It looks more like the CEO is trying to justify his company’s greed. Again it’s their company, they can say what is allowed and what isn’t. No one is putting a ball gag in Ronan’s mouth (although thousands would love to).
I'm sure the CEO is looking at the numbers and of course that is playing into his decision... if he thought it would work out better for the company's bottom line to give Rogan the boot, I have no doubts he would do it. It's all about the money.
It's not either, it is integrity. You've said you don't know very much about Neil Young. He is beholden to no one, could give a rat's ass about the attention, and certainly doesn't need Spotify for anything.
I really don't think it's integrity. If it were all about integrity, I think Florduh hit the nail on the head
Although, if they only want to associate with companies that "balance concern for humanity with commerce", surely they're pulling their content from Amazon, a company that literally does human sacrifice for commerce. And Apple. At the bottom of every one of Apple's supply chains is a child slave, who has to crawl into tiny crevices to mine rare earth minerals.
Not strong-arming anybody, just making a choice to leave, based on Spotify's prior choice - which involved giving Rogan a platform in the first place. I don't see how you think the company is being bullied.
By saying to Spotify, "me or him, you pick" that's an ultimatum no matter how you look at it. You're making Spotify say, who is more valuable to us? Obviously, Young is hoping that Spotify think's they need Young more than Rogan.
If it was just a choice to leave, the person in question would just leave without making a big deal out of it. Without saying you can't have us both, if you keep him, you lose me. If you don't want to be associated with Rogan or Spotify, then great - just leave. Don't make Spotify pick who they want to keep.
When Young told Trump to cease and desist using "Rockin' in the Free World" (and other songs of his), was that strong-arming or censorship? He would not have given permission, even if he'd been asked. Artists are free to choose with whom - or what - they associate with, and what store they sell their wares out of.
That's just business to me. I wouldn't consider that to be either strong arming or censoring.
I fully support an artist's right to choose who they do business with, associate with, and how they license their music. Obviously that's the artist's choice, as their music is their property/product.
Young filed a lawsuit against Trump for this, but I don't know how that ended up. Last I heard, he had no legal ground to stand on and apparently he dropped the suit voluntarily.
I couldn't tell you shit about copyright and licensing so I really don't know how that works. Legally I don't know who is in the right there. However as an overall concept I don't have any issue with Young telling Trump (or anybody) not to use his music. Anybody should have the right to chose who they do business with, and by extension, "refuse service" to whoever they choose. If Young wants to refuse service to Trumps campaign, good for him.
If the artists leaving Spotify are trying to censor Rogan, they're going about it in a really bad way. It's not like Spotify dropping Rogan would lead to him going away forever. JRE would just go from being available on one app, to every podcasting app. His audience and reach would go up.
I do think it's totally fair for artists to say they don't want to be associated with Rogan. That's freedom too.
Of course it's fair for artists to say they don't want to be associated with whoever. It's fair for anybody to pick who they associate with.
Dropping Rogan wouldn't lead to him going away forever, and yes his audience and reach would go up if he wasn't on Spotify exclusively.
It's the whole idea of the "cancel culture" for me. Which in itself, is censorship. Just because he can go elsewhere and reach more people doesn't change the fact that somebody is trying to shut somebody else up because they disagree.
I find the obsession with Rogan a bit amusing. He's hardly one of the biggest purveyors of bullshit over the past two years. Getting rid of him would improve nothing. But he does spread bullshit, often. Here's what he tweeted right after he "apologized" for the whole Neil Young thing...
Except, Reuters made a mistake.
That correction was on the article,
before Rogan posted it. This wasn't even "news". Ivermectin has always shown "antiviral effect" in test tubes. Unfortunately multiple RCT's show it is ineffective at treating VID in actual human bodies. Eventually, he deleted the tweet after getting absolutely cumstered by people telling him to read the fucking article. But not before 100k liked it, and 20k retweeted it. Yeah, Reuters fucked up. But they had the decency to correct themselves. Joe was happy enough to just leave his millions of followers with a totally false impression. Who is the faker news here?
The entire JRE for the past year and a half has basically been: 9 out of 10 doctors say
x. Joe: "well that 10th doctor has really got to be on to something here!" Joe then applies maximum skepticism with the 9 doctors, and total gullibility with the 10th.
I don't agree with censorship. Rogan should be free to say whatever he's gonna say. Others should be free to point out that he's totally in over his head on this topic. Given my long experience with JRE, I really wish that if Joe was gonna push alternative cures to VID, he just would've recommended weed. Instead he pushes the same sort of bullshit the talk radio guys my dad listens to are pushing. Sad to see.
Edit: I've said it before and I'll say it again. Joe needs to have Bill Burr back on to slap him across the face again.
"Joe, let's not start this bullshit. I'm not gonna sit here with no medical degree, listening to you with no medical degree, with an American flag behind you, smoking a cigar, acting like we know what's up better than the CDC."
Agreed with all of this.
Right to free speech DOES NOT mean right to be provided with a soap-box/platform. This is just that free market speaking, by others using their own freedom of speech/expression. And your right to free speech does not mean that you have a right to no consequences.
Agreed completely
I strongly disagree. Censorship is when the government forcefully prevents you from using your freedom of speech/expression.
Yes, that is an example of censorship, and the worst kind of it. However private companies can censor too. Individuals can censor individuals... it doesn't have to be a government or a corporate entity. The difference is, Freedom of Speech does not apply to anything other than being censored by the gov.
However, when others decide not to do business with you or others you do business with because they feel that your product causes harm, then that's just them using their freedom of speech to respond to your use of your freedom of speech. No one is being censored here. It's freedom of speech/expression doing its thing in both directions.
Here's the thing... if Spotify decided
on their own, that they wanted to cut ties with Rogan (or anybody), they're entitled to. If they felt his show changed to the point that they're not comfortable airing it on their platform, they're entitled to that too. If they didn't want to business with him in the first place, that is their choice. It's fully within Spotifys right to chose who they do business with, as it should be.
That isn't what we're talking about though. It's one person (well, a group of people now) threatening to pull their music and terminate their relationship with a company, unless that company chooses stop airing a show. They're leveraging their value against his and making the company choose. All of this because they literally believe his voice shouldn't be heard, because they disagree. That, in itself, is attempting to censor and is wrong.
Let me ask you this. If the person being targeted here was, I dont know, the biggest legal marijuana activist out there... and a group of old, white, wrinkly conservatives were trying to financially pressure companies to stop airing their podcast, what would you say?
