Joni Mitchell joins Neil Young in protest against Spotify

Post by 28304283409234 » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 9:34 AM UTC

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…

Post by johnchristopher » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 11:00 AM UTC

ch4s3 wrote: post #110

johnchristopher wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 straightforwa…

Post by Zigurd » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 11:58 AM UTC

alar44 wrote: post #54

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." Joni and Neil can do whatever they want and I respect that. What bothers me are all of the virtue signalers following them and getting rid of Spotify (or claiming to). You will not be able to consume anything if you actually care about these standards. Everyone is shitty and people are wrong al…

Post by white_dragon88 » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 12:29 PM UTC

gonehome wrote: post #139

mulmen wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I don't think your principles are sound. We are also participating in a marketplace of ideas. I'm not buying what you are selling. You are free to continue as you are, as am I.

I think private companies/platforms are able to exercise their speech in order to decide who is or isn’t on them. Keeping or removing Rogan is an exercise of their speech and within their right to decide. Still, I think it’s generally a bad idea to remove someone because of this kind of pressure. In Rogan’s specific case I also think it would be the wrong decision. I’m against internet cancel mobs as a general rule.

Post by philistine » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 4:56 PM UTC

edanm wrote: post #205

mulmen wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. I believe you're arguing semantics here. When people say "freedom of speech", they're referencing (sometimes unknowingly) hundreds of years of discussion in philosophy, politics, etc. A big part of that debate is whether censorship of so-called "bad" ideas is a good thing or a bad thing for "the public". One side here is trying to pressure, commercially and via public…