Neil Young demands Spotify remove his music.

[Bill Walker]

colour!

Just copying the way you spelt it, why bother with a useless u

 

[Lee1983]

Just copying the way you spelt it, why bother with a useless u

I get the difference between colour / color, but I googled it as I couldn't find the colour version, so I went with color. With Google I couldn't find any references to a UK version :-)

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

It's so interesting -- yesterday I watched that Russell Brand video that got posted -- you know, because I'm trying to get "all perspectives" like I've been told I should -- on a brand new device I don't normally use, so YouTube has no sense of my typical preferences. Today I go to the home page and its chock full of suggested content for me -- Tucker Carlson, Rogan, Epoch something, those insufferable two from the Blaze show or whatever. It's basically ****-O-Vision.

Now why is that? I don't have a YouTube account nor profile nor do I subscribe to things, and I know push content is a thing of course, but given the stuff I normally use YouTube for (hockey fight highlights, music, that funny guy from Pitch Meeting, AirForceProud95, videos of long train trips taken from the driver's cab that help me get drowsy and fall asleep), push content on my normal device is very widely varied.

So does YouTube has some type of **** algorithm, suggesting if you watch Russell Brand once, basically ALL you'll want to watch is other cunts? Or is it just because I haven't demonstrated enough varied interests for YouTube to know what I like?

God, I hope it's not because I'M a ****.

 

[Lee1983]

It's so interesting -- yesterday I watched that Russell Brand video that got posted -- you know, because I'm trying to get "all perspectives" like I've been told I should -- on a brand new device I don't normally use, so YouTube has no sense of my typical preferences. Today I go to the home page and its chock full of suggested content for me -- Tucker Carlson, Rogan, Epoch something, those insufferable two from the Blaze show or whatever. It's basically ****-O-Vision.

Now why is that? I don't have a YouTube account nor profile nor do I subscribe to things, and I know push content is a thing of course, but given the stuff I normally use YouTube for (hockey fight highlights, music, that funny guy from Pitch Meeting, AirForceProud95, videos of long train trips taken from the driver's cab that help me get drowsy and fall asleep), push content on my normal device is very widely varied.

So does YouTube has some type of **** algorithm, suggesting if you watch Russell Brand once, basically ALL you'll want to watch is other cunts? Or is it just because I haven't demonstrated enough varied interests for YouTube to know what I like?

God, I hope it's not because I'M a ****.

There is a great episode of JOE ROGAN with the ex Design Ethicist of google on this.

Called the “closest thing Silicon Valley has to a conscience,” by The Atlantic magazine, Tristan Harris spent three years as a Google Design Ethicist developing a framework for how technology should “ethically” steer the thoughts and actions of billions of people from screens. He is now co-founder & president of the Center for Humane Technology, whose mission is to reverse ‘human downgrading’ and re-align technology with humanity. Additionally, he is co-host of the Center for Humane Technology’s Your Undivided Attention podcast with co-founder Aza Raskin.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

There is a great episode of JOE ROGAN with the ex Design Ethicist of google on this.

Called the “closest thing Silicon Valley has to a conscience,” by The Atlantic magazine, Tristan Harris spent three years as a Google Design Ethicist developing a framework for how technology should “ethically” steer the thoughts and actions of billions of people from screens. He is now co-founder & president of the Center for Humane Technology, whose mission is to reverse ‘human downgrading’ and re-align technology with humanity. Additionally, he is co-host of the Center for Humane Technology’s Your Undivided Attention podcast with co-founder Aza Raskin.

My wife, who used to work in tech, drew my attention to this guy when he was on Trevor Noah's show.

What strikes me is how amorally Rogan approaches this interview when I just randomly pick interchange points, maybe because Harris is pretty much skewering Rogan's own business model. But maybe there are other places where he demonstrates a conscience.

 

[domalino]

So does YouTube has some type of **** algorithm, suggesting if you watch Russell Brand once, basically ALL you'll want to watch is other cunts? Or is it just because I haven't demonstrated enough varied interests for YouTube to know what I like?

It's the latter. It's like if you only subscribed to 1 person on twitter you'd get only tweets from them and ones twitter thinks you'd like based on that snapshot.

 

[wayne71]

This is what it means to be principled.

Much as 99% of Spotify users might not give a shit, nor does Neil Young care about Spotify. They pay minimum royalties for his music and he doesn’t even need that pittance, so he took a principled stand.

That you miss that, and you gladly kiss him off, speaks to your own failure, not his.

I’m not a fan of young’s music or rogans podcasts but if you’re going to be principled at least make it over something worthwhile.

I’ll say it again if you’re stupid enough to take medical advice from a comedian/ufc commentator then you’re probably already fucked in life.

I’d be happy to earn Neil’s Spotify pittance btw :)

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Science is about exactly this, coming to a consensus & NOT shutting down opposing views, they should be encouraged.

No, science is about experts peer reviewing each other's work and refusing to publish things that don't meet certain standards of research. They don't just publish any old shit and invite everyone to debate it. They also will withdraw any research that is later found to be mistaken.

And the fact that Malone did a piece of research that was peer reviewed and rejected for publication might have something to do with him subsequently spreading shit on any outlet that will have him. And of course he can give his opinion on Joe Rogan as much as he wants, but that's not where the debate does or should happen. It happens in the scientific journals that his research wasn't considered good enough to be published in. He could of course have taken the feedback of the reviewers and come back with a better study, but instead he resigned in protest, threw his toys out of his pram and tried to win the debate in the public arena with people who aren't qualified to challenge him. That most certainly isn't what science is about.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

I’m not a fan of young’s music or rogans podcasts but if you’re going to be principled at least make it over something worthwhile.

Trying to limit death from coronavirus misinformation NOT worthwhile. Got it!

I’ll say it again if you’re stupid enough to take medical advice from a comedian/ufc commentator then you’re probably already fucked in life.

If we applied this standard to everything, who, or more importantly, WHAT, would we all be?

I’d be happy to earn Neil’s Spotify pittance btw :)

As would most, but then that wasn’t the point.

 

[wayne71]

Trying to limit death from coronavirus misinformation NOT worthwhile. Got it!




If we applied this standard to everything, who, or more importantly, WHAT, would we all be?



As would most, but then that wasn’t the point.

I highly doubt not being able to listen to Neil young on Spotify or actually listening to rogan on Spotify would result in death. Stop being a fucking drama queen.