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

171–180 of 235 posts

Re: Joni Mitchell joins Neil Young in protest against Spotify

#171

Post by mulmen »

School-Cotton wrote: post #164
mulmen wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not shutting down their speech. They are exercising it by choosing who to associate with. The first amendment does not protect you from the actions of other private parties, it protects you from the government . I realize this is a cliche but it is critical to understand. Freedom of speech means you can say "I don't like what that person says and they shouldn't say it." And everyone else is free to agree wit…

> The first amendment does not protect you from the actions of other private parties, it protects you from the government. Nobody in this thread was talking about the First Amendment. The concept of freedom of speech is much broader than its particular realization in US constitutional law.

Fair enough. I do not believe anyone is or should be entitled to an audience. I do not believe anyone is obligated to speak.

Re: Joni Mitchell joins Neil Young in protest against Spotify

#172

Post by unfocussed_mike »

user3939382 wrote: post #108
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"?

> 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-...

Re: Joni Mitchell joins Neil Young in protest against Spotify

#173

Post by ykevinator2 »

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…

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.

Re: Joni Mitchell joins Neil Young in protest against Spotify

#174

Post by finite_jest »

rektide wrote: post #152
finite_jest wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Young wasn't trying to remove Rogan's music. He was exercising his positive liberty, to act as he wanted: which was to not be on a platform with people he perceived as ultra-shitty & socially-ruinous. Young had (nearly) no expectation of causing change. There's a possibility he thought this really would, right now, have enacted change, but I highly doubt he was so deluded. Young simply knew he couldn't be party to su…

> Young wasn't trying to remove Rogan's music.

I very much disagree. We could be a bit more accurate/pedantic by saying "he's trying to mount pressure to remove Rogan's podcast from Spotify" instead, but that doesn't change much.

> not be on a platform with people he perceived as ultra-shitty & socially-ruinous.

I cancelled my Spotify a long time ago, but I don't think it's much of a social platform. If you don't want to interact with Rogan, you simply can. I think you could even mute an artist, so Spotify wouldn't even suggest their content to you.

Re: Joni Mitchell joins Neil Young in protest against Spotify

#175

Post by ch4s3 »

guerrilla wrote: post #166
ch4s3 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Th first article about India not allowing the seed until after people started buying them on the grey market, after Monsanto withdrew an application over a royalty dispute with the Indian government. Monsanto didn't sue any farmer there. The second article is about farmers intentionally planting the potatoes and refusing to stop as part of a settlement deal that offered them either purchasing contracts or asked them…

> accidentally growing patented seeds First, that's moving the goalpost. Second, "who would have guessed a multinational corporation would win in court against peasants the world over..." You're just repeating their side of the story.

The whole thing was about who they were actually suing. My original claim was that it’s a myth that they sue people for accidentally planting the seeds. If people choose to illegally buy and plant the patented seeds, then they should expect legal trouble.

I’m not actually a fan of these gene patents, but I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people trying to use them on the cheap then pretending to take an anti GMO stance when they get caught.

Re: Joni Mitchell joins Neil Young in protest against Spotify

#176

Post by guerrilla »

manquer wrote: post #125
guerrilla wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I'd use Banshee (or iTunes if you prefer) and a NAS, but a lot of people are using Nextcloud which has plugins for this kind of thing.

Banshee looks interesting! thanks for sharing. I was hoping for a streaming server(and clients) I suppose!, which maybe also fetches podcasts and also maybe does audiobooks and perhaps manage buying from stores which supports DRM free content downloads.

There's also Rhythmbox and Amarok but I never like them too much. I think Nextcloud may have what you want, I just can't speak to that since I haven't used it myself.

Re: Joni Mitchell joins Neil Young in protest against Spotify

#177

Post by gonehome »

pseudalopex wrote: post #168
gonehome wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imo he shouldn’t pull it. If he is uncomfortable sharing the platform so wants to remove his music fine, I’d just say that without the “you can’t have both of us” implication.

> Imo he shouldn’t pull it. Why not? > If he is uncomfortable sharing the platform so wants to remove his music fine, I’d just say that without the “you can’t have both of us” implication. The 1st part implies the 2nd.

I don’t think pulling his music is effective in persuading people he wants to persuade (likely this stunt has the opposite effect), but I also think it’s better to engage in good faith than just argue to suppress speech.

You can’t always if the other party won’t engage in good faith, but from what I’ve seen of Rogan he does. Harder with cases like Brett Weinstein where I think engaging is a waste of time imo.

So there’s a pragmatic argument here about getting the outcome you want.

For the latter rather than pulling with a “me or him” framing. It is possible to reaffirm the shared freedom of speech yet saying you disagree and don’t want to share the platform directly (because it indirectly helps fund it). That’s probably what I’d do in that situation.

Re: Joni Mitchell joins Neil Young in protest against Spotify

#178

Post by AnimalMuppet »

pseudalopex wrote: post #155
baryphonic wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I'm not sure I agree. Young and Mitchell (how many decades ago were they culturally relevant?) are certainly free to participate on Spotify or not. They certainly cannot be forced to. However, if Rogan were booted from Spo…

> (how many decades ago were they culturally relevant?) We're talking about them now. > threats They didn't threaten. Young directed his management to remove his music. Mitchell said she decided to remove hers. Is your problem they said why?

> We're talking about them now.

Not as artists that have anything currently to say, though. We're talking about them as people who are trying to keep someone else from talking.

Re: Joni Mitchell joins Neil Young in protest against Spotify

#179

Post by beerandt »

zzzeek wrote: post #89
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…

Neil Young doesn't have a GMO podcast nor any kind of political show on Spotify, nor is opposition to GMO technology an immediate grave threat to public health. Your point is completely irrelevant.

>nor is opposition to GMO technology an immediate grave threat to public health

The complete lack of awareness of the hypocrisy is why it's relevant.

If you took crop GMO, got rid of the one-time gene modification, but instead, started growing the unmodified plant...

and then just directly injected those modified genes such that billions of cells began expressing/building proteins from the modified genes...

...you'd end up with almost exactly the mRNA vaccine technology. (Well, if it worked on plants.)

But the 100% plant process that doesn’t rely on in-situ gene transfer or modification is dangerous to grow and eat,

while the viral process that involves intentional gene transfer into human cells, and said cells manufacturing the very part of the virus that makes it so effective at cellular invasion...is unquestionably safe to inject?

That's why opposition to GMO is relevant. It's completely contradictory and heretical to question the science of one while faithfully crusading for the other.

Re: Joni Mitchell joins Neil Young in protest against Spotify

#180

Post by AnimalMuppet »

pseudalopex wrote: post #158
gonehome wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don’t think that matters? He said pull my music and explicitly said you can have one of us not both.

So he should pull his music and tell no one why?

Not if I understand the chronology correctly. If I understand correctly (and I may not), Young gave his "me or Rogan" statement to Spotify (or maybe indirectly, simply making a public pronouncement). Spotify didn't pull Rogan's content, so a couple of days later, then Young pulled his content off of Spotify.

As I said, my understanding. And I haven't gone groveling through the back news items to prove it. Just my recollection of how I heard it reported over a few days.

Post reply on HN