The current Spotify controversy

[Spuffy78]

I like Rogan's podcast but I objectively look at it as a guy interviewing people. Barbara Walters used to interview Dictators and Communists. Didn't make her one. However, again social media and the scope of people he reaches I get it people being upset or concerned. I mean he's really done no more disinformation than every major news outlet in the last what 20 years? Also again I get why people are upset especially in regards to covid and vaccines. I got both shots so I have no dog in that fight.  Also I think just trying to deplatform is just going to make the podcast bigger, which  would just make people angrier. Maybe, if the news was held to the same standard as a UFC commentator we wouldn't have as much disinformation. 

[-Jaro-]

NY is old fart looking for last straw of attention... 

Don't know who Joe Rogan is... He commented UFC bavk in day I guess, but not my cup of tea.

And people who takes scientistic informatios from UFC commentator and suffer because of it - well I call it survivor of fittest and natural way that goes from the beggining of the world...

[moreblack]

Bezos must be giddy
https://www.nme.com/news/music/neil-young-gives-out-free-four-month-subscriptions-to-amazon-music-amid-spotify-row-3150402

Edited February 3, 2022 by moreblack

[CubanSkies Dummy]

I really think that Disagree with Young's decision. I oppose censorship in all its forms, whether by government, or by private entities. It is IMO wrong for Young to want to deny Rogan's 10 million (or whatever it is) listeners access to his broadcasts via Spotify. IMO, the morally correct way to counter speech one doesn't like is with speech of your own that counters that misinformation intellectually, by making a better argument, not by seeking to suppress or silence or reduce the voice of the other speaker. Rogan reportedly signed a $100 million deal with Spotify. If you know young men, as I sadly do - I had to listen to my nephew parrot Rogan’s talking points at a recent family gathering - they probably listen to and admire Rogan. If Spotify is forced to choose between Neil Young and Joe Rogan, they will choose Joe Rogan. Given how little he probably makes from Spotify combined with the money he received from selling his catalogue he could absolutely do this and barely notice the financial difference. Good to see someone making a stand for their principles.Will anyone else do it?Bruce are you paying attention? Also will help keep Neil committed to physical releases of all his archival music.

[downzy]

8 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

Just out of curiosity what's so egregious about Jordan Peterson? Basically all I know about him is his voice is rather annoying and he says inoffensive obvious things like keep your house clean.

That's a longer conversation that doesn't really have much to do with this discussion.  But for brevity's sake, I'll just leave these here:

 

 

 

[downzy]

Interesting article if bans or deplatforming works:

https://www.vox.com/recode/22913046/deplatforming-extremists-ban-qanon-proud-boys-boogaloo-oathkeepers-three-percenters-trump

TL;DR - bans make it harder to recruit new followers to a cause or information, but on the flip side they embolden and make more toxic those who are already part of the flock.  

[Gordon Comstock]

At what point does personal responsibility come into play here?

If I listen to an episode of JRE and one of his guests says "technically, if you drink bleach, you can't catch covid" and I go home and drink bleach, is that Joe Rogan's fault? Absolutely fucking not. And it's the same logic with "vaccine misinformation". If all you hear is Joe Rogan, or all you read is Billy Bob's Covid Blog, and that's what you choose to believe, then the "misinformation" is on you, the individual.

There's some good episodes of JRE but I'm not a fan of Rogan's. I haven't heard a full episode since he went to Spotify. But it's ridiculous and lazy to paint Rogan as someone who's "spreading information that kills or harms people" or whatever bullshit people are trying to pin on him.

[moreblack]

 

 

[downzy]

9 hours ago, Gordon Comstock said:

At what point does personal responsibility come into play here?

If I listen to an episode of JRE and one of his guests says "technically, if you drink bleach, you can't catch covid" and I go home and drink bleach, is that Joe Rogan's fault? Absolutely fucking not.

Nobody says the listener is absolved on any responsibility.  But are you really suggesting someone who is putting out garbage information or advice bears zero responsibility?  Why do you think they continue to put the most moronic warning labels on products (i.e. do not iron clothes while wearing them).  Why are companies legally responsible for the way consumers use their products but people who take it upon themselves to disseminate harmful and wrong information are absolved from any responsibility?

9 hours ago, Gordon Comstock said:

If all you hear is Joe Rogan, or all you read is Billy Bob's Covid Blog, and that's what you choose to believe, then the "misinformation" is on you, the individual.

To a certain extent, that's true.  But Billy Bob's Covid Blog isn't a $100 million funded by a major tech company and provided massive distribution and promotion?

Again, if you read Young's public requests, he makes no demands on Rogan.  He doesn't demand Rogan stop making his show or to stop spreading nonsense.  His target is Spotify.  He has a relationship with Spotify, not with Rogan.  He's putting the onus on Spotify.

Let's use a hypothetic to make things clearer:

Say a discussion forum owner cooks up the hoax about the death of one of the community members, with the assistance a few other "winners" who help perpetuate the hoax.  Don't you find it likely that when that hoax comes to light the other members of the forum are going to be pissed with the person who willfully put out false information and led others to believe that one of their own is dead?  According to your logic, the upset forum members really only have themselves to blame since they could have investigated the issue further to know that they were being lied to.  That the depraved individuals who made up and played a part in the sick joke bear no responsibility.  Maybe you're right.  But I don't think most would see it that way.

9 hours ago, Gordon Comstock said:

But it's ridiculous and lazy to paint Rogan as someone who's "spreading information that kills or harms people" or whatever bullshit people are trying to pin on him.

How is that not the case?  He's downplayed the benefits of vaccines and masks and promoted medications and treatments that have shown little to no effect in treating covid.  He's had on guests that made claims about covid being a complete hoax and that the vaccines are worse than the virus, with zero pushback from Rogan.

It would be great if everyone was as robust in researching their opinions as you and I, but that's obviously not the case when you look at a country like the US.  It's like lawyers for Fox News who argued in court that no one should believe Tucker Carlson because he's obviously an entertainer and not someone who really knows what he's talking about.  The problem is that truth, no matter how obvious, is missed by a lot of people.  And those people get hurt as a result.  You could say that's all on them.  I don't agree.  

[downzy]

57 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

They said it's weird to call people black if they're not literally black or to call white people white if they're not literally white. So what?

There's a lot of problems with what both are saying here.  A lot.

But it's not really the topic to discuss that.  I would research the history of race in America, specifically how the concept of being  black was something that invented for the purposes of maintaining power hierarchies.  

[downzy]

8 hours ago, moreblack said:

 

 

Little of this tweet resembles the truth.

Neil sold 50 percent of his catalogue to Hipgosis, not all of it.  He still retains 50 percent of the publishing rights. 

Blackstone has an ownership stake (how big that stake is is unknown) in Hipgosis, it does not own Hipgosis.

So a lot of the context in this tweet is either wrong or misleading.

It's also asinine to think that Young did what he did so he could somehow make Pfizer richer.  Other than Blackstone's CEO being at one time employed by Pfizer, there is zero connection between the two companies.  

 

[downzy]

14 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Yeah America's been fucked up from the beginning. The whole thing about if you have 1 drop of black DNA; you're black(and that's bad according to those cunts). Right, so now it's racist to not do that? Is them saying white isn't literally white racist and offensive too? Even if you remove the jokey conversational context, it's still nothing. Seems like an absolute pisstake lol.

I just asked a black American friend of mine if I'm missing something and she said "People were really offended by this?" But okay we won't talk about that.

I could write volumes on this but it's not really the place (since this isn't what the topic is about).  it's not about it being offensive, just that their comments are really stupid.

Neither Peterson nor Rogan seem to have any understanding and historical knowledge around the subject of race to really be talking in this manner.  The conception of what race is and how it's used to hold certain groups of people down is a really long and complicated subject, something neither host nor guest seem to have any real education or understanding.

Jack Crosbie at Rolling Stone does a better job of outlining how truly dumb these two are on these issues (more than I can with my limited time and desire to write more about it):

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/jordan-peterson-joe-rogan-interview-climate-change-1290696/

[moreblack]

Even the White House is talking about it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDjkXjSVWIw

[Gordon Comstock]

14 hours ago, downzy said:

Nobody says the listener is absolved on any responsibility.  But are you really suggesting someone who is putting out garbage information or advice bears zero responsibility?  Why do you think they continue to put the most moronic warning labels on products (i.e. do not iron clothes while wearing them).  Why are companies legally responsible for the way consumers use their products but people who take it upon themselves to disseminate harmful and wrong information are absolved from any responsibility?

To a certain extent, that's true.  But Billy Bob's Covid Blog isn't a $100 million funded by a major tech company and provided massive distribution and promotion?

Again, if you read Young's public requests, he makes no demands on Rogan.  He doesn't demand Rogan stop making his show or to stop spreading nonsense.  His target is Spotify.  He has a relationship with Spotify, not with Rogan.  He's putting the onus on Spotify.

Let's use a hypothetic to make things clearer:

Say a discussion forum owner cooks up the hoax about the death of one of the community members, with the assistance a few other "winners" who help perpetuate the hoax.  Don't you find it likely that when that hoax comes to light the other members of the forum are going to be pissed with the person who willfully put out false information and led others to believe that one of their own is dead?  According to your logic, the upset forum members really only have themselves to blame since they could have investigated the issue further to know that they were being lied to.  That the depraved individuals who made up and played a part in the sick joke bear no responsibility.  Maybe you're right.  But I don't think most would see it that way.

How is that not the case?  He's downplayed the benefits of vaccines and masks and promoted medications and treatments that have shown little to no effect in treating covid.  He's had on guests that made claims about covid being a complete hoax and that the vaccines are worse than the virus, with zero pushback from Rogan.

It would be great if everyone was as robust in researching their opinions as you and I, but that's obviously not the case when you look at a country like the US.  It's like lawyers for Fox News who argued in court that no one should believe Tucker Carlson because he's obviously an entertainer and not someone who really knows what he's talking about.  The problem is that truth, no matter how obvious, is missed by a lot of people.  And those people get hurt as a result.  You could say that's all on them.  I don't agree.  

 

Agree to disagree, I guess. Fox News is a bit different, it presents itself as a news outlet and not simply entertainment, whereas Rogan has never claimed to be an expert on anything other than maybe MMA and DMT   

At this point in the pandemic, I don't think Rogan has much of a responsibility as far as misinformation goes. It's on the individual to read or listen to more than one source (especially if that source is an entertainment podcast). Of course there's warning labels on most things now, but you can't idiot-proof everything.

(Sidenote, most users are annoyed with JB, but we've moved on from the Miser shit).

[downzy]

On 2/4/2022 at 2:08 PM, Gordon Comstock said:

Agree to disagree, I guess. Fox News is a bit different, it presents itself as a news outlet and not simply entertainment, whereas Rogan has never claimed to be an expert on anything other than maybe MMA and DMT   

If Rogan stuck to topics that he knew or didn't make any attempts to inform his listeners in any real way (similar to what late night hosts like Carson, Letterman, and Leno did), then I'd agree.

This is the same argument Jon Stewart made about his show that I never felt was accurate or sincere.  If you want to entertain, then entertain.  But once you start inviting professional types on who have no experience in entertaining, who is only there to provide their perspectives or information, you're no longer just a "entertainer."

On 2/4/2022 at 2:08 PM, Gordon Comstock said:

At this point in the pandemic, I don't think Rogan has much of a responsibility as far as misinformation goes

I think anyone with a platform like himself has a responsibility, especially since there have been real life consequences.  I've come across numerous tweets from doctors in the field who claim that many of the unvaccinated patients they see will reference Rogan's show as to why they have not been vaccinated.  

On 2/4/2022 at 2:08 PM, Gordon Comstock said:

It's on the individual to read or listen to more than one source (especially if that source is an entertainment podcast). Of course there's warning labels on most things now, but you can't idiot-proof everything.

Rogan isn't looking to simply "entertain."  If that were true he wouldn't have Robert Malone.  And yeah, it would be great if everyone pulled information from more than just lousy podcast.  But the real world doesn't work like that.  In sense you're saying that we shouldn't do much to help these people, especially if it means admonishing Rogan and limiting his reach due to his willingness to present garbage information and junk science from hucksters and self-promoting contrarians.

It would be great if people could then follow up the Malone episode with information like this:

But most people won't.  And you get to the point where some simply won't care because the other person on the other side of the argument (even though there really isn't any argument) isn't Rogan or isn't on Rogan's show.

 

The issue isn't censorship, but curation.  

I think too many people confuse the two.  As opinion writer and podcaster Roxane Gay makes clear:

"I would never support censorship. And because I am a writer, I know that language matters. There’s a difference between censorship and curation. When we are not free to express ourselves, when we can be thrown in jail or even lose our lives for speaking freely, that is censorship. When we say, as a society, that bigotry and misinformation are unacceptable, and that people who espouse those ideas don’t deserve access to significant platforms, that’s curation. We are expressing our taste and moral discernment, and saying what we find acceptable and what we do not.

Too many people believe that the right to free speech means the right to say whatever they want, wherever, whenever, on whatever platform they choose, without consequence. They want free speech to exist in a vacuum, free from context, free from criticism. That, like the idea that living in an off-the-grid yurt frees one from the demands, responsibilities and complicities of human society, is an illusion.

Spotify does not exist in a vacuum, and the decisions it makes about what content it hosts have consequences. To say that maybe Mr. Rogan should not be given unfettered access to Spotify’s more than 400 million users is not censorship, as some have suggested. It is curation.

Misinformation has contributed to tens of millions of people believing the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump. It contributed to the Jan. 6 insurrection. And misinformation has helped prolong the Covid-19 pandemic and encouraged people to do dangerous things such as injecting bleach or taking Ivermectin...

The platforms allowing this misinformation to flourish and intensify consistently abdicate their responsibility to curate effectively. Instead, they offer tepid, ambiguous, and ineffective policies. They frame doing nothing as a principled stand to protect free speech, but really, they’re protecting their bottom line."

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/03/opinion/culture/joe-rogan-spotify-roxane-gay.html

 

On 2/4/2022 at 2:08 PM, Gordon Comstock said:

(Sidenote, most users are annoyed with JB, but we've moved on from the Miser shit).

Good to hear to everyone has moved on.  I suppose I should expect my apologies any time now.  

[Jw224]

It's pretty clear that Neil had already decided that he was removing his music from Spotify and just wanted his management to make it known. The "they can't have both" quote is being posted by people either in bad faith or who haven't read the full text and have just formed an opinion around that. Neil is free to remove his music if he feels like Rogan is spewing dangerous misinformation. 

 

Rogan is definitely dangerous in who he gives a platform to and the stuff he says. He likes to wheel out the "it's just conversations" excuse when challenged on platforming people who spew misinformation. He has also said many dumb and dangerous things like telling young people they don't need to get the vaccine. When you have a massive platform you can't act like you're just sitting in your basement and broadcasting to ten people. Stuff he says has an impact and he doesn't seem to care. If he wants to talk about subjects he has no clue about and put dangerous misinformation out then I guess he's able to do that, but we can't then act like people not being happy about that is somehow censorship. You can say what you want, and people will react to what you say how they see fit. 

Edited February 8, 2022 by Jw224

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

I thought it was funny the musicians that pulled their music is all 1960's fold singers and honestly who the hell cares?

Everyone has to have their nose into everyone's shit these days.

you can not like what someone says but why make a big deal out of it?  Some people say and do stupid shit, I just don't listen to watch it.

Move on. You don't have to like it, so don't. But to pull your stuff because there's someone on there you don't like, I don't think makes a different in the long run.

If you find something offensive, don't watch it or listen to it.

It's getting to be where someone doesn't like someone else they want the whole world to feel the same way and we all don't.

[Coma16]

Neil Young urges spotify employees to quit lol

Edited February 9, 2022 by Coma16