Spotify removes Neil Young

ToneControl

why would spotify pay a podcaster so much anyway?
surely they won't cover those costs from his listeners???

I thought most of their revenue comes from full-fat subscribers, not adverts
I'm guessing most people who pay do it because they are there for the music?? 

Evan

ToneControl said:

why would spotify pay a podcaster so much anyway?
surely they won't cover those costs from his listeners???

I thought most of their revenue comes from full-fat subscribers, not adverts
I'm guessing most people who pay do it because they are there for the music?? 

He gets 11,000,000 views per podcast - this bloke is scaring the bejesus out of CNN etc. 

Heartfeltdawn

ToneControl said:

why would spotify pay a podcaster so much anyway?

surely they won't cover those costs from his listeners??? I thought most of their revenue comes from full-fat subscribers, not adverts. I'm guessing most people who pay do it because they are there for the music?? 

https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/14/22832670/podcast-ads-direct-response-brands-industry-hot-pod

That'll give you an idea of the podcast market as a whole. As does this:

https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/27/22904463/joe-rogan-spotify-neil-young-decision-moderation-podcasts

For the benefits of folk in this thread, it's worth reading this too. 

https://newsroom.spotify.com/2022-01-30/spotify-platform-rules/

The rules as set out are clear. Chances that his individual contracted agreement is less specific = minimal. 

The notion of CNN being scared to bits is another of those evidence-free assertions. Their audience is not the type to move across to JRE in the same month where they've done James Lindsay, Robert Epstein, and Jordan Peterson from Jan 20th to the 25th. 

prowla

Seems like Spotify are reviewing their position.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-60192957

thecolourbox

Evan said:

thecolourbox said:

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?

No, I think he wants Rogan booted off. Also, you’ve got Joni Mitchell and others now. The left hate Rogan - not because he’s right wing - he’s definitely not, but because he constantly points out the sheer nuttiness of the woke and points out their hypocrisy and authoritarian tendencies.

But on his site blog thing, Young seems to be quite happy to not be on there and looks like he was looking for any reason to get his music off there anyway, this was presumably just one big way to get himself noticed. He didn't get as much publicity when he removed stuff before because of the studio quality, I didn't know that was the reason until recently to be honest

Jota

prowla said:

Seems like Spotify are reviewing their position.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-60192957

Damage control.
https://www.nme.com/news/music/spotify-loses-more-than-2billion-in-market-value-following-joe-rogan-controversy-3149868

darthed1981

Evan said:

I don’t think Rogan cashed in on a trend, he set the trend. His podcast started like every other podcast, in a very small way and became massive because he was providing a service the mainstream wasn’t. I really don’t understand the moral panic about the idea that he sits down and has long form conversations with all sorts of different people, with all sorts of different opinions. Some of them might be what you’d call conspiracy theorists, but most of them are just interesting people. Oliver Stone, Tarantino, people of the left, people of the right, Dave Chappelle, Bill Burr. I saw him talking at length with Edward Snowden the other day - where else can you see that? I don’t see what makes that dangerous. I’m old enough to remember Mary Whitehouse and the moral majority and her conviction that if people were allowed to see tv programmes and films with explicit sex and violence, then everyone would suddenly become sex fiends and violent thugs. That theory was disproved long ago. 

People acquire “schooled” opinions by being exposed to more opinions, not by Chinese style censorship. 

Just to clarify, I'm not in favour of censoring Rogan, I actually agree you can't have a debate without talking to everyone.

One point though - people do not acquire schooled opinions by listening to podcasts at all, they acquire them from schools and universities, or from professional experience.  This is why I have a problem with the way opinions are often presented these days, to quote from a novel "the primary consequence of the information age has been to give undue prominence to uninformed opinion..."

It's not new, Private Eye, regretfully, gave early exposure to anti-vax loon/lying shithead Andrew Wakefield with a whole supplement, doing massive damage, but it is getting worse.

Heartfeltdawn

Evan said:. Some of them might be what you’d call conspiracy theorists, but most of them are just interesting people. Oliver Stone, Tarantino, people of the left, people of the right, Dave Chappelle, Bill Burr. I saw him talking at length with Edward Snowden the other day - where else can you see that? 

Quite right. Snowden has never had the chance to speak on mainstream media before Joe. 

Cirrus

Heartfeltdawn said:

Evan said:. Some of them might be what you’d call conspiracy theorists, but most of them are just interesting people. Oliver Stone, Tarantino, people of the left, people of the right, Dave Chappelle, Bill Burr. I saw him talking at length with Edward Snowden the other day - where else can you see that? 

Quite right. Snowden has never had the chance to speak on mainstream media before Joe. 

I think you've just murdered Evan

Heartfeltdawn

He's not dead. He's resting. Beautiful bird, the NorEvan Blue, beautiful plumage. 

I'm really puzzled by this whole mainstream media versus the new media aspect. The like of Facebook and YT and Spotify are on your phone and on your computer. They're not hidden behind paywalls, there is no licence fee. Yet there's this repetitive argument from folk who present stuff like YT and Spotify like it's some fucking photocopied underground 'zine from 1997. 

Evan

Cirrus said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

Evan said:. Some of them might be what you’d call conspiracy theorists, but most of them are just interesting people. Oliver Stone, Tarantino, people of the left, people of the right, Dave Chappelle, Bill Burr. I saw him talking at length with Edward Snowden the other day - where else can you see that? 

Quite right. Snowden has never had the chance to speak on mainstream media before Joe. 

I think you've just murdered Evan

Blimey, it seems I’ve stumbled upon a nest of murderous moral guardians! 

Ok, you sort of got me there, bad example - but for 3 hours? 

I could give you loads of better ones but I don’t think anything is going to change some minds.

Whistler

Harry and Meghan have said they are concerned about misleading Covid-19 information but will not be breaking their US$25 million contract with Spotify.

LastMantra

I agree with Evans point about Mary Whitehouse. I don't understand all the paranoia, and I actually think that paranoia is what's worrying. MW singlehandedly did more for the horror industry than anything else! It's like the church trying to ban the life of Brian and I think it's really strange that it's these old hippies that are doing it.

prowla

Freedom of speech and responsibility go hand-in-hand.

As far as Spotify goes; people who don't want to be associated with their position, including artistes and investors are also free to exercise their right to step away.

LastMantra

prowla said:

As far as Spotify goes; people who don't want to be associated with their position, including artistes and investors are also free to exercise their right to step away.

Of course. 

Heartfeltdawn

Evan said:

Blimey, it seems I’ve stumbled upon a nest of murderous moral guardians! 

Ok, you sort of got me there, bad example - but for 3 hours? 

I could give you loads of better ones but I don’t think anything is going to change some minds.

No you haven't. Just as you've not some lone crusader against a sea of censorship. The first interview in that list went on for nearly an hour. I don't think we're yet into the state where interviews with Snowden only count as 'acceptable if they break the 100 minute mark'. 

You talked of me having "Guardian-esque tendencies". The Guardian was one of the first to break the Snowden story. The editor of the time said that Snowden had performed a public service. As Snowden's Wiki entry reads:

"On May 20, 2013, Snowden flew to Hong Kong,[128] where he was staying when the initial articles based on the leaked documents were published,[129] beginning with The Guardian on June 5.[130] Greenwald later said Snowden disclosed 9,000 to 10,000 documents.[131]

Within months, documents had been obtained and published by media outlets worldwide, most notably The Guardian (Britain), Der Spiegel (Germany), The Washington Post and The New York Times (U.S.), O Globo (Brazil), Le Monde (France), and similar outlets in Sweden, Canada, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and Australia."

It calls into question the idea of mainstream media not covering Snowden. Jordan Peterson certainly hasn't been denied a platform on mainstream telly in this country, be it the BBC or C4. Here's another platform he was given in late 2018: the platform of Sutton train station! When your book is being advertised next to a panto featuring Paul Merton, it's a leap to say that there is a lack of mainstream access. 

https://i.imgur.com/6rcoT3U.png

Let's try one issue: Critical Race Theory. We'll use his official clips channel on Youtube currently rocking along at 6.27m subscribers (nearly as many as my channel).  Search "Critical Race Theory". Pretty much the only one on there who is pro- is Cornel West. Away from him, you've got Sam Harris, James Lindsay, a pair of Weinsteins. Debra Soh comes up, Thaddeus Russell (a self-proclaimed loather of the modern left), Peter Boghossian. Now a search term like "Critical Race Theory" isn't some ingeniously constructed device to only throw up ideas from one main standpoint. I simply can't see where this idea that Rogan takes in folk from all over the spectrum on this one particular issue when it's weighted in one particular direction. 

Now that doesn't say that he's directed one way over everything. It couldn't do so when it's focused on one area. What it does suggest is that the programme has its own particular biases. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with are people denying that it does.

Evan

Heartfeltdawn said:

Evan said:

Blimey, it seems I’ve stumbled upon a nest of murderous moral guardians! 

Ok, you sort of got me there, bad example - but for 3 hours? 

I could give you loads of better ones but I don’t think anything is going to change some minds.

No you haven't. Just as you've not some lone crusader against a sea of censorship. The first interview in that list went on for nearly an hour. I don't think we're yet into the state where interviews with Snowden only count as 'acceptable if they break the 100 minute mark'. 

You talked of me having "Guardian-esque tendencies". The Guardian was one of the first to break the Snowden story. The editor of the time said that Snowden had performed a public service. As Snowden's Wiki entry reads:

"On May 20, 2013, Snowden flew to Hong Kong,[128] where he was staying when the initial articles based on the leaked documents were published,[129] beginning with The Guardian on June 5.[130] Greenwald later said Snowden disclosed 9,000 to 10,000 documents.[131]

Within months, documents had been obtained and published by media outlets worldwide, most notably The Guardian (Britain), Der Spiegel (Germany), The Washington Post and The New York Times (U.S.), O Globo (Brazil), Le Monde (France), and similar outlets in Sweden, Canada, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and Australia."

It calls into question the idea of mainstream media not covering Snowden. Jordan Peterson certainly hasn't been denied a platform on mainstream telly in this country, be it the BBC or C4. Here's another platform he was given in late 2018: the platform of Sutton train station! When your book is being advertised next to a panto featuring Paul Merton, it's a leap to say that there is a lack of mainstream access. 

https://i.imgur.com/6rcoT3U.png

Let's try one issue: Critical Race Theory. We'll use his official clips channel on Youtube currently rocking along at 6.27m subscribers (nearly as many as my channel).  Search "Critical Race Theory". Pretty much the only one on there who is pro- is Cornel West. Away from him, you've got Sam Harris, James Lindsay, a pair of Weinsteins. Debra Soh comes up, Thaddeus Russell (a self-proclaimed loather of the modern left), Peter Boghossian. Now a search term like "Critical Race Theory" isn't some ingeniously constructed device to only throw up ideas from one main standpoint. I simply can't see where this idea that Rogan takes in folk from all over the spectrum on this one particular issue when it's weighted in one particular direction. 

Now that doesn't say that he's directed one way over everything. It couldn't do so when it's focused on one area. What it does suggest is that the programme has its own particular biases. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with are people denying that it does.

Well you’ve picked a bad example now. It’s damnably difficult to get CRT pushers to open their ideas up to scrutiny, or anybody who may question them, mainly because they know it just doesn’t make sense to anybody except true believers. The same goes for trans ideologists. I know that the blokes on the Triggernometry podcasts and also Andrew Doyle are constantly inviting enthusiasts of these ideas to talk about them, but they just refuse to engage.

Heartfeltdawn

Evan said:

Well you’ve picked a bad example now. It’s damnably difficult to get CRT pushers to open their ideas up to scrutiny, or anybody who may question them, mainly because they know it just doesn’t make sense to anybody except true believers. 

So you determine that the people who tout CRT also know how stupid it is but it makes sense to true believers. 

Evan said:I know that the blokes on the Triggernometry podcasts and also Andrew Doyle are constantly inviting enthusiasts of these ideas to talk about them, but they just refuse to engage.

"Dear CRT pushers, please come on our show so we can trash you". 

And that's the difference between a chaired debate and a podcast for the most part. There is no middle ground overseeing things. If they go on, they are trashed. If they don't go on, then it's apparent evidence that their theory is trash and so they can be trashed anyway. 

dindude

Both Spotify and Rogan have both made statements today. Funny how initially it was “cheers Neil, come back when you’re ready” but contrition then sets in when $2bn of its market cap is wiped off. Or even more cynically, when Megan and Harry speak out.

Evan

Heartfeltdawn said:

Evan said:

Well you’ve picked a bad example now. It’s damnably difficult to get CRT pushers to open their ideas up to scrutiny, or anybody who may question them, mainly because they know it just doesn’t make sense to anybody except true believers. 

So you determine that the people who tout CRT also know how stupid it is but it makes sense to true believers. 

Evan said:I know that the blokes on the Triggernometry podcasts and also Andrew Doyle are constantly inviting enthusiasts of these ideas to talk about them, but they just refuse to engage.

"Dear CRT pushers, please come on our show so we can trash you". 

And that's the difference between a chaired debate and a podcast for the most part. There is no middle ground overseeing things. If they go on, they are trashed. If they don't go on, then it's apparent evidence that their theory is trash and so they can be trashed anyway. 

I won’t engage with you because you might win the argument?

Oh come on, you don’t really think that do you? If that’s really true, then they can’t have much confidence in their arguments can they? If you’ve ever seen Triggernometry you’d know that’s not the way they operate, neither does Joe Rogan, Andrew Doyle, Jordan Peterson or Sam Harris. All of these people will give anyone a fair hearing and if they can back up their ideas with evidence based on reality and reason, then they would win the argument.Trouble is, their ideas aren’t based on any of those things, in fact they reject the very idea of objective truth. 

Ultimately, if they want to win people over, they’re going to have to talk to people who might potentially not agree with them, which is unfortunately for them, most people.