Spotify removes Neil Young

Cols

Meanwhile, James Blunt has further escalated the situation by threatening to release new music onto the platform if Spotify doesn’t immediately remove Joe Rogan.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jamesblunt/status/1487364023003844610

 

Kittyfrisk

^ I very much like James Blunt's self deprecating sense of humour 

AsterixTG

Rogan is just another conduit for 'stuff' - if you're someone that only takes your world view from one source, then it's a problem. If, however, you absorb content from a wide spectrum of sources and to make an informed judgement then it shouldn't be a problem.

What is good about Rogan, is he does allow long format interviews which allow the viewer to get a far greater understanding of that person which can be hidden in short sharp soundbite/slogan type MSM interviews. It allow the looneys to really get themselves 'out there' and show you the real them.

I look at it as the same as the religious being insecure in their own faith by banning criticism or satirical ridicule as blasphemous, or worse committing and condoning violence against those who they deem to be insulting. What are they scared of? Surely if their 'idea' needs to be enforced with the threat of violence, it's probably not a very good idea in the first place.

I suppose common or garden politics has been weaponised as an 'ideology' nowadays to batter down opposing points of view and thought much like the above.

With Rogan, as with anything you don't fancy watching - you can always turn it off or switch over - I'm a big NY fan but he's acting like a child, as is anyone who stamps their feet and has a paddy because the other boy said something that made them cry.

I used to watch Rogan (the long form interviews while I was doing stuff) on YouTube - he went to Spotify, haven't bothered since - moved on. World kept turning...

Evan

Jota said:

Evan said:

Jota said:

Evan said:

I’m sort of shocked at the impulse to censor being shown by a lot of people on this thread. Rationalise it any way you want, but know what you’re agitating for - suppression of free speech.

Spotify has policies to kick anyone who doesn't follow their rules! Is that censorship?!

If their rules are based on bias or ideological in nature, like Facebook, YouTube etc, then yes, that’s censorship. They would just be hiding behind “policies”.

Tell me you don't know what censorship is without telling me you don't know what censorship is... 

Erm… what?

scrumhalf

Did Young genuinely think that Spotify would pull Rogan's podcasts? This has the hallmark of a free publicity stunt, rather like O'Leary saying daft things like charging for toilets on Ryanair planes and watching the name of Ryanair get plastered all over the media.

There was nothing to stop him doing this quietly. 

Jota

Evan said:

Jota said:

Evan said:

Jota said:

Evan said:

I’m sort of shocked at the impulse to censor being shown by a lot of people on this thread. Rationalise it any way you want, but know what you’re agitating for - suppression of free speech.

Spotify has policies to kick anyone who doesn't follow their rules! Is that censorship?!

If their rules are based on bias or ideological in nature, like Facebook, YouTube etc, then yes, that’s censorship. They would just be hiding behind “policies”.

Tell me you don't know what censorship is without telling me you don't know what censorship is... 

Erm… what?

You keep talking about censorship in a case of simple "deplatforming"!
The orange turd didn't suffer censorship when he was kicked from all the major social media platforms. He's still free to say whatever he wants and the fact is that the world still knows exactly what he says because he was not censured. He's just unable to use certain platforms because he broke their rules!

Heartfeltdawn

Evan said:

I’m sort of shocked at the impulse to censor being shown by a lot of people on this thread. Rationalise it any way you want, but know what you’re agitating for - suppression of free speech.

A 100 million dollar contract with a company to stream your interviews is the antithesis of free speech. If you believe that the contract Rogan signed has a paragraph that says "We, Spotify, are happy for you to say whatever the fuck you like", then good luck with your collection of singing potatoes. 

The subscribers who choose to cancel Spotify because they dislike one product have that absolute right as consumers. I believe that's called freedom of choice. 

Evan said:

If their rules are based on bias or ideological in nature, like Facebook, YouTube etc, then yes, that’s censorship. They would just be hiding behind “policies”.

Claptrap. A rule dictating that racist material can't be broadcast would be ideological in basis and utterly sensible in reality. 

Heartfeltdawn

Jota said:

You keep talking about censorship in a case of simple "deplatforming"!
The orange turd didn't suffer censorship when he was kicked from all the major social media platforms. He's still free to say whatever he wants and the fact is that the world still knows exactly what he says because he was not censured. He's just unable to use certain platforms because he broke their rules!

....which ultimately doesn't matter because in our free market world the wealthy like him can start their own social media platforms, organise their own rallies, and so on. 

Evan

Heartfeltdawn said:

Evan said:

I’m sort of shocked at the impulse to censor being shown by a lot of people on this thread. Rationalise it any way you want, but know what you’re agitating for - suppression of free speech.

A 100 million dollar contract with a company to stream your interviews is the antithesis of free speech. If you believe that the contract Rogan signed has a paragraph that says "We, Spotify, are happy for you to say whatever the fuck you like", then good luck with your collection of singing potatoes. 

The subscribers who choose to cancel Spotify because they dislike one product have that absolute right as consumers. I believe that's called freedom of choice. 

Evan said:

If their rules are based on bias or ideological in nature, like Facebook, YouTube etc, then yes, that’s censorship. They would just be hiding behind “policies”.

Claptrap. A rule dictating that racist material can't be broadcast would be ideological in basis and utterly sensible in reality. 

Your first point makes no sense whatsoever - the antithesis of free speech is censorship. I’m pretty sure Rogan made sure that he had the freedom to talk to whoever he wanted, pretty much about whatever he wanted - that’s the point of his show. 

We’re not talking about subscribers cancelling, we’re talking about 2 pretty powerful individuals, with a platform, becoming part of a pile on, with the aim of leveraging that power to get someone kicked off that platform and deny them a voice - it’s about them exerting raw power. It’s part of something initiated some time ago by CNN, NBC and the like, who absolutely hate him because he basically wipes the floor with them in terms of number of viewers and trust. Their viewership and levels of trust are rock bottom and they’re scared to death of him.

Not being racist isn’t ideological, it’s not being a dick. It would be ideological if they censored someone on the right for being racist, although they play fast and loose with their definitions, but totally ignored the most blatant racism and bigotry if it’s perceived to come from the left, which is exactly what happens. That’s ideological and it’s not sensible.

thecolourbox

Just a quick thought - are those accusing Young and Mitchell of trying to censor things, actually also censoring Young and Mitchell in the process by telling them to shut up?

rustneversleeps

“RUSTNEVERSLEEPS”

Heartfeltdawn

Evan said:

Your first point makes no sense whatsoever - the antithesis of free speech is censorship. I’m pretty sure Rogan made sure that he had the freedom to talk to whoever he wanted, pretty much about whatever he wanted - that’s the point of his show. 

It does make sense when the speech you are discussing, namely the output of Rogan's show, is something occurring in a contractual situation. You're "pretty sure" that he has absolute freedom to say what he likes and assert that talk "pretyt much" about whatever he wants. There's a lot of presumption there. 

Evan said:

We’re not talking about subscribers cancelling, we’re talking about 2 pretty powerful individuals, with a platform, becoming part of a pile on, with the aim of leveraging that power to get someone kicked off that platform and deny them a voice - it’s about them exerting raw power. It’s part of something initiated some time ago by CNN, NBC and the like, who absolutely hate him because he basically wipes the floor with them in terms of number of viewers and trust. Their viewership and levels of trust are rock bottom and they’re scared to death of him.

Ah, MSM fear. Spiked readers are so so so so borrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring. 

Evan said:

Not being racist isn’t ideological, it’s not being a dick. It would be ideological if they censored someone on the right for being racist, although they play fast and loose with their definitions, but totally ignored the most blatant racism and bigotry if it’s perceived to come from the left, which is exactly what happens.

When racism was the norm, being non-racist was pretty ideological in a similar way to atheist beliefs being ideological. 

And back to the usual stuff about racism and the left. Goodbye. 

m_c

My take on it, is for a platform that claims they pay artists fairly and can't afford to pay them more, they seem to be able to pay somebody an awful lot of money to talk random shit.

Evan

thecolourbox said:

Just a quick thought - are those accusing Young and Mitchell of trying to censor things, actually also censoring Young and Mitchell in the process by telling them to shut up?

No.

poopot

m_c said:

My take on it, is for a platform that claims they pay artists fairly and can't afford to pay them more, they seem to be able to pay somebody an awful lot of money to talk random shit.

Agreed… as previously said, an artist would need a billion streams to get the same revenue as rogan has got…

but… I don’t think this spat has anything to do with revenue… Neil young has put his music online for free https://m.neilyoungarchives.com/

this Is all about Neil young not agreeing with Rogans point of view… and that’s fine… young is free to do what he wants.

however, the question is:

”is it right for one artist to demand Spotify removes another artist because they have opposing views?”

my answer is no!… it’s not correct…

and it would be the same answer for me if it was rogan offering the intimation about young…

another hypothetical:

metallica demand McFly are taken down because McFlys output doesn’t fit with the Metallica ideal!

Evan

Heartfeltdawn said:

Evan said:

Your first point makes no sense whatsoever - the antithesis of free speech is censorship. I’m pretty sure Rogan made sure that he had the freedom to talk to whoever he wanted, pretty much about whatever he wanted - that’s the point of his show. 

It does make sense when the speech you are discussing, namely the output of Rogan's show, is something occurring in a contractual situation. You're "pretty sure" that he has absolute freedom to say what he likes and assert that talk "pretyt much" about whatever he wants. There's a lot of presumption there. 

Evan said:

We’re not talking about subscribers cancelling, we’re talking about 2 pretty powerful individuals, with a platform, becoming part of a pile on, with the aim of leveraging that power to get someone kicked off that platform and deny them a voice - it’s about them exerting raw power. It’s part of something initiated some time ago by CNN, NBC and the like, who absolutely hate him because he basically wipes the floor with them in terms of number of viewers and trust. Their viewership and levels of trust are rock bottom and they’re scared to death of him.

Ah, MSM fear. Spiked readers are so so so so borrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring. 

Evan said:

Not being racist isn’t ideological, it’s not being a dick. It would be ideological if they censored someone on the right for being racist, although they play fast and loose with their definitions, but totally ignored the most blatant racism and bigotry if it’s perceived to come from the left, which is exactly what happens.

When racism was the norm, being non-racist was pretty ideological in a similar way to atheist beliefs being ideological. 

And back to the usual stuff about racism and the left. Goodbye. 

Fabulously forensic discussing technique you’ve got got there - resorting to personal attacks reveals Guardian - esque tendencies and yes, I know, I’m stooping to that level now (just this once), and yes I know it’s a bit of an assumption, but I’d put money on it. Bye bye.

PS. I’ve just reminded myself why I don’t go on twitter.

thecolourbox

Evan said:

thecolourbox said:

Just a quick thought - are those accusing Young and Mitchell of trying to censor things, actually also censoring Young and Mitchell in the process by telling them to shut up?

No.

Ok cool.

And when he says "Spotify can have Rogan or Young and not both", does that not just signify him saying "remove me" rather than "remove him"? He can't reasonably have assumed that a platform aimed at young people would bow to a 76 year old, so he's clearly just making his statement and moving away from the platform? Or is that too simplistic?

Heartfeltdawn

Evan said:

Fabulously forensic discussing technique you’ve got got there - resorting to personal attacks reveals Guardian - esque tendencies and yes, I know, I’m stooping to that level now (just this once), and yes I know it’s a bit of an assumption, but I’d put money on it. Bye bye.

You'd lose.

Personal attacks - nah. It's attacking the whole range of dull tedious MSN left is the new evil nonsense that keeps flowing. It's attacking an ideology, not an individual. 

Jota

poopot said:

m_c said:

My take on it, is for a platform that claims they pay artists fairly and can't afford to pay them more, they seem to be able to pay somebody an awful lot of money to talk random shit.

Agreed… as previously said, an artist would need a billion streams to get the same revenue as rogan has got…

but… I don’t think this spat has anything to do with revenue… Neil young has put his music online for free https://m.neilyoungarchives.com/

this Is all about Neil young not agreeing with Rogans point of view… and that’s fine… young is free to do what he wants.

however, the question is:

”is it right for one artist to demand Spotify removes another artist because they have opposing views?”

my answer is no!… it’s not correct…

and it would be the same answer for me if it was rogan offering the intimation about young…

another hypothetical:

metallica demand McFly are taken down because McFlys output doesn’t fit with the Metallica ideal!

It's not opposing views, it's actually breaking Spotify terms. 
They say the remove thousands of podcast because of covid disinformation but they pay Rogan to do it! It doesn't make sense!

“We want all the world’s music and audio content to be available to Spotify users,” the company said in a statement. “With that comes great responsibility in balancing both safety for listeners and freedom for creators. We have detailed content policies in place and we’ve removed over 20,000 podcast episodes related to Covid-19 since the start of the pandemic. We regret Neil’s decision to remove his music from Spotify, but hope to welcome him back soon.” 

https://www-rollingstone-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/neil-youngs-spotify-joe-rogan-music-down-1291062/amp/?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw==#aoh=16435372893787&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=De %1$s&ampshare=https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/neil-youngs-spotify-joe-rogan-music-down-1291062/

Heartfeltdawn

It's part of the weird defence system too. 'Rogan's being cancelled by MSM'. 

Spotify is part of every Windows 10 installation. 381 million active users in 2021. Second largest internet float behind Facebook. 

Yet Spotify doesn't count as MSM apparently.