Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Joni Mitchell joins Neil Young in protest against Spotify

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 235 posts

Re: Joni Mitchell joins Neil Young in protest against Spotify

#101

Post by [deleted] »

unfocussed_mike wrote: post #10
olivierestsage wrote: post #2

I'll resist[0] the impulse to make fun of these artists as having an inflated sense of their own importance, and simply join others in noting that this kind of behavior shouldn't be tolerated. It sets a horrible precedent, no matter what one thinks about Joe Rogan. Edit: Too late now to save myself from downvote land, but I just spoke poorly. I meant it shouldn't be tolerated in the form of Spotify acquiescing to the…

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"?

[deleted]

Re: Joni Mitchell joins Neil Young in protest against Spotify

#102

Post by throwawaysea »

spaceisballer wrote: post #16
olivierestsage wrote: post #2

I'll resist[0] the impulse to make fun of these artists as having an inflated sense of their own importance, and simply join others in noting that this kind of behavior shouldn't be tolerated. It sets a horrible precedent, no matter what one thinks about Joe Rogan. Edit: Too late now to save myself from downvote land, but I just spoke poorly. I meant it shouldn't be tolerated in the form of Spotify acquiescing to the…

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

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.

Re: Joni Mitchell joins Neil Young in protest against Spotify

#103

Post by gonehome »

mulmen wrote: post #82
gonehome wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, for clarity Young and Mitchell are totally within their right to pull their music as an exercise of their speech and I’m fine with that. What I find distasteful is the framing of “Rogan or me” as a way to pressure Spotify to pull Rogan from the platform. Sure Spotify could do that, but they shouldn’t.

Why shouldn't they? Forget the names and the details of this situation for a moment. Spotify is a business that offers a catalog of content for a fee. Their value proposition is that they provide content people want to consume. Perhaps some content has fallen out of favor for some reason. Could be objectionable or just stale, public opinion is always shifting. If someone with more appealing content comes along and sa…

Well in this specific case a couple of easy reasons.

Rogan’s deal was $100M which is way more money than Young. So if it’s a business move than keeping Rogan is the obvious choice as he provides way more value to Spotify.

I care less about that though and more about the principled position here. In this case I think they’re the same.

Re: Joni Mitchell joins Neil Young in protest against Spotify

#105

Post by eej71 »

pseudalopex wrote: post #93
systemvoltage wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Young and Mitchell pulling their music is literally freedom of speech (free expression). Yes, they can protest. But they can't demand to shut up others (Rogan) which is what they seem to be doing. Personally, people should double down on their protest, hope others join against Joe Rogan's batshit insane science. But, I will never stand behind people wanting to deny him the exact rights they're exercising. Young and…

What evidence is there Young or Mitchell would deny Rogan the right to pull his podcast from any platform with their music?

None. But no one is making that claim.

Re: Joni Mitchell joins Neil Young in protest against Spotify

#106

Post by finite_jest »

mulmen wrote: post #39
gonehome wrote: post #26

Based on the recent Stratechery Neil Young advocates against GMOs which is the “anti-science” position on that issue. I think independent of my views on Rogan personally this kind of ultimatum to silence someone is just wrong. The free speech position is the principled one. Spotify wouldn’t be in this position if they weren’t trying to aggregate podcast ownership and ruin the open ecosystem anyway. Still, if I were S…

Young and Mitchell pulling their music is literally freedom of speech (free expression). Neil Young can do whatever he wants with his content (speech), just like Rogan. This is competition in the free marketplace of ideas. You're absolutely entitled to your opinion on these actions and you're free to support Spotify or Young or Mitchell or any combination of the three. But there is no "freedom of speech" side here.

> But there is no "freedom of speech" side here.

There is. Rogan is not trying to remove Neil Young's music from anywhere.

I've heard this unfruitful line of argument too often recently. Besides being unfruitful, I think it is based on a subtle fallacy/diversion.

The idea of free expression reasonably includes the right to criticize the principle itself. For example, in the US, you absolutely have the legal right to criticize the First Amendment. However, by doing so you would rightly be labelled as being against free expression.

If you like free expression, I think you should be cheering for Spotify and Rogan in this case.

Re: Joni Mitchell joins Neil Young in protest against Spotify

#107

Post by adolph »

lnxg33k1 wrote: post #57
unfocussed_mike wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 othe…

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...

Re: Joni Mitchell joins Neil Young in protest against Spotify

#108

Post by user3939382 »

unfocussed_mike wrote: post #10
olivierestsage wrote: post #2

I'll resist[0] the impulse to make fun of these artists as having an inflated sense of their own importance, and simply join others in noting that this kind of behavior shouldn't be tolerated. It sets a horrible precedent, no matter what one thinks about Joe Rogan. Edit: Too late now to save myself from downvote land, but I just spoke poorly. I meant it shouldn't be tolerated in the form of Spotify acquiescing to the…

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"?

> 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.

Re: Joni Mitchell joins Neil Young in protest against Spotify

#109

Post by [deleted] »

pseudalopex wrote: post #100
gonehome wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I am doing this because Spotify is spreading fake information about vaccines – potentially causing death to those who believe the disinformation being spread by them ... They can have Rogan or Young. Not both." I read this as if you want me get rid of him, but I’ll paste it here for clarity. Others may see it differently.

You left out the important part. "I want you to let Spotify know immediately TODAY that I want all my music off their platform". Probably he would reconsider if they dropped Rogan. He didn't expect it or ask.

[deleted]

Re: Joni Mitchell joins Neil Young in protest against Spotify

#110

Post by ch4s3 »

johnchristopher wrote: post #97
woodruffw wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding of the GMO debate is that there are two kinds of GMO development: there's GMO for the purposes of making crops themselves hardier, more nutritious, etc., and then there's GMO for the purposes of making crops more resistant to novel pesticides, herbicides, etc. The agricultural industry likes to conflate the two, since the latter is much harder to defend. I have no idea what Neil Young actually believ…

Isn' t there another kind of GMO whose sole purpose is IP so farmers can' t reuse seeds from one season to the next ?

Well they're in the seed selling business and make seeds that can survive being sprayed with herbicide. Farmers agree not to save the seed when they purchase them. But no one is forcing them to buy those seeds, they could buy different ones and use different and less effective herbicides. The one guy they drug into court was not only saving them, he was reselling them to other farmers which seems like a straightforward violation of the agreement he signed.
Post reply on HN