The current Spotify controversy

[RussTCB]

Just now, Mendez said:

my thoughts are i dont give a fuck honestly.

The only reason I care is that I don't want to go down a road where we just go right to trying to de-platform anyone we disagree with. I don't care about Rogan and I've never really cared for Young. But the debate as a whole interests me, that's all. 

[downzy]

24 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

Here's one other thing and I promise I don't have a tin foil hat on right now BUT I also think it's interesting that Neil Young in particular has tried and failed to get his own streaming platforms off the ground. 

Depends how you define failure.

His site allows paying members access to his entire catalogue. In 2020 he cleared $600k from memberships alone.

But in terms of providing a competitive alternative to Spotify or Amazon music, then yes, he hasn’t been all that successful. 

[downzy]

36 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

What misinformation has he been spreading? Interviewing people with dissenting opinions?

It’s not “dissenting opinions.”

It’s factually wrong information that’s getting people killed:

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/covid-misinformation-joe-rogan-spotify-petition-1282240/amp/

37 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

The alternative is putting your head in the sand and embracing hardline totalitarian censorship which is a bad idea lol.

Nobody is suggesting that. Nor are those the only two options. 

38 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

I find it so boring and infuriating that the left STILL doesn't have any grasp on the uncomplicated mindset of Trump supporter types, which is very misguided and rampant yes but also partially rooted in truth.

This has nothing to do with Trump.

38 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

People seem to be losing the art of conversing in good faith and utilizing critical thinking

None of which are present on Rogan’s show. 

[downzy]

39 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

If Joe Rogan were deplatformed that would A) Not be right.

Losing employment on Spotify is being deplatformed as much as being banned from this forum.  There are alternatives. 

[downzy]

13 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

I read the article, seems those scientists were being reasonable. But it'd be better if they went on his podcast and said you're wrong and this is why

They would never be allowed on. Joe has this pattern of letting completely ludicrous guests on, fails to challenge anything they have to say, and then almost never has the opposing view, particularly about topics such as covid and vaccines.  Rogan could have reached out to any of these doctors and invited them on. But as far as we know, such an invite was never extended. Moreover, this isn’t a topic that needs or deserves equal treatment. If you’re going to come to the table with opinions and positions that don’t hold up to the slightest scrutiny, then maybe you shouldn’t have been invited to the table in the first place, particularly concerning topics that can have a real impact in people’s lives. And this is my problem with Rogan.  It’s not that he’s a bad guy or seems to have bad intentions, but that he’s not equipped to have on some of the guests he has on.  With an audience his size he has a responsibility to be something better than just a clearinghouse for the worst takes and bad information. Otherwise he’s making things worse by helping and furthering nonsense that would not have received the same level of amplification elsewhere. 

13 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

It's not the same thing imo.

Obviously not on the same scale. But the principle is the same. Losing one’s ability to post on this forum isn’t a loss to one’s free speech. There are plenty of other places to discuss about GNR or whatever else people want to talk about.  Similarly, there are plenty of other places Rogan could go if Spotify chose to let him go. He’s not prevented from doing his show on another platform. 

[Powderfinger]

4 hours ago, RussTCB said:

The only reason I care is that I don't want to go down a road where we just go right to trying to de-platform anyone we disagree with. I don't care about Rogan and I've never really cared for Young. But the debate as a whole interests me, that's all. 

I don’t care about him either, but I’m informed enough on him to know he’s shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
 

Free Speech isn’t the issue, it’s a matter of stupidity. Neils living in the past thinking he can control his art and it’s presentation in the online era, and Rogan has people on who are spreading misinformation on a serious topic. 
 

In the modern world, you can’t and will not be able to cancel someone like Rogan. He has his followers, and the platform will never matter. He could self host. 

It’s just another dumb row, with no real consequences for either involved. Maybe Neil looses a few quid...

[Tom2112]

18 hours ago, downzy said:

Because it doesn’t involve the government. The first amendment is limited to government interference, not private interference.  Young, Mitchell and others aren’t demanding Rogan stop making his show.  Should Spotify no longer carry and support the show Rogan would still be free to make and promote it elsewhere. It would only be a free speech issue if Young was demanding the US government get involve and shut Rogan down.

This is a freedom of association issue. Young doesn’t want to be associated with a company that is profiting from content that is killing people.  I don’t see the problem here.

I think the issue here is content, not a rights or freedom issue. If Rogan tomorrow started promoting Nazi ideology, would anyone have an issue with what Young is doing?  Rogan would still be exercising his ability to say what he wants, but now the content is something that most people disagree with. For Young, Rogan’s promotion of anti-vax ideas crosses a line similar to if Rogan started espousing Nazi ideology. And I’m not saying the two are equal. But for the purposes of demonstrating how this isn’t a free speech issue, examine how the response would be if the content of the speech was over everyone’s line. 

Neil Young and Joni Mitchell are bullying Spotify into a corner "We're quitting and we're gonna get all our friends to quit unless you do what we tell you". That's an abuse and it's completely censoring Joe Rogan. 

I know! boo hoo! poor old spotify getting bullied by musicians. Well I agree that Spotify are money grabbing assholes, I disagree with Neil Young fighting this particular fight and then roping in "oh Spotify has crap sound and pay poorly" these things are separate arguments. For Neil Young to say "I'm all for free speech, but I want to censor Joe Rogan" is laughable. Fact of the matter is that there is a lot of people with opposing views on covid. The best way to deal with them is engage the conversation, not say "we're not talking about this, what we say is fact, end of story, ban all who say otherwise".

[ZoSoRose]

It’s just hilarious he then tells people to go to Amazon Music. Like, fucking Amazon… the cornerstone of abusive capitalism and big business.

Love Neil, but I think this is dumb. 

[RussTCB]

54 minutes ago, Tom2112 said:

Neil Young and Joni Mitchell are bullying Spotify into a corner "We're quitting and we're gonna get all our friends to quit unless you do what we tell you". That's an abuse and it's completely censoring Joe Rogan. 

I know! boo hoo! poor old spotify getting bullied by musicians. Well I agree that Spotify are money grabbing assholes, I disagree with Neil Young fighting this particular fight and then roping in "oh Spotify has crap sound and pay poorly" these things are separate arguments. For Neil Young to say "I'm all for free speech, but I want to censor Joe Rogan" is laughable. Fact of the matter is that there is a lot of people with opposing views on covid. The best way to deal with them is engage the conversation, not say "we're not talking about this, what we say is fact, end of story, ban all who say otherwise".

This. So much this. 

29 minutes ago, ZoSoRose said:

It’s just hilarious he then tells people to go to Amazon Music. Like, fucking Amazon… the cornerstone of abusive capitalism and big business.

Love Neil, but I think this is dumb. 

And this too. 

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

1 hour ago, Tom2112 said:

Neil Young and Joni Mitchell are bullying Spotify into a corner "We're quitting and we're gonna get all our friends to quit unless you do what we tell you". That's an abuse and it's completely censoring Joe Rogan. 

I know! boo hoo! poor old spotify getting bullied by musicians. Well I agree that Spotify are money grabbing assholes, I disagree with Neil Young fighting this particular fight and then roping in "oh Spotify has crap sound and pay poorly" these things are separate arguments. For Neil Young to say "I'm all for free speech, but I want to censor Joe Rogan" is laughable. Fact of the matter is that there is a lot of people with opposing views on covid. The best way to deal with them is engage the conversation, not say "we're not talking about this, what we say is fact, end of story, ban all who say otherwise".

From a power politics perspective, people with social leftwing views or in this instance, the point of view that vaccines are good and masks are a good idea, have all the cultural power. Why should they allow opposing views? It's actually very effective to censor your opposition, that's why it's done. People that are really big like Rogan or Alex Jones can still survive, although their reach will be lessened. People that aren't as big get crushed by censorship. I remember the youtube personality Stefan Molyneux was fairly big but nowhere near an Alex Jones or Rogan. He got censored and tried to make it on alternative platforms and now he gets miniscule views in comparison. Censorship just crushed him because hew wasn't big enough to survive it.

[SoulMonster]

The idea that preventing anyone from expressing anything anywhere is a violation of free speech, is remarkably dumb. Spotify can refuse whoever they like to use their platform for expressing whatever, just like I can do the same in my house. The fact that Spotify is huge with a big market cap does not change this. 

Secondly, even platforms who want to allow "both sides" to voice their opinion, is not obligated to allow every opinion. Some kind of editorial control is expected to not ruin the place with inane noise, like outright lies and misinformation used as propaganda. 

[downzy]

11 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

Putting your hand, especially with rage, on a paranoid person's shoulder and saying "Hey, dipshit, paranoia bad, okay?" is going to achieve precisely fuckall.

But that's not what's really being discussed here.  The issue is whether Spotify has any responsibility to exercise editorial control and whether that editorial control can be construed as censorship.

We're not talking about Uncle Jeb who spouses nonsensical conspiracy theories at Thanksgiving Dinner.  The issue is whether Young's desire not to be associated with a platform that does nothing to limit the flow of harmful information is a form of censorship.

[downzy]

2 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

Neil Young and Joni Mitchell are bullying Spotify into a corner "We're quitting and we're gonna get all our friends to quit unless you do what we tell you". That's an abuse and it's completely censoring Joe Rogan. 

If that were true - if Young and Mitchell and others were actually bullying - then Rogan would have been gone. 

2 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

For Neil Young to say "I'm all for free speech, but I want to censor Joe Rogan" is laughable

He's not saying that.  At all.

If he came out and called for every other artist to pull their music from Spotify and any other platform that would host Rogan than maybe.  He's not even demanding that Rogan stop making his show.  His demand was quite clear: I do not want to have association with any company that would profit from the steady flow of information around covid-19 and vaccines.  If Spotify chooses to remain in business with Rogan, then Young will take his music and business out there.  That doesn't come close to what you're accusing Young of doing.

2 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

Fact of the matter is that there is a lot of people with opposing views on covid.

It's fine to have different opinions on covid.  Personally I've oscillated between different attitudes and positions all through the pandemic.  I think we all have.

The issue isn't opinions.  It's giving voice to factually wrong information without any effort to inform listeners that what they're hearing is in no way accurate.  It's completely irresponsible for Rogan to have people like Dr. Robert Malone on and spout off that covid-19 is nothing more than a mass formation psychosis; that the vaccines aren't effective; that the side effects outweigh "natural immunity."  Those aren't opinions.  It's straight up false information that is leading to more harm and death.  

2 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

The best way to deal with them is engage the conversation, not say "we're not talking about this, what we say is fact, end of story, ban all who say otherwise".

It has been.  We know what's true and not.  Moreover, if good information defeated bad information, we wouldn't be having the problems that we are. It would have been on thing if Malone came on two years ago when less about the pandemic or the vaccines were known.  But we know for a fact that these "positions" are not true.  Your point also assumes that Rogan has guests on that present the correct take on the virus and vaccines.  As far as I'm aware he doesn't.  I think the one time in the last two months he had on an expert he denied factual information that was presented to him by said expert regarding this risks of  myocarditis and the vaccines vs the virus.  Rogan doesn't really give about the truth.  If he did he would have guests on that don't spout nonsense that has long been disproven or disqualified.

 

2 hours ago, ZoSoRose said:

It’s just hilarious he then tells people to go to Amazon Music. Like, fucking Amazon… the cornerstone of abusive capitalism and big business.

Love Neil, but I think this is dumb. 

I don't think Neil's issue here is capitalism though.  Remember he survived a polio infection.  For Young, vaccine misinformation is personal. 

I don't think it's fair to say he's being hypocritical because he points to other companies who may not have the best track record on other welfare issues.  

[downzy]

1 hour ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

From a power politics perspective, people with social leftwing views or in this instance, the point of view that vaccines are good and masks are a good idea, have all the cultural power. Why should they allow opposing views? It's actually very effective to censor your opposition, that's why it's done.

Clinical research doesn't give a shit about "cultural power."  It only cares if a causes b at the risk of c.  The data doesn't lie here.  If tomorrow it came out that the vaccines proved to be dangerous and we should stop taking them, then I think most people, regardless of partisanship, would stop taking them.  I know I would.

The issue is that there is a strong willingness by some to ignore what the data says and push an agenda for either tribal reasons or for personal profit and fame (like Robert Kennedy Jr., who is certainly not a conservative when it comes to his political partisanship).

People like to think that every position has two opposing sides.  And some times there are.  But until the data says otherwise, there is no opposing take on vaccines that is valid and holds up to scrutiny.  Continuing to push nonsense about them for the sake of "expressing a different opinion" is more about the person making it and less about the point they're trying to make.  

[downzy]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

The idea that preventing anyone from expressing anything anywhere is a violation of free speech, is remarkably dumb. Spotify can refuse whoever they like to use their platform for expressing whatever, just like I can do the same in my house. The fact that Spotify is huge with a big market cap does not change this. 

Secondly, even platforms who want to allow "both sides" to voice their opinion, is not obligated to allow every opinion. Some kind of editorial control is expected to not ruin the place with inane noise, like outright lies and misinformation used as propaganda. 

Exactly.  It's what we do here. 

Last time I checked, nobody except for the lunatic fringe thinks we're "censoring" people because they choose to ignore the rules of the forum and hence get suspended or banned.  

It would be one thing if being banned from this forum meant you couldn't talk about GNR anywhere else on the Internet.  But obviously that's not the case.

The same dynamic applies with respect to having a podcast on Spotify.  Rogan obviously hasn't broken any rules per se (I really don't know Spotify's rules on the issue; I don't even know or think they have any at this point).  But it's obviously a rule that Young and others feel Spotify should have.  It's failure to not do more to limit false information that's harming people made it clear he didn't want to be part of Spotify.  But to claim that's somehow censoring Rogan is crazy to me.  If Young then showed up to Rogan's studio and destroyed everything, then yeah, that would be censoring Rogan.  But there's nothing stopping Rogan from doing his show elsewhere, just as there's nothing stopping a banned member at this forum from posting on another forum or places like reddit or facebook.  

[downzy]

1 hour ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

I remember the youtube personality Stefan Molyneux was fairly big but nowhere near an Alex Jones or Rogan. He got censored and tried to make it on alternative platforms and now he gets miniscule views in comparison. Censorship just crushed him because hew wasn't big enough to survive it.

Molyneux openly promoted eugenics.  Are we know saying that people who are openly hostile have a legal or god given right to promote such nonsense on YouTube?

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

1 hour ago, downzy said:

Clinical research doesn't give a shit about "cultural power."  It only cares if a causes b at the risk of c.  The data doesn't lie here.  If tomorrow it came out that the vaccines proved to be dangerous and we should stop taking them, then I think most people, regardless of partisanship, would stop taking them.  I know I would.

The issue is that there is a strong willingness by some to ignore what the data says and push an agenda for either tribal reasons or for personal profit and fame (like Robert Kennedy Jr., who is certainly not a conservative when it comes to his political partisanship).

People like to think that every position has two opposing sides.  And some times there are.  But until the data says otherwise, there is no opposing take on vaccines that is valid and holds up to scrutiny.  Continuing to push nonsense about them for the sake of "expressing a different opinion" is more about the person making it and less about the point they're trying to make.  

I actually agree in the case of the vaccines, the science says what it says. I was trying to make a larger political point that censorship does in fact work. And if one side of a debate (use any example you like) has institutional power, they have no incentive to allow a free and open debate.

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

53 minutes ago, downzy said:

Molyneux openly promoted eugenics.  Are we know saying that people who are openly hostile have a legal or god given right to promote such nonsense on YouTube?

I don't remember that specific video or what he was claiming there. But yes he did have some videos that were incendiary politically. My point is that censorship absolutely smashed him (and he had something like 700,000 subs if I remember correctly). So he was big, but not big enough to survive. I'm sure there other examples of more mild (but still not PC) political commentators losing such privileges. 

[Tom2112]

5 hours ago, downzy said:

If that were true - if Young and Mitchell and others were actually bullying - then Rogan would have been gone. 

He's not saying that.  At all.

If he came out and called for every other artist to pull their music from Spotify and any other platform that would host Rogan than maybe.  He's not even demanding that Rogan stop making his show.  His demand was quite clear: I do not want to have association with any company that would profit from the steady flow of information around covid-19 and vaccines.  If Spotify chooses to remain in business with Rogan, then Young will take his music and business out there.  That doesn't come close to what you're accusing Young of doing.

It's fine to have different opinions on covid.  Personally I've oscillated between different attitudes and positions all through the pandemic.  I think we all have.

The issue isn't opinions.  It's giving voice to factually wrong information without any effort to inform listeners that what they're hearing is in no way accurate.  It's completely irresponsible for Rogan to have people like Dr. Robert Malone on and spout off that covid-19 is nothing more than a mass formation psychosis; that the vaccines aren't effective; that the side effects outweigh "natural immunity."  Those aren't opinions.  It's straight up false information that is leading to more harm and death.  

It has been.  We know what's true and not.  Moreover, if good information defeated bad information, we wouldn't be having the problems that we are. It would have been on thing if Malone came on two years ago when less about the pandemic or the vaccines were known.  But we know for a fact that these "positions" are not true.  Your point also assumes that Rogan has guests on that present the correct take on the virus and vaccines.  As far as I'm aware he doesn't.  I think the one time in the last two months he had on an expert he denied factual information that was presented to him by said expert regarding this risks of  myocarditis and the vaccines vs the virus.  Rogan doesn't really give about the truth.  If he did he would have guests on that don't spout nonsense that has long been disproven or disqualified.

 

I don't think Neil's issue here is capitalism though.  Remember he survived a polio infection.  For Young, vaccine misinformation is personal. 

I don't think it's fair to say he's being hypocritical because he points to other companies who may not have the best track record on other welfare issues.  

That's not true, Rogans podcast has more monthly listeners than both Young and Mitchell combined. Spotify are going to back the bigger money spinner. But it is true that they played their hand trying to force Spotify into a knee jerk reaction. They should have opened the dialogue of asking to put a warning before the episode. 

Look if he continually said "covids fake, don't wear masks, don't get vaccinated" I'd be all for deplatforming him, but I haven't heard him say that. He is skeptical, and I might disagree with what he says but I don't think he's an expert and I also don't just take it for granted that someone is an expert because they have doctor before their name. There has to be a certain level of personal responsibility for the listener.  

[downzy]

5 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

That's not true, Rogans podcast has more monthly listeners than both Young and Mitchell combined. Spotify are going to back the bigger money spinner. But it is true that they played their hand trying to force Spotify into a knee jerk reaction. They should have opened the dialogue of asking to put a warning before the episode. 

I don’t disagree that Spotify went with the bigger draw, to a certain extent. That said in fifty years it’s likely no one will remember who Rogan is but people will still be listening to at least Neil Young.

It’s unfair to lump Mitchell in with Young since her decision was made after Spotify made it clear they weren’t breaking with Rogan.

Again, I don’t think Young was under delusions that he was going to get Rogan removed from Spotify. He’s not dumb. He knows they’re not going to cut ties with a guy they just gave $100 million to. This was more about drawing attention to a situation in a way that 270 doctors and medical professionals couldn’t two weeks prior. Artists use to take these kinds of stands all the time and were applauded for it.

5 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

Look if he continually said "covids fake, don't wear masks, don't get vaccinated" I'd be all for deplatforming him

I don’t even listen/watch the show and I know that a lot of what you described is communicated to his audience. Some times directly, like when he told that people under 30 don’t need the vaccine. Or when he claimed that there is a greater risk of myocarditis from the vaccines than the virus (which there isn’t, and when he was finally called out about it live on air he chose to double down and question the source of the info because it invalidated his opinion).

But he also does it indirectly by who he decides to have on as guests and how he treats each guests. Clips of Rogan pushing back against claims mare by Sunjay Gupta went viral amongst the anti-vax crowd. He would preface his questions with factually untrue statements (example:vaccines don’t offer any protection against infection) while often pushing back against some of Sunjay’s answers in a way that undermines claims that Rogan’s interview style is one that is non-confrontational and allows listeners to come to their own conclusions.

Contrasts that with his guest Dr. Malone, where there was next to no pushback on any of the claims made (all of which had already been discredited. With Malone he gave him all the space he needed to push harmful info without the slightest rebuttal.

It’s not what Rogan thinks that makes his show so dangerous around the pandemic and the vaccines. It’s how he thinks with respect to who he’ll have on and how that guest is treated.

5 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

He is skeptical, and I might disagree with what he says but I don't think he's an expert

And that’s my problem. If he’s not an expert, why is he covering the topic?  How is he benefiting anyone by having guests on to speak about highly controversial and life and death topics without the slightest idea of what they’re saying or how to respond?  If he wants to stick to stand up comics or MMA fighters, have at it.  But the minute Rogan has guys like Robert Malone on or even Jordan Peterson of all people to spout off nonsense, he bears some responsibility to educate himself enough so as to not give nonsense a free pass. Otherwise leave it to people who actually know the topics to interview these people.

5 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

I also don't just take it for granted that someone is an expert because they have doctor before their name. There has to be a certain level of personal responsibility for the listener.  

Good for you. But a lot of people don’t think that way.  I don’t disagree that the responsibility also falls on the listener, but that doesn’t absolve Rogan of his misdeeds. Look, it’s obviously problematic enough for 270 doctors and experts to draft a joint letter calling on Spotify to do more to reign in the false information that’s being peddled on Rogan’s show.  

[downzy]

1 hour ago, Oldest Goat said:

Not all opinions are equal and worth listening to but you have to allow even the Nazi party to exist, even though they're moronic scumbags and deny them the fuel of being the underdog.

Nobody is arguing that Nazis shouldn’t be allowed to exist. The question is whether they need or anyone has a right  to a platform or blow horn to amplify their message.  There have always been cranks. And those cranks, for the most part, have been free to say whatever they want.   But prior to the internet they were limited to random street corners or handing out or leaving pamphlets.  There is nothing in any charter of rights or constitutions around any liberal democracies that guarantees these people or even you or I a right to a global platform. So long as the government is not denying you or I an ability to speak openly, we’re not guaranteed mass distribution on private hosting platforms. Freedom if speech does not equal having a twitter account or a spotify funded podcast. Thirty years ago everyone would laugh at the crank who claimed he was being silenced because The New York Times wouldn’t publish his op-ed on alien abductions. But now all of sudden too many have this crazy idea that having a twitter or facebook account is an integral part of their right to free speech. It is not.

1 hour ago, Oldest Goat said:

The way you combat and overcome the idiocy and scum of this world is playing the long game and putting in the effort to have a healthy, thinking society that will organically root it

And how is that going so far?

This idea that bad ideas will be defeated by good ideas doesn’t seem to be working out so well.  What seems to be the case more often is the loudest is often heard and accepted, whether their ideas are good, sound or not. In a world where Donald Trump essentially tweeted his way to the White House, how can anyone possibly believe that all it takes is a robust conversation to root out the nonsense?  It turns out that more speech doesn’t always produce the best results. I don’t pretend to know what the solution is.  I’m not saying that the answer is to close everything down or prevent what anyone might say.  But we have to acknowledge that the Internet has become an amplifier, both the good and the bad. And from my perspective, it doesn’t feel like the good is winning.

1 hour ago, Oldest Goat said:

now everyone just trust the government and big pharma etc, we audaciously have high hopes and expectations, which you know, good luck with that.

What is the alternative then?  Moreover, you realize it’s more than just government and pharma when it comes to vetting vaccines and medications, correct? 

 

[metallex78]

Neil Young should’ve left Spotify for their shitty artist royalties, instead of over any political differences on a podcast

[Tom2112]

6 hours ago, downzy said:

I don’t disagree that Spotify went with the bigger draw, to a certain extent. That said in fifty years it’s likely no one will remember who Rogan is but people will still be listening to at least Neil Young.

It’s unfair to lump Mitchell in with Young since her decision was made after Spotify made it clear they weren’t breaking with Rogan.

Again, I don’t think Young was under delusions that he was going to get Rogan removed from Spotify. He’s not dumb. He knows they’re not going to cut ties with a guy they just gave $100 million to. This was more about drawing attention to a situation in a way that 270 doctors and medical professionals couldn’t two weeks prior. Artists use to take these kinds of stands all the time and were applauded for it.

I don’t even listen/watch the show and I know that a lot of what you described is communicated to his audience. Some times directly, like when he told that people under 30 don’t need the vaccine. Or when he claimed that there is a greater risk of myocarditis from the vaccines than the virus (which there isn’t, and when he was finally called out about it live on air he chose to double down and question the source of the info because it invalidated his opinion).

But he also does it indirectly by who he decides to have on as guests and how he treats each guests. Clips of Rogan pushing back against claims mare by Sunjay Gupta went viral amongst the anti-vax crowd. He would preface his questions with factually untrue statements (example:vaccines don’t offer any protection against infection) while often pushing back against some of Sunjay’s answers in a way that undermines claims that Rogan’s interview style is one that is non-confrontational and allows listeners to come to their own conclusions.

Contrasts that with his guest Dr. Malone, where there was next to no pushback on any of the claims made (all of which had already been discredited. With Malone he gave him all the space he needed to push harmful info without the slightest rebuttal.

It’s not what Rogan thinks that makes his show so dangerous around the pandemic and the vaccines. It’s how he thinks with respect to who he’ll have on and how that guest is treated.

And that’s my problem. If he’s not an expert, why is he covering the topic?  How is he benefiting anyone by having guests on to speak about highly controversial and life and death topics without the slightest idea of what they’re saying or how to respond?  If he wants to stick to stand up comics or MMA fighters, have at it.  But the minute Rogan has guys like Robert Malone on or even Jordan Peterson of all people to spout off nonsense, he bears some responsibility to educate himself enough so as to not give nonsense a free pass. Otherwise leave it to people who actually know the topics to interview these people.

Good for you. But a lot of people don’t think that way.  I don’t disagree that the responsibility also falls on the listener, but that doesn’t absolve Rogan of his misdeeds. Look, it’s obviously problematic enough for 270 doctors and experts to draft a joint letter calling on Spotify to do more to reign in the false information that’s being peddled on Rogan’s show.  

I agree that Neil has obviously rattled their cage and it's possible that's all he wanted, but I also believe he thought he could push Rogan out - you don't. Could still happen though.

I don't think it's unfair to lump Joni in  with Young because she knew his position, had read his statement and decided she wanted to back up what he said. I just don't agree with their method of protest, while I agree that there is a danger in hugely successful shows like Rogan talking about covid without having all the facts. I just don't believe he needs to be an expert in immunology, virology etc. to be able to share his opinion or interview someone. I do think he made a mistake having those guests on without having someone pro vaccines there to swat down any BS claims... but he said he's going to have more of those people on now, so that's progress (even though he has had those people on before). 

As far as having Jordan Peterson etc. on, I don't want to hear from those people either. I find Jordan Peterson more dangerous than any anti-vaxxer! he seems to be the god for all men who hate women, because they can't get laid. Haven't really heard Peterson say anything that I can entirely agree with, but a broken clock is right twice a day etc. 

 

[downzy]

2 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

I agree that Neil has obviously rattled their cage and it's possible that's all he wanted, but I also believe he thought he could push Rogan out - you don't. Could still happen though.

I don't think Spotify will get rid of Rogan for a couple of reasons.

First, as much as I don't like what Rogan is doing, I don't think he violated Spotify's rules around information and safety.  Spotify knew what they were getting when they signed up Rogan.  They can't act all surprised that Rogan is continuing to do what he was already doing. 

Second, there's just way too much money on the table.  Maybe if Young had lined up ten to twenty other major artists.  It's not a great PR look for Spotify, but the loss of Young and Mitchell and a few other artists that less people listen to doesn't outweigh the costs involved with getting rid of Rogan.

Third, it would potential setup a bad precedent for Spotify if it nixed Rogan based on artist pressure.  You get into tricky territory if you allow one or a few artists dictate who gets to be on their platform.  Rogan's job at Spotify is secure so long as keeping him doesn't cost Spotify millions of paying subscribers.  Losing Young and a few other "minor" artists isn't likely going to move the needle either way.  Over the course of me owning MYGNRFORUM (and likely as long as this forum has been around), we have repeatedly received requests from people asking for others to get banned.  I would say 99 percent of requests get denied.  The only time we have acted is if the request is tied to egregious behaviour by the problematic user that we were going to ban them anyway.  If we banned anyone who had a complaint against them, there probably wouldn't be anyone left!

Again, I think Young knew all of this going in.  He's a big artist, but he's not exactly The Beatles or The Rolling Stones.

I don't have a problem with keeping Rogan.  Though I wish they would do more to curtail his worst impulses.  But I also don't have a problem with what Neil is doing in terms of bringing attention to the matter.  It's possible to be okay with both positions, which is where I find myself.  

2 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

I don't think it's unfair to lump Joni in  with Young because she knew his position, had read his statement and decided she wanted to back up what he said.

I thought it was already clear that Spotify wasn't going to drop Rogan at that point, at which point Mitchell requested her music to be removed.

2 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

I just don't agree with their method of protest

That's fair.  I don't see a problem with it, especially for someone like Young who has suffered his whole life from having Polio and feels this is an important issue for him.  He decided he'd make some noise and it looks like he might have achieved what anyone could reasonably expect under the circumstances.

2 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

I just don't believe he needs to be an expert in immunology, virology etc. to be able to share his opinion or interview someone. I do think he made a mistake having those guests on without having someone pro vaccines there to swat down any BS claims.

Rogan doesn't need to be an expert.  I'm certainly not and I've had plenty to say about the pandemic and the vaccines.  But I'm not challenging near universal agreement within the scientific community.  If Rogan is going to have someone like Malone on, he's responsible for the information that Malone puts forward.  Failure to challenge the factually untrue information Malone puts out there is to be complicit in the harm it can and has caused.  He could have at least looked up the information that refutes what Malone has said on record and challenged him on information that's already been proven wrong.  He didn't.  And he didn't bother to have anyone on after that took Malone's assertions apart.  That's really dangerous for someone who has 11 million listeners, who then shares and spreads that information far and wide on Facebook and other platforms.

2 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

but he said he's going to have more of those people on now, so that's progress (even though he has had those people on before). 

We'll see.  But as I noted before, it's how he treats those guests differently.  He felt quite comfortable challenging Sunjay Gupta with bogus information.  He questioned the source of rock solid information regarding the risk of myocarditis and covid and the vaccines.  He says he's going to try and to be better, so we'll have to see.

2 hours ago, Tom2112 said:

I find Jordan Peterson more dangerous than any anti-vaxxer!

To a certain extent I agree.  A few members here are friends with me on Facebook.  They'll tell you I have been railing against guys like Peterson for years.  I didn't have an opinion about Rogan and his show either way until he started having guys like Peterson and Jones on to promote their nonsense. 

[downzy]

Joe Rogan: