Will Pearl Jam join Neil Young in leaving Spotify?

Lerxst1992

patkelly12 said:

"Misinformation is ok when our guy does it." - The Cuckold Motto.

Young expressed concern for health from mega business new tech, whose impact on long term plant toxins and cancer is still unknown, while roegan is bootlicking to a violent and power hungry cult for profit false theories about a vaccine that has a safety rate currently at 2000% greater than no vaccine,

Yeah, tick for tack.

vant0037

Tim Simmons said:

vant0037 said:

Joe Rogan is popular because he makes white dudes feel like they are open-minded because they listen to another white dude ask open-ended questions of other white dudes, many of whom conveniently dabble in pseudoscience or anti-establishment type views.  Speaking from anecdotes of course because the only listeners of Joe Rogan I personally know are white dudes! That’s a joke everyone.  Calm down. Keep reading.

I have no issue with Joe Rogan. Frankly, he seems like he’s probably actually a nice guy, and to hear his friends tell it, he probably is!

But his type of “inquiry” into matters of importance is to let fringe voices talk, while never engaging in the actual work it takes to dispute, refute or worse - prove! - a position the guest or Rogan himself end up taking.  He just plays the privileged role of being a guy asking questions while never having to really defend the places those questions lead.  It’s the type of intellectual laziness that has real life consequences.

Full disclosure: my mom had an aneurysm in November.  Ambulance ride.  Unconscious. The whole deal.  Never saw the inside of an emergency room.  Was triaged in a hospital cafeteria because all the rooms at the inn were full of COVID patients.

Take two small but very reasonable leaps with me: many people have refused a vaccine that protects them from hospitalization because a once-marginalized worldview like anti-vax beliefs are fostered, allowed to grow and in many cases promoted by people like Joe Rogan.  What do you end up with?  Hospitals needlessly full of patients with a preventable situation, preventing other otherwise healthy people from getting critical care when they need it most. “Otherwise healthy” means my mom lived.  Many might not have been so lucky.

Joe Rogan can say whatever he wants and host whoever he wants. But with speech comes responsibility and consequences.  Some people like Neil Young - and me - will choose to distance ourselves from him until he uses his platform more responsibly.

Will either “consequence” matter to Rogan or his defenders?  Nah. But that was never the point anyway.

I’m sorry about your mom. I hope everything turned out well. 

Thanks.  She is doing well thankfully.  But that experience for her pretty much solidified my thoughts on the anti-vax movement.  You are free to do whatever you want, until your freedom starts impacting others. That should not be that controversial of a position!

Lerxst1992

cp3iverson said:

Tim Simmons said:

But they don’t have HD audio and they pay the writers and artists shit. So is interface that big of a draw? 

HD audio is a big draw to audiophiles but just like SACDs and AAA vinyl it isn’t exactly sought after by the general public listening through their iPhones, cars, or google nests.   

I’ll take the service that has these algorithms.  

Apple was first with live lyrics, whose immersive experience and color scheme is visually stunning on an iPad. Apple was first to provide hi res lossless at no extra cost. Apples music library management features are far better than Spotify. Yes Spotify wins new music, but Apples algo suggestions have greatly improved, and listeners dont have to deal with podcast suggestions thrown in our faces…different strokes…spending time with Apple feels like a music first experience , spotify wants to march users to podcasts with no concern over editorial responsibility over misinformation. 

PB11041

igotid88 said:

PJ5a1 said:

igotid88 said:

PJ5a1 said:

Edved82 said:

WindowPaine said:

Edved82 said:

bootleg said:

I thought Neil was a freedom of speech guy?  If you truly are then you should to be for it even when you don’t like what is being said.  Don’t like this take from Neil and hope PJ would not do the same. 

It's nothing to do with free speech. Rogan is talking unsubstantiated shit about vaccines that will likely cost lives. If Neil doesn't want to be associated with a platform that allows this misinformation, then that's his own call.

unsubstantiated shit such as?

One example would be him talking about COVID not causing myocarditis in younger people - myocarditis is an exceptionally rare side effect of MRNA vaccines, but you're many many times more likely to get it from COVID-19 than you are from a vaccine. He was actually fact checked live on air and backpedalled immediately. People that have a listenership of millions shouldn't be pretending to be medical professionals. 

Same goes for folks like Neil Young and Howard Stern.... they're no expert. So based on your statement, they too should stop pretending to be medical professionals by telling us how safe and necessary a vaccination is.

But - you do not see any person saying to take Howard Stern off air or remove Neil Young from all platforms, do you? Why? 

So if folks in this community mock "freedom of speech" understand that you're a hypocrite because when speaking on something you agree with is ok, then no censorship is needed. However, God forbid someone makes a comment, has a show on things you don't agree with it - the knee jerk reaction is "TAKE HIM OFF AIR! REMOVE HIS CONTENT!"   

Howard is not telling people to take bleach.

and who is saying that? Has Rogan said that? Do you have the link?

It's just an example. Howard is not putting into people's minds that the vaccine is bad. 

hyperbolic accusations are not an example.  You are basically mad this guy talks to people and is "platformed" for misinformation and then just casually drop completely false information as a naked straw man.

vant0037

Suffice it to say that for every doctor or specialist like Michael Osterholm that Rogan has on the show, there are probably 4 other guests he hosts who reject established data on vaccines.  Not going to get into your debate above, but its pretty clear that Rogan gives a much bigger space to people espousing anti-vax views than he does to those on the other side.  Being balanced probably isn't his goal, but he does seem to feign some level of intellectual curiosity.  Curious then that he seems to have more guests of one side than the other.  I've made no secret as to which side I fall on, but the point of whether Rogan is clearly giving a large platform to people spreading anti-vax views shouldn't be controversial.  Whether anti-vax views are dangerous or not is perhaps a more important question.  I know where I fall on that question.

2-feign-reluctance

Loujoe said:

ISO the last 2+years of my life.

Indeed. 

PB11041

vant0037 said:

Conspiracies about GMOs and conspiracies about a deadly disease are very different.  If Neil is as irrelevant as some here say he is and Rogan is as relevant as his listenership would indicate, then we all should agree that Neil’s lunacy about the former is far less dangerous than Rogan’s lunacy about the latter. 

Neil’s move is less about being “bigger” than Rogan and more about not wanting to be associated with a platform that features Rogan.  Why is that a hard thing to tolerate?

Conspiracies are conspiracies there is no ranking them particularly when you are implying that scientists have worked with a corpoartion to essentially poison the food chain.  Embracing them, feeds into the ecosystem of conspiracy theories and hinders information validation.

Meanwhile, Rogan as best I can ascertain is neither endorsing a conspiracy theory nor anti-vaccine,  He specifically had concerns about the race to the covid19 vaccine, which while I went ahead and got vaccinted against covid19, is not entirely unfounded.  

As a reminder our current President of the United States, his VP and hundreds of politicians and news folk as recently as October of 2020 were presenting skepticism about taking a vaccine that was linked to and endorsed by the prior President.  Not very fucking scientific. And they all have fucking platforms.

Everyone is careful not to say the quiet part out loud here.

Basically people think other people are stupid, guillable and incapable of making informed decisions.  

Neil said the quiet part out loud on his website.  He is concerned that the average age Spotify listerner, 24 years old according to him, is basically too dumb to possibly listen to a podcast and not jump off a bridge.

Neil Young is a very good human being, does a lot of wonderful things.  He is also a fringe conspiracy theorist and willingly spreads misinformation because it fits his personal belief system.  

pjl44

vant0037 said:

Suffice it to say that for every doctor or specialist like Michael Osterholm that Rogan has on the show, there are probably 4 other guests he hosts who reject established data on vaccines.  Not going to get into your debate above, but its pretty clear that Rogan gives a much bigger space to people espousing anti-vax views than he does to those on the other side.  Being balanced probably isn't his goal, but he does seem to feign some level of intellectual curiosity.  Curious then that he seems to have more guests of one side than the other.  I've made no secret as to which side I fall on, but the point of whether Rogan is clearly giving a large platform to people spreading anti-vax views shouldn't be controversial.  Whether anti-vax views are dangerous or not is perhaps a more important question.  I know where I fall on that question.

He's gone out of his way to give 3 hour blocks to guests like Osterholm, Gupta, Szeps, etc. who are coming in with views explicitly counter to his. It's more than you can say for just about every cable "news" host outside of Jake Tapper.

PB11041

vant0037 said:

Suffice it to say that for every doctor or specialist like Michael Osterholm that Rogan has on the show, there are probably 4 other guests he hosts who reject established data on vaccines.  Not going to get into your debate above, but its pretty clear that Rogan gives a much bigger space to people espousing anti-vax views than he does to those on the other side.  Being balanced probably isn't his goal, but he does seem to feign some level of intellectual curiosity.  Curious then that he seems to have more guests of one side than the other.  I've made no secret as to which side I fall on, but the point of whether Rogan is clearly giving a large platform to people spreading anti-vax views shouldn't be controversial.  Whether anti-vax views are dangerous or not is perhaps a more important question.  I know where I fall on that question.

"probably"  and "seems" are not a data point, it is an echo chamber assumption.  

Also one should be very specific because context does matter.  Rogan is not an "anti-vaxxer" and the term is used with appalling ease these days because of the heightened tensions of the climate we are living in.

Being anti all vaccination and being or expressing hesitancy about a vaccine that was created in an accelarated time frame are not the same thing.

I think his concerns are a bit overwrought, but when that needle went into my arm last April I'd be lying if I said short term this is clearly fine but long term who knows.   

Also if anyone thought the vaccination rate was going to be 100%, please send me your venmo information I have a ponzi scheme I would like to ask your assistance on.

vant0037

pjl44 said:

vant0037 said:

Suffice it to say that for every doctor or specialist like Michael Osterholm that Rogan has on the show, there are probably 4 other guests he hosts who reject established data on vaccines.  Not going to get into your debate above, but its pretty clear that Rogan gives a much bigger space to people espousing anti-vax views than he does to those on the other side.  Being balanced probably isn't his goal, but he does seem to feign some level of intellectual curiosity.  Curious then that he seems to have more guests of one side than the other.  I've made no secret as to which side I fall on, but the point of whether Rogan is clearly giving a large platform to people spreading anti-vax views shouldn't be controversial.  Whether anti-vax views are dangerous or not is perhaps a more important question.  I know where I fall on that question.

He's gone out of his way to give 3 hour blocks to guests like Osterholm, Gupta, Szeps, etc. who are coming in with views explicitly counter to his. It's more than you can say for just about every cable "news" host outside of Jake Tapper.

I think if you keep digging through his episode library, you’ll find far fewer guests who are inclined to be pro vaccine is the point. He doesn’t have to be balanced, but then he should drop the intellectual curiosity act.  The three hour blocks thing isn’t really significant either; his shows intentionally run long for just about everyone.

And we will just have to disagree about whether giving platform to people rejecting proven science about a deadly disease is just as dangerous right now as people rejecting science about GMOs.  Politically hypocritical for some?  Maybe.  But concerns now about political hypocrisy avoids the “quiet part” you mention: Joe Rogan giving a continued platform to vaccine skeptics during a pandemic where outcomes are drastically impacted by a vaccine - that was based on decades old science, mind you - is dangerous and irresponsible.  There.  Quiet part loud.

vant0037

I didn’t use those terms trying to make a “data point.”  I looked at his episode library before posting.  Lots of alternative science on there.  That’s fine, just don’t pretend having a few opposing guests peppered in makes it anything other than a large platform for mostly one view.  I used words like “probably” and “seems” and “mostly” because they are generalizations, which aren’t inherently evil in a discussion.

vant0037

PB11041 said:

vant0037 said:

Suffice it to say that for every doctor or specialist like Michael Osterholm that Rogan has on the show, there are probably 4 other guests he hosts who reject established data on vaccines.  Not going to get into your debate above, but its pretty clear that Rogan gives a much bigger space to people espousing anti-vax views than he does to those on the other side.  Being balanced probably isn't his goal, but he does seem to feign some level of intellectual curiosity.  Curious then that he seems to have more guests of one side than the other.  I've made no secret as to which side I fall on, but the point of whether Rogan is clearly giving a large platform to people spreading anti-vax views shouldn't be controversial.  Whether anti-vax views are dangerous or not is perhaps a more important question.  I know where I fall on that question.

"probably"  and "seems" are not a data point, it is an echo chamber assumption.  

Also one should be very specific because context does matter.  Rogan is not an "anti-vaxxer" and the term is used with appalling ease these days because of the heightened tensions of the climate we are living in.

Being anti all vaccination and being or expressing hesitancy about a vaccine that was created in an accelarated time frame are not the same thing.

I think his concerns are a bit overwrought, but when that needle went into my arm last April I'd be lying if I said short term this is clearly fine but long term who knows.   

Also if anyone thought the vaccination rate was going to be 100%, please send me your venmo information I have a ponzi scheme I would like to ask your assistance on.

Fair enough: maybe he’s just an anti-vax enabler, if it makes you feel better.  I’m not sure there’s much difference.

Abe Froman

Having open discussions about forced vaccines is ok with me. There are plenty of questions surrounding the vaccine in todays climate. Trying to silence people that want to have these discussions is wrong imo. Clearly Neil young disagrees which is his right.  He has taken a hard stance though, which bums me out since I like him and love some of his music. 

vant0037

Abe Froman said:

Having open discussions about forced vaccines is ok with me. There are plenty of questions surrounding the vaccine in todays climate. Trying to silence people that want to have these discussions is wrong imo. Clearly Neil young disagrees which is his right.  He has taken a hard stance though, which bums me out since I like him and love some of his music. 

I think discussion is fine, but no one should be upset about the fallout when you say something.  As I said, with speech there are responsibilities and consequences.  Rogan can do what he wants, clearly.  So can Neil.  That shouldn’t be controversial.

This conversation has stayed polite, I think.

Lost In Ohio

Maybe Joe should go back to making people eat horse shit for a million dollars.

Or something like that because I'm sure someone on Joe's side would say something about Eddie or Neil shutting up and playing rock and roll.

(Sarcasm or something.)

pdalowsky

Lerxst1992 said:

cp3iverson said:

Tim Simmons said:

But they don’t have HD audio and they pay the writers and artists shit. So is interface that big of a draw? 

HD audio is a big draw to audiophiles but just like SACDs and AAA vinyl it isn’t exactly sought after by the general public listening through their iPhones, cars, or google nests.   

I’ll take the service that has these algorithms.  

Apple was first with live lyrics, whose immersive experience and color scheme is visually stunning on an iPad. Apple was first to provide hi res lossless at no extra cost. Apples music library management features are far better than Spotify. Yes Spotify wins new music, but Apples algo suggestions have greatly improved, and listeners dont have to deal with podcast suggestions thrown in our faces…different strokes…spending time with Apple feels like a music first experience , spotify wants to march users to podcasts with no concern over editorial responsibility over misinformation. 

big fan of the apple service

lastexitlondon

I dont listen  to young  and rogan is a tool.
 There .

AW124797

This thing is so silly. Think about it. Rogan is behind pay wall - Spotify. I've been subscribing/resubscribing many times in the past 18 months. Even if he gets dropped (fairy tale), he can go back to his old format and reach even bigger audience that can subscribe for free. Neil lost Monsanto, lost HQ digital and he's going to lose this one. How many artists have joined him since Monday?

vant0037

I don't think that was the point of Neil's stance.  I think it was to publicly distance himself in a way that would get people to think twice about Rogan's platform and how its being used to promote or enable anti-vax viewpoints.  If that was indeed the point, then look at us, 8 pages in, talking about that very issue.   I don't think Neil was trying to get Spotify to actually drop Rogan, although I'm sure he would've liked that.

Indifference

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/what-have-you-guys-been-right-about-adam-carolla-slams-media-over-joe-rogan-controversy