundamentally don't agree with in order to understand or challenge them. We can't just live in a bubble or echo chamber and only take in views we're wholly comfortable with. I mean, I have to read Nick Harris's crap for fucks sake.

 

[meltonblue]

I've said, more than once, that he has absolutely the right to decide if his music is on the platform or not. He absolutely has the right to criticise Spotify's moderation policy.

But he doesn't have the right to demand someone else is removed. Critical thinking demands that you sometimes have to listen to arguments that you fundamentally don't agree with in order to understand or challenge them. We can't just live in a bubble or echo chamber and only take in views we're wholly comfortable with. I mean, I have to read Nick Harris's crap for fucks sake.

I completely agree critical thinking entails listening to arguments you don’t agree with, I’ve argued that exact point multiple times in this forum. That’s completely different to challenging false information though which is what Youngs point is. He’s not just challenging an opinion.

He has the right to challenge it as it isn’t an open platform, Spotify are paying exclusively for that content and have the choice on who is and who isn’t on their platform. He’s not challenging YouTube.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Let's be honest, the music industry has been looking for an excuse to fuck over Spotify for ages.

And I think Neil in particular had problems with the quality of streaming in the past, had he not.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I completely agree critical thinking entails listening to arguments you don’t agree with, I’ve argued that exact point multiple times in this forum. That’s completely different to challenging false information though which is what Youngs point is. He’s not just challenging an opinion.

He has the right to challenge it as it isn’t an open platform, Spotify are paying exclusively for that content and have the choice on who is and who isn’t on their platform. He’s not challenging YouTube.

I think we're largely in agreement bar one thing. If Rogan was broadcasting podcast after podcast full of lies, false information and misinformation, then I think Spotify would be right to remove him. But the fuss seems to centre around one particular podcast, the one with that Malone guy.

Spotify should take responsibility, at the very least, for ensuring that this false information is highlighted as such or, at worst, removing the offending episode altogether.

But de-platforming Rogan on the basis of one podcast, where his guest (not Rogan) was responsible for disseminating incorrect information, is wrong and I think Young has overreacted here. Not by removing his own content but by demanding someone else's content is as the price of not removing his own.

 

[Kirkstall Blue]

In the past I listened to Rogan but his show was divided up into 4,5 or 6 approx chunks. Even the old guests he went back and did the same. I’m interested in Physics and space exploration but I’m not listening to subjects cut into bits to make money for him.
So it won’t be hard to not listen

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

I've said, more than once, that he has absolutely the right to decide if his music is on the platform or not. He absolutely has the right to criticise Spotify's moderation policy.

But he doesn't have the right to demand someone else is removed. Critical thinking demands that you sometimes have to listen to arguments that you fundamentally don't agree with in order to understand or challenge them. We can't just live in a bubble or echo chamber and only take in views we're wholly comfortable with. I mean, I have to read Nick Harris's crap for fucks sake.

Fair enough. Should we expect that for every tweeter who suggests Harris or Delaney or any of the rest be dismissed from their jobs for their mistakes, bias and content, you’ll be there to defend those writers and criticize their critics as vigorously as you do Mr. Rogan and Mr. Young, respectively?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Fair enough. Should we expect that for every tweeter who suggests Harris or Delaney or any of the rest be dismissed from their jobs for their mistakes, bias and content, you’ll be there to defend those writers and criticize their critics as vigorously as you do Mr. Rogan and Mr. Young, respectively

As you know, I challenge their misinformation and outright lies robustly, using incontrovertible facts and giving an alternative opinion. But I've never asked for them to be sacked. However at least one of them has tried to get me sacked from my job.

 

[meltonblue]

I think we're largely in agreement bar one thing. If Rogan was broadcasting podcast after podcast full of lies, false information and misinformation, then I think Spotify would be right to remove him. But the fuss seems to centre around one particular podcast, the one with that Malone guy.

Spotify should take responsibility, at the very least, for ensuring that this false information is highlighted as such or, at worst, removing the offending episode altogether.

But de-platforming Rogan on the basis of one podcast, where his guest (not Rogan) was responsible for disseminating incorrect information, is wrong and I think Young has overreacted here. Not by removing his own content but by demanding someone else's content is as the price of not removing his own.

It’s not on the basis of one podcast, it’s the continued use of misinformation both by Rogan and his guests, that podcast was the final straw more than an isolated incident. That it’s been ongoing is referenced in the open letter you referred to earlier.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

As you know, I challenge their misinformation and outright lies robustly, using incontrovertible facts and giving an alternative opinion. But I've never asked for them to be sacked. However at least one of them has tried to get me sacked from my job.

Oh, I would assume you have not asked that. But I am figuring plenty of your regular readers have. So I look forward to you defending your writer friends from their attackers. :)

I feel comfortable that Rogan’s consistently-demonstrated willingness to allow misinformationists a platform on a wide variety of topics, or to offer his “perspective” on issues (remember, he’s “just asking questions here”), will allow us to revisit this topic in future, perhaps regularly. Maybe Jewish artists wonder about Rogan comparing vax requirements to the Holocaust. It’s possible Black artists will be curious about Rogan’s comments about needing to be 100% African to use the term “Black”. Perhaps LGTBQ artists start to review his comments on trans people and wonder why they share a platform with him.

If 5, 10, 25 or 50 musical artists all tell Spotify “it’s him or us”, will all of them be just as wrong?

Regardless, it seems like a strange set of chains to attach oneself to, effectively saying someone who has just sacrificed a whole lot of money to make a point about vaccine misinformation is in the wrong. Seems like it would be simpler to say “Young has a right to quit a platform he doesn’t like for whatever reason and lay out whatever terms he likes to stay. Spotify has a right to accept or reject those terms.” And move on.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

It’s not on the basis of one podcast, it’s the continued use of misinformation both by Rogan and his guests, that podcast was the final straw more than an isolated incident. That it’s been ongoing is referenced in the open letter you referred to earlier.

It’s odd to me that those who are defending Rogan and Spotify seem to have listened to a lot less Rogan than those criticizing Young have, yet apparently we are the ones with the critical thinking skills deficit and the closed minds.