Will Pearl Jam join Neil Young in leaving Spotify?
Comments
-
Good thread!
I've had this debate a lot with my brother and to be clear... it's very tricky business IMO. I agree with Neil's stance, but wish he didn't feel the need to do it. And as some have pointed out, his boycott will do very little if anything.
I often fall back on this concept... If you believe that the pen is mightier than the sword (and I do) then censorship is absolutely required.
No freedom is absolute freedom in a safe society, including freedom of speech.
I honestly wish that platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Spotify etc. did NOT have to be censored or regulated. But I honestly think they really do. And I blame people. People suck. People can be brainwashed, can be manipulated, can be hoodwinked. And there are many entities out there who are praying and capitalizing on that manipulation. If we cannot fix the people who can be so easily manipulated, then our recourse is to try to slow the means by which they are being manipulated.
Folks in opposition will say sure, but where does it end? Isn't it a slippery slope? And I agree with those fears, but we have to at some point weigh the good with the bad. We're either going to put our faith in our law makers and government (elected) or with entertainers and corporations who seek to gain and destroy with misinformation and propaganda. In the digital age, we also need to be mindful of foreign adversaries who use these tactics to cause chaos.
I generally side with the government because I feel I have at least slightly more control of what that government does and have the ability to change it if I don't like what I see.
On a somewhat related note.. we have a fellow in Canada named Jordan Peterson (D-Bag, in my opinion). He got famous for being a dissenting voice opposed to speech laws in Canada with regards to transgender pronoun stuff. I've read this guy. I've watched him. And hidden in a lot of what he says is fearmongering. For example, when our government amended the human rights code to include gender identity, Peterson warned us that 'in five years, we won't be able to have a discussion about gender' as a means to make people afraid of censorship and laws. Well... it's been five years, and he is now proven to be an incorrect fear mongering D-bag. What he tried to make people afraid of (The Censorship Boogeyman) did not come true at all.Toronto 2000
Buffalo, Phoenix, Toronto 2003
Boston I&II 2004
Kitchener, Hamilton, London, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto 2005
Toronto I&II, Las Vegas 2006
Chicago Lollapalooza 2007
Toronto, Seattle I&II, Vancouver, Philly I,II,III,IV 2009
Cleveland, Buffalo 2010
Toronto I&II 2011
Buffalo 2013
Toronto I&II 2016
10C: 220xxx0 -
I don’t like trump and don’t listen to Rogan.ComeToTX said:I never would have believed 10 years ago that people would take medical advice from Joe Rogan and that Donald Trump would be worshiped by Republicans. Truly bizarro world.
But, the medical community said it was ok to eat in a restaurant but just make sure to wear your mask when walking to and from the table.There is always going to be lunacy on both sides that we should be able to challenge.0 -
He did not back pedal. He and Josh Szeps had a pointed conversation in which Rogan had his mind changed and then he pubically thanked Szeps for bringing the data clarity to his attention. Which Szeps also acknowledged.Edved82 said:
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.WindowPaine said:
unsubstantiated shit such as?Edved82 said:
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.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.
I don't even listen to Rogan, I happen to be a person interested is Szeps, his writing and podcast. The misinformation about Rogan's supposed misinformation and fan worship who are leaping off a cliff for him is so dumb.
A person saying they don't trust something is not medical advice. A person saying they are not sure why x or y is not considered is not medical advice.
The assertion that grown ass human beings can't listen to Joe Rogan and make a rational choice about whatever it is he is talking about any given day is not an indictment on Rogan, it is an indictment of what we really think about "other" people.
Meanwhile Neil spouts off bat shit crazy counter science nonsense about GMOs and nobody so much as blinks an eye or wonders if he hasn't gone a little off the deep end.
His eminence has yet to show.
http://www.hi5sports.org/ (Sports Program for Kids with Disabilities)
http://www.livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=36520 -
Well said. This whole thing is a joke.PB11041 said:
He did not back pedal. He and Josh Szeps had a pointed conversation in which Rogan had his mind changed and then he pubically thanked Szeps for bringing the data clarity to his attention. Which Szeps also acknowledged.Edved82 said:
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.WindowPaine said:
unsubstantiated shit such as?Edved82 said:
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.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.
I don't even listen to Rogan, I happen to be a person interested is Szeps, his writing and podcast. The misinformation about Rogan's supposed misinformation and fan worship who are leaping off a cliff for him is so dumb.
A person saying they don't trust something is not medical advice. A person saying they are not sure why x or y is not considered is not medical advice.
The assertion that grown ass human beings can't listen to Joe Rogan and make a rational choice about whatever it is he is talking about any given day is not an indictment on Rogan, it is an indictment of what we really think about "other" people.
Meanwhile Neil spouts off bat shit crazy counter science nonsense about GMOs and nobody so much as blinks an eye or wonders if he hasn't gone a little off the deep end.0 -
👏🏼 Perfectly said.PB11041 said:
He did not back pedal. He and Josh Szeps had a pointed conversation in which Rogan had his mind changed and then he pubically thanked Szeps for bringing the data clarity to his attention. Which Szeps also acknowledged.Edved82 said:
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.WindowPaine said:
unsubstantiated shit such as?Edved82 said:
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.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.
I don't even listen to Rogan, I happen to be a person interested is Szeps, his writing and podcast. The misinformation about Rogan's supposed misinformation and fan worship who are leaping off a cliff for him is so dumb.
A person saying they don't trust something is not medical advice. A person saying they are not sure why x or y is not considered is not medical advice.
The assertion that grown ass human beings can't listen to Joe Rogan and make a rational choice about whatever it is he is talking about any given day is not an indictment on Rogan, it is an indictment of what we really think about "other" people.
Meanwhile Neil spouts off bat shit crazy counter science nonsense about GMOs and nobody so much as blinks an eye or wonders if he hasn't gone a little off the deep end.0 -
Completely agree with this.PB11041 said:
He did not back pedal. He and Josh Szeps had a pointed conversation in which Rogan had his mind changed and then he pubically thanked Szeps for bringing the data clarity to his attention. Which Szeps also acknowledged.Edved82 said:
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.WindowPaine said:
unsubstantiated shit such as?Edved82 said:
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.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.
I don't even listen to Rogan, I happen to be a person interested is Szeps, his writing and podcast. The misinformation about Rogan's supposed misinformation and fan worship who are leaping off a cliff for him is so dumb.
A person saying they don't trust something is not medical advice. A person saying they are not sure why x or y is not considered is not medical advice.
The assertion that grown ass human beings can't listen to Joe Rogan and make a rational choice about whatever it is he is talking about any given day is not an indictment on Rogan, it is an indictment of what we really think about "other" people.
Meanwhile Neil spouts off bat shit crazy counter science nonsense about GMOs and nobody so much as blinks an eye or wonders if he hasn't gone a little off the deep end.0 -
Yep. Very well said.PB11041 said:
He did not back pedal. He and Josh Szeps had a pointed conversation in which Rogan had his mind changed and then he pubically thanked Szeps for bringing the data clarity to his attention. Which Szeps also acknowledged.Edved82 said:
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.WindowPaine said:
unsubstantiated shit such as?Edved82 said:
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.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.
I don't even listen to Rogan, I happen to be a person interested is Szeps, his writing and podcast. The misinformation about Rogan's supposed misinformation and fan worship who are leaping off a cliff for him is so dumb.
A person saying they don't trust something is not medical advice. A person saying they are not sure why x or y is not considered is not medical advice.
The assertion that grown ass human beings can't listen to Joe Rogan and make a rational choice about whatever it is he is talking about any given day is not an indictment on Rogan, it is an indictment of what we really think about "other" people.
Meanwhile Neil spouts off bat shit crazy counter science nonsense about GMOs and nobody so much as blinks an eye or wonders if he hasn't gone a little off the deep end.0 -
You must be new around here. This is no place for logical and thought out responses…..PB11041 said:
He did not back pedal. He and Josh Szeps had a pointed conversation in which Rogan had his mind changed and then he pubically thanked Szeps for bringing the data clarity to his attention. Which Szeps also acknowledged.Edved82 said:
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.WindowPaine said:
unsubstantiated shit such as?Edved82 said:
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.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.
I don't even listen to Rogan, I happen to be a person interested is Szeps, his writing and podcast. The misinformation about Rogan's supposed misinformation and fan worship who are leaping off a cliff for him is so dumb.
A person saying they don't trust something is not medical advice. A person saying they are not sure why x or y is not considered is not medical advice.
The assertion that grown ass human beings can't listen to Joe Rogan and make a rational choice about whatever it is he is talking about any given day is not an indictment on Rogan, it is an indictment of what we really think about "other" people.
Meanwhile Neil spouts off bat shit crazy counter science nonsense about GMOs and nobody so much as blinks an eye or wonders if he hasn't gone a little off the deep end.0 -
No. Neil Young has some great stuff but he is mostly irrelevant nowadays.0
-
Very well said.PB11041 said:
He did not back pedal. He and Josh Szeps had a pointed conversation in which Rogan had his mind changed and then he pubically thanked Szeps for bringing the data clarity to his attention. Which Szeps also acknowledged.Edved82 said:
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.WindowPaine said:
unsubstantiated shit such as?Edved82 said:
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.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.
I don't even listen to Rogan, I happen to be a person interested is Szeps, his writing and podcast. The misinformation about Rogan's supposed misinformation and fan worship who are leaping off a cliff for him is so dumb.
A person saying they don't trust something is not medical advice. A person saying they are not sure why x or y is not considered is not medical advice.
The assertion that grown ass human beings can't listen to Joe Rogan and make a rational choice about whatever it is he is talking about any given day is not an indictment on Rogan, it is an indictment of what we really think about "other" people.
Meanwhile Neil spouts off bat shit crazy counter science nonsense about GMOs and nobody so much as blinks an eye or wonders if he hasn't gone a little off the deep end.I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
I must be behind on current events.
Not only do I not know who Rogen is.
I have no fucking idea what Spotify is either.
And to be honest, I am kind of happy about that.
Take me piece by piece.....
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....0 -
Joining the chorus that this is well saidPB11041 said:
He did not back pedal. He and Josh Szeps had a pointed conversation in which Rogan had his mind changed and then he pubically thanked Szeps for bringing the data clarity to his attention. Which Szeps also acknowledged.Edved82 said:
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.WindowPaine said:
unsubstantiated shit such as?Edved82 said:
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.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.
I don't even listen to Rogan, I happen to be a person interested is Szeps, his writing and podcast. The misinformation about Rogan's supposed misinformation and fan worship who are leaping off a cliff for him is so dumb.
A person saying they don't trust something is not medical advice. A person saying they are not sure why x or y is not considered is not medical advice.
The assertion that grown ass human beings can't listen to Joe Rogan and make a rational choice about whatever it is he is talking about any given day is not an indictment on Rogan, it is an indictment of what we really think about "other" people.
Meanwhile Neil spouts off bat shit crazy counter science nonsense about GMOs and nobody so much as blinks an eye or wonders if he hasn't gone a little off the deep end.0 -
If it's that easy to pull your stuff off Spotify I'd respect it more if the decision was around how they treat artists vs. not liking what a popular podcaster is saying0
-
Lol. I was going to write something but this sums it up perfectly. No wonder Pegi didn't want to be around this old man yelling at the kids to get off his lawn anymore.Ledbetterman10 said:Well I saw Spiritual Chaos post about it
Then I saw ole Neil, puttin' Rogan down
Well I hope Neil Young will remember
Spotify don't need him around anyhow
"They can have Rogan or Young" is so laughable. I don't care much for Rogan's podcast, and I do like a few Neil Young songs, but that's me. To Spotify, a company that wants to make money, they're probably going to choose the guy that brings in 11 millions listeners per podcast, over the an artist that brings in just over 6 million listeners per month, few of which, I assume, use Spotify primarily to listen to him.
Now, if this was was 1972 instead of 2022, and we were talking about a Canadian rock radio station instead of a digital streaming leader, maybe Neil's "threat" here would be taken seriously.
I think he is extremely non-self aware of his place in the world.Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.0 -
Whether this has to do with free speech depends on what you mean by "free speech." If, by "free speech," you refer to the Constitutional protection of freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, then this has nothing to do with "free speech" because that protection only applies to government regulation of speech, and neither Spotify nor Neil Young is the government.
If, by "free speech," you mean "people have the right to say whatever they want," then, sure, it's about free speech, but the right to say what you want does not mean that you have the right to say what you want without consequences. If you want to stand up in the public square and express controversial opinions, then you shouldn't be surprised when other people exercise their rights to disagree with you, shout you down, or even organize boycotts against you. This principle applies whether you're Joe Rogan opining on public health or a professional athlete opining on social justice.Post edited by BF25394 onI gather speed from you fucking with me.0 -
HeheheheheSPEEDY MCCREADY said:I must be behind on current events.
Not only do I not know who Rogen is.
I have no fucking idea what Spotify is either.
And to be honest, I am kind of happy about that.This weekend we rock Portland0 -
Joe Rogan was pretty good on Fear Factor…. Maybe he can do a new show Covid Fear Factor…2006 Clev,Pitt; 2008 NY MSGx2; 2010 Columbus; 2012 Missoula; 2013 Phoenix,Vancouver,Seattle; 2014 Cincy; 2016 Lex, Wrigley 1&2; 2018 Wrigley 1&2; 2022 Louisville0
-
Good Lord! Too many good points. Who are you?PB11041 said:
He did not back pedal. He and Josh Szeps had a pointed conversation in which Rogan had his mind changed and then he pubically thanked Szeps for bringing the data clarity to his attention. Which Szeps also acknowledged.Edved82 said:
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.WindowPaine said:
unsubstantiated shit such as?Edved82 said:
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.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.
I don't even listen to Rogan, I happen to be a person interested is Szeps, his writing and podcast. The misinformation about Rogan's supposed misinformation and fan worship who are leaping off a cliff for him is so dumb.
A person saying they don't trust something is not medical advice. A person saying they are not sure why x or y is not considered is not medical advice.
The assertion that grown ass human beings can't listen to Joe Rogan and make a rational choice about whatever it is he is talking about any given day is not an indictment on Rogan, it is an indictment of what we really think about "other" people.
Meanwhile Neil spouts off bat shit crazy counter science nonsense about GMOs and nobody so much as blinks an eye or wonders if he hasn't gone a little off the deep end.
Pre-covid or just before 2021 Rogan was 100% pro-vaxx. Interviewed many good doctors. Sadly, most of these reports are missing some key context.0 -
Freedom of speech also covers the right not to speak. I think that’s what Neil is exercising here. No one can compel him to speak or more specifically compel him to have his music on Spotify so he’s pulling it. Just as valid an exercise of free speech as anything else.1996: Randall's Island 2 1998: East Rutherford | MSG 1 & 2 2000: Cincinnati | Columbus | Jones Beach 1, 2, & 3 | Boston 1 | Camden 1 & 2 2003: Philadelphia | Uniondale | MSG 1 & 2 | Holmdel 2005: Atlantic City 1 2006: Camden 1 | East Rutherford 1 & 2 2008: Camden 1 & 2 | MSG 1 & 2 (#25) | Newark (EV) 2009: Philadelphia 1, 2 & 4 2010: Newark | MSG 1 & 2 2011: Toronto 1 2013: Wrigley Field | Brooklyn 2 | Philadelphia 1 & 2 | Baltimore 2015: Central Park 2016: Philadelphia 1 & 2 | MSG 1 & 2 | Fenway Park 2 | MSG (TOTD) 2017: Brooklyn (RnR HOF) 2020: MSG | Asbury Park 2021: Asbury Park 2022: MSG | Camden | Nashville 2024: MSG 1 & 2 (#50) | Philadelphia 1 & 2 | Baltimore 2025: Raleigh 20
-
Freedom of association is another thing to consider. I may not agree with Neil Young's position but telling a private platform "he goes or I go" is completely reasonable.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help