Will Pearl Jam join Neil Young in leaving Spotify?

Spiritual_Chaos

musicismylife78 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

2-feign-reluctance said:

Spotify should dump Rogan. That’s what I think. 

They can have Rogan or the Jamily. Not both. 

LET’S GO PEARL JAM

Get that 90s ticketmaster fire back in the belly!

You act like you haven't read your own thread where a sizable amount of folks have said they value free speech and hope PJ wouldn't do this.  We arent a monolith.  

I don't see anyone who has put forth this misdirected (and I guess not really through out) idea of "free speech" that has said anything relevant? But I did respond to people on the first page. I even brought in Pearl Jam who we so non-monololithy love into that response.

Tell me, If you were invited to at a party in a nice neighborhood in the town of Springwood and the host of the part invited... eh... lets say a dude named Fred Krueger, known child killer, but not convicted due to a technicality making him able to attend the party. Then, would you not leave that party and perhaps, maybe, who knows tell the host that "If you gonna have that dude who has killed at least 20 kids on this very street here, well then I'm leaving". Or would that betray this idea that you hold onto about having to stay put? "Nice sweater Fred... looks cozy"

Spiritual_Chaos

Indifference said:

probably darryl hannah's idea

I've found David Crosby.

patkelly12

I've never listened to Joe Rogan a day in my life but if it upsets the cucks then I will start tomorrow. Sign me up, Spotify.

Indifference

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Indifference said:

probably darryl hannah's idea

I've found David Crosby.

Not as funny. Good try. Good effort.

on2legs

I've never listened to Neil Young a day in  my life but if it upsets the idiots then I will start tomorrow.  Sign me up, Spotify.

Indifference

on2legs said:

I've never listened to Neil Young a day in  my life but if it upsets the idiots then I will start tomorrow.  Sign me up, Spotify.

I think you misread the situation and signing up defeats the purpose. xD

AW124797

Spiritual_Chaos said:

musicismylife78 said:

PB11041 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. 

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.  

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.

This.  Exactly.  People act like Joe Rogan alone is leading people astray.  Im a fan of Neil and of Joe, but Joe is in the right in this situation.  

The dude gives a platform for e.g. Alex Jones to spew his BS. Maybe pause and put together an oversight committee to take a look at your fandom-choices in life.

He had Alex Jones and Bernie Sanders (which he supports). Always objective with proper debate. Clearly, you never listened to any if his interviews. Clips only.

OceansJenny

igotid88 said:

You guys can also cancel your subscriptions instead of asking/demanding artists to take their music off the platform. I'm sure you guys will buy their albums

Yes! I don’t pay for any of those services. I buy albums if I like the artist. YouTube with ads for music that I maybe will maybe won’t buy.

AW124797

on2legs said:

I've never listened to Neil Young a day in  my life but if it upsets the idiots then I will start tomorrow.  Sign me up, Spotify.

Too late. Neil quit.

Spiritual_Chaos

AW124797 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

musicismylife78 said:

PB11041 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. 

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.  

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.

This.  Exactly.  People act like Joe Rogan alone is leading people astray.  Im a fan of Neil and of Joe, but Joe is in the right in this situation.  

The dude gives a platform for e.g. Alex Jones to spew his BS. Maybe pause and put together an oversight committee to take a look at your fandom-choices in life.

He had Alex Jones and Bernie Sanders (which he supports). Always objective with proper debate. Clearly, you never listened to any if his interviews. Clips only.

Clearly you haven't listened to any of his interviews.

drakeheuer14

Pearl jam hasn’t commented or joined. To Other Music this thread should go! 

bootleg

musicismylife78 said:

PB11041 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. 

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.  

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.

This.  Exactly.  People act like Joe Rogan alone is leading people astray.  Im a fan of Neil and of Joe, but Joe is in the right in this situation.  Its fine to pull your own music from Spotify, but to try and silence Joe because you view him as misinformation is censorship.  As I pointed out, its quite a change from someone who spent 60 years saying question the government and question authority, to now, fall in line, do what the government says, and shut up.  People see that hypocrisy, thats why Joe has an audience.  Joe is successful because the mainstream media is viewed by a majority of the public as overt shills.  Blaming Joe is a joke.  Maybe the media shouldn't have lied to us all for our entire lives.  The blame is misdirected.  
Who decides what is misinformation?  I love Neil but as you said, he has said some wild things over the years.  I dont want Neil censored.  And I dont want Joe censored either.  Im all for people who want to remove themselves from platforms, do it.  But thats not what Neil is advocating.  And thats wrong.  
I am a grown up, and I need to be able to listen to, consume, and engage with the content I want to.  No one, not Apple, Spotify, Twitter, or Neil should be able to tell me what I get to spend my time listening to.  

This is a pretty good summary of what I was trying to get at.  Neil absolutely has the right to pull his music off of Spotify if he wants to.  It’s when you are trying to get someone else de-platformed is what I have an issue with.  Same way they tried to get Chapelle off of Netflix cause people didn’t like some jokes he told.

And the notion that we need to censor what someone deems to be misinformation is very dangerous precedent.  Who gets to decide what is misinformation?  The few leaders of the top tech platforms?  You would have to assume that they are infallible sane rational people who will always remain that way.  But what happens when they are not?  You used to not even be able to mention the possibility that Covid started in a lab without it being labeled misinformation.  Now they all admit that it could be a possibility.

And then there was the kid who did unfortunately get myocarditis from the vaccine and posted a YouTube video describing his experience.  Youtube labeled it misinformation and took it down.  How do you deny someone from detailing their own personal experience?  The vaccines are great at keeping people out of the hospital and from dying, but they are not perfect and might not be a one size fits all solution.  Boosters might help those 60+ but may only have diminishing returns for those under 40.  Moderna might have a bigger risk for men under 30.  Someone might label that as misinformation but there is data out there that suggests that may be the case.  We need to be able to discuss these things freely without being de-platformed.

AW124797

Spiritual_Chaos said:

AW124797 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

musicismylife78 said:

PB11041 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. 

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.  

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.

This.  Exactly.  People act like Joe Rogan alone is leading people astray.  Im a fan of Neil and of Joe, but Joe is in the right in this situation.  

The dude gives a platform for e.g. Alex Jones to spew his BS. Maybe pause and put together an oversight committee to take a look at your fandom-choices in life.

He had Alex Jones and Bernie Sanders (which he supports). Always objective with proper debate. Clearly, you never listened to any if his interviews. Clips only.

Clearly you haven't listened to any of his interviews.

Forgive me. Bilingual here trying his best.

dankind

bootleg said:

musicismylife78 said:

PB11041 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. 

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.  

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.

This.  Exactly.  People act like Joe Rogan alone is leading people astray.  Im a fan of Neil and of Joe, but Joe is in the right in this situation.  Its fine to pull your own music from Spotify, but to try and silence Joe because you view him as misinformation is censorship.  As I pointed out, its quite a change from someone who spent 60 years saying question the government and question authority, to now, fall in line, do what the government says, and shut up.  People see that hypocrisy, thats why Joe has an audience.  Joe is successful because the mainstream media is viewed by a majority of the public as overt shills.  Blaming Joe is a joke.  Maybe the media shouldn't have lied to us all for our entire lives.  The blame is misdirected.  
Who decides what is misinformation?  I love Neil but as you said, he has said some wild things over the years.  I dont want Neil censored.  And I dont want Joe censored either.  Im all for people who want to remove themselves from platforms, do it.  But thats not what Neil is advocating.  And thats wrong.  
I am a grown up, and I need to be able to listen to, consume, and engage with the content I want to.  No one, not Apple, Spotify, Twitter, or Neil should be able to tell me what I get to spend my time listening to.  

This is a pretty good summary of what I was trying to get at.  Neil absolutely has the right to pull his music off of Spotify if he wants to.  It’s when you are trying to get someone else de-platformed is what I have an issue with.  Same way they tried to get Chapelle off of Netflix cause people didn’t like some jokes he told.

And the notion that we need to censor what someone deems to be misinformation is very dangerous precedent.  Who gets to decide what is misinformation?  The few leaders of the top tech platforms?  You would have to assume that they are infallible sane rational people who will always remain that way.  But what happens when they are not?  You used to not even be able to mention the possibility that Covid started in a lab without it being labeled misinformation.  Now they all admit that it could be a possibility.

And then there was the kid who did unfortunately get myocarditis from the vaccine and posted a YouTube video describing his experience.  Youtube labeled it misinformation and took it down.  How do you deny someone from detailing their own personal experience?  The vaccines are great at keeping people out of the hospital and from dying, but they are not perfect and might not be a one size fits all solution.  Boosters might help those 60+ but may only have diminishing returns for those under 40.  Moderna might have a bigger risk for men under 30.  Someone might label that as misinformation but there is data out there that suggests that may be the case.  We need to be able to discuss these things freely without being de-platformed.

But this is just somebody de-platforming himself. Never once does Neil ask Spotify to remove Joe Rogan's show from its platform, only his own music. 



Y'all are spinning a narrative that simply isn't there.

Spartanacus

Who is Neil Young?  Angus's brother?

musicismylife78

Joe has all kinds of people on, people he agrees with and disagrees with.  He had Candace Owens on and spent half an hour saying to her face she was a moron for not believing in climate change.  And years ago he spent 20 minutes mocking Crowder on his stance on pot.  Crowder missed his flight home because of the argument and Joe laughed about it.  Additionally, he's been quite critical of Alex Jones over the years.  At one point he and Alex had a feud going on and for years Joe wouldn't have him on the show and Alex wouldn't invite him on Infowars. 

I think the nuance thats missing is the idea one can agree with some ideas presented by people and disagree with some ideas as well and still like the interview and find it engaging and important and valid.  As was said he had Bernie on, actually endorsed him, and didnt he also have Yang on?  I cant imagine his more right wing fans were pleased about that, but thats life.  Just as left wing folks likely dont enjoy when he has Jordan or someone like that on.  

This is the culture I critiqued in a post above.  When did the debate move from I may not agree with you but you have the right to speak and lecture and talk and then I will ask questions after listening.  To what it is nowadays, It is my duty to silence you.  If Peterson speaks on campus its not just that I disagree and wont go or wont attend, which would be the logical thing to do, but rather, the response seems to be if he speaks anywhere on campus at all that is violence.  The whole safe space stuff is gross.  College is literally the place to be exposed to new ideas.  

dankind

This is the culture I critiqued in a post above.  When did the debate move from I may not agree with you but you have the right to speak and lecture and talk and then I will ask questions after listening.  To what it is nowadays, It is my duty to silence you. 

Never. Absolutely nothing's changed. 

Your media sources might want to get you mad about this new "culture," but it's been around at least since I've been alive.

Shitty actions have generally resulted in shitty consequences. Forever. I may not agree with all these consequences -- I mean, what else was Pee Wee supposed to be doing in that theatre? And what was the cop doing there??? -- but I've seen no uptick in their occurrences, just more vitriol in the media coverage of them.

igotid88

Indifference said:

yikes

Why yikes? Scared people are going to find good music?

Ledbetterman10

igotid88 said:

Indifference said:

yikes

Why yikes? Scared people are going to find good music?

I think he’s scared that these darn kids today would have to ask “Who is Neil Young?”

BF25394

musicismylife78 said

 
I am a grown up, and I need to be able to listen to, consume, and engage with the content I want to.  No one, not Apple, Spotify, Twitter, or Neil should be able to tell me what I get to spend my time listening to.  

Of course they should be able to do that.  No one has a right to be published.  If Apple or Spotify doesn't want to allow their platforms to be used for the publication of particular content, whether it be music or discussion, that's their prerogative, just the same as you don't have the right to have your letter to the editor or an op-ed piece you penned printed in the newspaper or on its website.

Again, freedom of speech as a constitutional right is protected only against infringement by the government.  That's it.  Any private individual or private entity can restrict speech.  And just because you have the right to say something, it doesn't mean that you have a right to an audience or to be listened to at all.  If you say something, I can use my speech to disagree with you, to shout you down, to call for your boycott, to shame you, to insult you, etc.  When you say the thing, you need to be aware that saying the thing may have consequences.  And when I respond, I need to be aware that my response may have consequences.  (For example, calling for the boycott might call more attention to the original thing that was said and end up being counterproductive.)

Another lesson in all of this: the value of ownership.  Millions of people have embraced the convenience of streaming.  But bear in mind that you're at the mercy of the streamer.  If it decides to drop your favorite artist because he's a child molester or a Nazi or a Yankee fan, and you just want to listen to his music, you're out of luck if you don't own it.

(And, by the way, I think Trevor Noah is making fun of how little Spotify pays artists as much as he is making fun of Neil Young.)