You mean in the interests of free speech, artists who you think have an inflated sense of their own importance should necessarily sacrifice their freedom of speech for someone who is parroting dangerous untruths?

Pulling their music from Spotify is speech. Why can they _not_ do it? What makes what they are doing a "horrible precedent"?

It's a bit of tolerance paradox, in order to protect free speech we should avoid the free speech that want to censor others, otherwise we all lose the right. So of course pulling their music is their right, but it stops being acceptable when they pull their rights in order to prevent others from speaking. I am of the idea that we must tolerate free speech up to the point where this free speech is used to prevent others from speaking, that's the issue in this case

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

-- On the other hand what does this people want? Like I have 3 shots, I have done whatever the government and science asked, I did the first 2 booster and I've listened to the campaign where they said that it would lead us to be open and live again, then we went again in lockdown closed inside (I'm european), despite the vast majority having the vaccines (85%++), Then there was a third shot, now they're talking about the fourth one, meanwhile people still goes to ICU and people is still dying, and still getting infected (100k a day), I want to understand science and politicians, but at this point can we just like following blindly whatever is said and maybe start asking some questions? Can we start having some doubts about effectiveness of meds and/or measures or we just need to keep silent?

This comment speaks like it was written as a joke. Why pretend like anyone's even remotely considering banning Joe Rogan from Spotify? Why pretend like there's a shortage of research? There's a vast amount of scientific research you could peruse if you have questions. There's no societal need for ignorant bullshit.

To be honest I have no time to waste with you, also because people who just avoid whole segments of articles in order to be right are usually either not genuinely taking part of the conversation or they lack comprehension skills, so one ends up being like Don Quixote fighting windmills

Quoted word by word from the article: "Last Monday, Young announced that he had asked his management and record label to remove his music from Spotify in protest of the streaming service's decision to host Joe Rogan's podcast"

If that doesn't mean that he wants to ban Joe Rogan from spotify, then what does it mean?

It means he isn't pleased with Spotify, and as such wants to remove his music. Pretty obvious. Hypothetically, imagine Spotify lost so much money losing Neil Young they remove the entire podcast. Young still might not come back because the point isn't about banning Rogan, the point is there's a real consequence for the misinformation they paid for.

A classic bit on the theme is Taleb’s “The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority”

https://nassimtaleb.org/2016/08/intolerant-wins-dictatorship...

This isnt a free speech issue. Neil Young is not the government nor is spotify. If Neil Young didn't want to be on the same tv show as joe rogan nobody would care. This amounts to the exact same thing.

I don't believe that free speech only applies to governments, free speech also applies to the general population, also because we don't elect toasters and coffee machines to governments, and elected people have the power to change regulations and amendments, so I feel like attack on free speech need to be fought starting from our neighbours

About Neil Young not being willing to participate along with other people, I would appreciate more Neil Young to go to participate with people and counter-argumenting their ideas with words, instead of being a little kid acting like "Gne gne gne I don't want to talk to you, teacher please can you send him out of the class?", I mean we're adult and capable of expressing complex ideas and counter-arguments, there's no need to running away, imho, but he's free all he wants to be a kid, just let's not consider him a paladine of anything

So freedom of speech only exists if government is involved? I don't think that's correct.

These artists are attempting to use pressure to silence someone else. That's 100% a "free speech" issue.

Consider one thing that I found extremely upsetting, as european, like the BBC was attacked for spreading misinformation only to have REPORTED news of people protesting in cities against lockdown measures

I didn't actually mention free speech in my comment, which (although I do passionately believe in it!) I don't consider the main issue here. If a precedent is set for artists being rewarded for demanding that other artists be removed from platforms, where will it end? How will the line be drawn? How much content will the people listening on these platforms be deprived of simply because of rivalries and the like? It doesn't seem like it's in the interest of listeners or customers to behave this way.

In what sense are Mitchell and Young being _rewarded_? They're going to lose some money, right? And they've certainly lost a few Joe Rogan fans.

Both of them simply asserted their right not to share a platform with someone they believe is doing significant harm. They owe him and their (Spotify's) customers nothing in particular.

It'll either work out for them and they'll get what they want, or it won't.

He makes 600,000 a month from his own streaming service. Some protests are commercials.

They would be rewarded if Spotify dropped Joe Rogan to appease them.

Yes let them exercise their free speech so they can collectively silence others; You're on to something.

And speaking of parroting, I'll agree that much of what joe and by proxy his guests say is dangerous. Where we disagree is whether or not these things are "untrue" and to whom they are dangerous towards.

But it _is_ free speech, isn't it?

There are plenty of examples through history of mass speech overturning things.

And there are plenty of boycotts organised by both left and right wing media the world over.

In the last four or five years, Trump urged boycotts of MLB, Coke, Goodyear, AT&T, Delta, JP Morgan Chase, Viacom, Merck, Cisco the NFL.

Trump _supporters_ (major and minor) have urged boycotts of Meetup, Nike, Nordstrom, Starbucks, Netflix, Pepsi, Nabisco, Anheuser Busch, Amazon, Ben & Jerry's, Apple, Ford, Bank of America... and Tucker Carlson is currently nursing very public hurt feelings about anthropomorphic chocolate CGI characters.

This stuff happens. It's how change of all kinds happens. It shouldn't be surprising if it is aimed at Joe Rogan, since he's so fond of being outspoken.

> parroting dangerous untruths

Like what? I feel like almost everyone parroting this accusation against Joe Rogan doesn’t actually listen to his podcast.

There’s so much discussion of Joe Rogan and the problem of what he’s actually said is curiously, conspicuously missing from the conversation.

Just as one example, Rolling Stone quotes him as saying:

“This doctor was saying ivermectin is 99 percent effective in treating Covid, but you don’t hear about it because you can’t fund vaccines when it’s an effective treatment”

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/covid-misi...

No responsible doctor said that -- it's a two-part untruth. First off, there's not the evidence to support the 99% claim. Second, it's not really particularly evident that an effective treatment for a disease has much impact on a search for a vaccine; there are effective treatments for HIV but the search for a vaccine continues, for example.

It's dangerous to make claims like that without evidence.

Bonus content:

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/joe-rogan-...

This needs to be drilled harder: People can express their views until cows come home. Knock yourself out.

But, that's precisely what Young is not doing. He wants to silence (and deny the FoS) Rogan. That is the distinction that keeps being ignored in this thread and elsewhere.

Nobody's FoS is under threat here. FoS does not entitle access to a broadcast medium, i.e. Spotify or YouTube. FoS simply means being able to publish your views without government censorship.

If you create your own newspaper, Spotify or YouTube you also control its editorial policy (what gets selected for publication, what gets taken down). But you can not demand that the New York Times, Spotify or Google change their editorial policy to let you publish your views. Access is a privilege, not a right.

What Young is doing here is calling in question Spotify's editorial policy for giving Rogan such a visible position on the platform. He is within his rights to do so. IF Spotify had removed Rogan instead, Rogan would need to find a new publisher but his FoS would not have been violated at any point.

To me it's no different than pulling your art from a gallery which is selling the paintings of John Wayne Gacy next to your work - except that music recordings are reproducible, so you can sell the same thing on multiple platforms.

(Artists in physical media can still distribute their work across many galleries - or "platforms")

Why shouldn’t this behavior be tolerated? This is the response that they uniquely can make to protest for what they believe in.

I do not condone censorship and I’m more concerned about the surgeon general suggesting that Spotify should censor Joe Rogan but these actions are also falling in the lines of free expression, which should be protected.

He certainly has a right to do that. No doubt

I wonder if Mr. Young will apply the same moral stringency to the rest of his distributors. I also wonder if his fans are aware of his own unscientific misinformation campaigns in regards to GMO foods.

I think most wonder - where does it end? What heterodox positions are tolerated and which ones aren’t? Especially in the context of something like a broad based music distributor.

Neil Young has, as far as I’m aware, made a point of arguing against GMO policy, not science. He’s anti-corporate, greed and an environmentalist, and Monsanto and glysophate are credible threats to farmers and the environment, respectively.

I know less about the plight of farmers being forced to use GM seed, but I am intimately familiar with the decimation of insect life in the last decade.

Isn’t this just life/humanity? No one is ever gonna have a 100% scientific correct moral applied equally to all of their life. He is gonna protest some stuff and not other stuff. I’m not really afraid of a slippery slope here. I think the bigger problem is people not taking a real stand in what they believe.

For me there is a cultural question of - what kind of heterodox should be considered normal as part of a broad based distribution service.

For example, there are a number of artists who seem to glorify killing police. Should we consider it normal that big time artist XYZ would feel the need to remove their music from the service? Yes, it would be their right (I don't think anyone disputes that)... but... is that a good cultural trend?

To my eyes, this looks more like tribalistic posturing than some sort of principled stand for something.

It's hard to call it a cultural trend when it's a couple famous people removing their library of music from one music service. I don't think it's unethical for a musician to stop working with a distributor if the terms of that stop being acceptable, that's wholly reasonable.

But to try and answer your question; no, I think it's kind of silly. Someone like Neil Young can only do this sort of thing once and trying to use it to deplatform another entertainer doesn't seem to be the most useful (removing Joe Rogan's podcast or whatever won't make a dent in the cause he supposedly is fighting for) and also not particularly effective unless there is a cataclysm of high profile musicians removing their music from Spotify.

It literally mirrors the plot to "Caddyshack":

A couple of old, out of touch rich people throwing a tantrum because they have to share a club with a loud gregarious buffoon that's wildly popular with others.

In that analogy, who is the gopher?

Jamie

sure, if the buffoon was spreading dangerous misinformation and misogyny.

What misinformation? And was it Rogan's view or that of one of his guests? And is it actually misinformation, or just controversial? Or you (& others) just disagree?

I mean, a lot has been said on Rogan's podcast over the years. Not all of it is likely to be correct. Even if we restrict ourselves to considering topics related to the Sars-Cov-2 epidemic, Rogan has spoken to many people, about many aspects of the situation.

I for one, quite enjoy his podcast. He speaks to many, varied very interesting and intelligent people, on range of topics. Politicians, scientists, doctors, special operators, hunters, actors, comedians, philosophers, ethicists.

But Joni Mitchell & Neil Young want Spotify to remove him from Spotify, because they disagree with something (or things) that was said on his podcast? And everyone agrees that this is a sound and reasonable thing?

Yeah but Neil Young's steadfast support of patriarchal dominance of the music industry and the treatment of female artists as sex objects over the past 50 odd years coupled with his so called "dangerous misinformation" on GMO foods isn't a good enough reason to try and silence him. Besides some of his old music really isn't too bad at all!

"Out of touch"?

They are both survivors of childhood polio, making a very timely point about vaccinations.

[downvoted for this? really?]

Are they childhood survivors of authoritarian governments that turned into oligarchies? Maybe if they had been, they wouldn't be so convinced that rich and famous people should get to decide what ideas other people are exposed to.

In what way are they deciding that?

They are simply deciding that they don't want to share a platform with Joe Rogan. Neil Young made it clear it's an either/or; Spotify went with "or". Their prerogative on both sides.

> Are they childhood survivors of authoritarian governments that turned into oligarchies?

Yep. They are both Canadian.

Lol. People can’t take a stance? I think it’s well within their right to pull their music for what they believe in.

Of course he can take a stance. And by the same token the rest of us are free to criticize it.

As they are free to criticize Spotify by putting their money where opinions are and taking their content elsewhere.

Free speech all the way around.

Within their legal rights? Sure. But they are advocating for others to be silenced in the same breath, not just silently pulling their content. In other words, they are using power (financial power, celebrity influence) to silence others. That is incompatible with the ideas underlying a classically liberal free society.

Sorry Neil Young isn't the all powerful boogeyman that you think he is. He isn't censoring joe rogan because he doesn't have that power.

> Neil Young [...] joe rogan

Interesting capitalization choice. Intentional?

Joe Rogan is an artist too, we have 3 entertainers, they are here to entertain us. I suspect you are more educated than the 3 of them combined, don't fall into to trap of picking which kardashian is best.

Joe Rogan has been right a lot, he can’t be right about everything. I think this is an ego problem of an icon turned to insignificance, irritated he doesn’t get an invite to the biggest show of the world.