Will Pearl Jam join Neil Young in leaving Spotify?

igotid88

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. 

dankind

The only people to turn this into a "free speech" or "censorship" issue are the media outlets because that's what gets clicks/engagement and those who are way too influenced by media outlets. Seriously, so many people had that hot take before Rolling Stone, or Fox News, etc. even told them to. And that's scary to me.

All it takes is basic reading comprehension skills of the original source (the letter) to see that this is just an old artist asking to remove his work from a platform that he'd rather not be part of because of his beliefs. No one in this situation ever asked for Joe Rogan's podcast to be pulled from Spotify. It's kind of like a film director taking a Smithee on a project that they wish they weren't part of.

patkelly12

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. 

Sounds like you might be spreading some misinfo. Better not let Uncle Neil find out.

pjl44

dankind said:

The only people to turn this into a "free speech" or "censorship" issue are the media outlets because that's what gets clicks/engagement and those who are way too influenced by media outlets. Seriously, so many people had that hot take before Rolling Stone, or Fox News, etc. even told them to. And that's scary to me.

All it takes is basic reading comprehension skills of the original source (the letter) to see that this is just an old artist asking to remove his work from a platform that he'd rather not be part of because of his beliefs. No one in this situation ever asked for Joe Rogan's podcast to be pulled from Spotify. It's kind of like a film director taking a Smithee on a project that they wish they weren't part of.

You're mostly right I think but have to admit the implication of his "Rogan or Young" bit is that he'd keep his music up in the event they bounced Rogan.

A public person should be able to petition a private company if they feel something objectionable is occurring. The general public is free to either agree or call the public person a censorious ass if they'd like. Sure it's contentious, but I'd argue this is all playing out in a healthy way.

Loujoe

Fa fa flunky

Loujoe

I'm eternally sad and confused by all this. Stay well all.

dankind

pjl44 said:

dankind said:

The only people to turn this into a "free speech" or "censorship" issue are the media outlets because that's what gets clicks/engagement and those who are way too influenced by media outlets. Seriously, so many people had that hot take before Rolling Stone, or Fox News, etc. even told them to. And that's scary to me.

All it takes is basic reading comprehension skills of the original source (the letter) to see that this is just an old artist asking to remove his work from a platform that he'd rather not be part of because of his beliefs. No one in this situation ever asked for Joe Rogan's podcast to be pulled from Spotify. It's kind of like a film director taking a Smithee on a project that they wish they weren't part of.

You're mostly right I think but have to admit the implication of his "Rogan or Young" bit is that he'd keep his music up in the event they bounced Rogan.

A public person should be able to petition a private company if they feel something objectionable is occurring. The general public is free to either agree or call the public person a censorious ass if they'd like. Sure it's contentious, but I'd argue this is all playing out in a healthy way.

I mentioned before that out of context, the "Rogan or Young," reads like an ultimatum. If you read it in line with his letter, however, it's pretty clear that he's just explaining why he's pulling his music. "They can have Rogan or Young. Not both." comes at the end after him explaining for a while that he's pulling his music.

Media outlets love taking things out of context, otherwise all they have to report is news. Nobody wants news anymore. Taking things out of context allows for spin and outrage. And everybody apparently lines up for outrage.

Loujoe

ISO the last 2+years of my life.

pjl44

dankind said:

pjl44 said:

dankind said:

The only people to turn this into a "free speech" or "censorship" issue are the media outlets because that's what gets clicks/engagement and those who are way too influenced by media outlets. Seriously, so many people had that hot take before Rolling Stone, or Fox News, etc. even told them to. And that's scary to me.

All it takes is basic reading comprehension skills of the original source (the letter) to see that this is just an old artist asking to remove his work from a platform that he'd rather not be part of because of his beliefs. No one in this situation ever asked for Joe Rogan's podcast to be pulled from Spotify. It's kind of like a film director taking a Smithee on a project that they wish they weren't part of.

You're mostly right I think but have to admit the implication of his "Rogan or Young" bit is that he'd keep his music up in the event they bounced Rogan.

A public person should be able to petition a private company if they feel something objectionable is occurring. The general public is free to either agree or call the public person a censorious ass if they'd like. Sure it's contentious, but I'd argue this is all playing out in a healthy way.

I mentioned before that out of context, the "Rogan or Young," reads like an ultimatum. If you read it in line with his letter, however, it's pretty clear that he's just explaining why he's pulling his music. "They can have Rogan or Young. Not both." comes at the end after him explaining for a while that he's pulling his music.

Media outlets love taking things out of context, otherwise all they have to report is news. Nobody wants news anymore. Taking things out of context allows for spin and outrage. And everybody apparently lines up for outrage.

Ok, yeah, I see what you're saying 

AW124797

dankind said:

pjl44 said:

dankind said:

The only people to turn this into a "free speech" or "censorship" issue are the media outlets because that's what gets clicks/engagement and those who are way too influenced by media outlets. Seriously, so many people had that hot take before Rolling Stone, or Fox News, etc. even told them to. And that's scary to me.

All it takes is basic reading comprehension skills of the original source (the letter) to see that this is just an old artist asking to remove his work from a platform that he'd rather not be part of because of his beliefs. No one in this situation ever asked for Joe Rogan's podcast to be pulled from Spotify. It's kind of like a film director taking a Smithee on a project that they wish they weren't part of.

You're mostly right I think but have to admit the implication of his "Rogan or Young" bit is that he'd keep his music up in the event they bounced Rogan.

A public person should be able to petition a private company if they feel something objectionable is occurring. The general public is free to either agree or call the public person a censorious ass if they'd like. Sure it's contentious, but I'd argue this is all playing out in a healthy way.

I mentioned before that out of context, the "Rogan or Young," reads like an ultimatum. If you read it in line with his letter, however, it's pretty clear that he's just explaining why he's pulling his music. "They can have Rogan or Young. Not both." comes at the end after him explaining for a while that he's pulling his music.

Media outlets love taking things out of context, otherwise all they have to report is news. Nobody wants news anymore. Taking things out of context allows for spin and outrage. And everybody apparently lines up for outrage.

Did you get a chance to see Neil's 2nd statement from yesterday?

Falling Down

Very happy that Sirius now has a Neil Young Channel (27) for a while because of this whole saga. 

dankind

pjl44 said:

dankind said:

pjl44 said:

dankind said:

The only people to turn this into a "free speech" or "censorship" issue are the media outlets because that's what gets clicks/engagement and those who are way too influenced by media outlets. Seriously, so many people had that hot take before Rolling Stone, or Fox News, etc. even told them to. And that's scary to me.

All it takes is basic reading comprehension skills of the original source (the letter) to see that this is just an old artist asking to remove his work from a platform that he'd rather not be part of because of his beliefs. No one in this situation ever asked for Joe Rogan's podcast to be pulled from Spotify. It's kind of like a film director taking a Smithee on a project that they wish they weren't part of.

You're mostly right I think but have to admit the implication of his "Rogan or Young" bit is that he'd keep his music up in the event they bounced Rogan.

A public person should be able to petition a private company if they feel something objectionable is occurring. The general public is free to either agree or call the public person a censorious ass if they'd like. Sure it's contentious, but I'd argue this is all playing out in a healthy way.

I mentioned before that out of context, the "Rogan or Young," reads like an ultimatum. If you read it in line with his letter, however, it's pretty clear that he's just explaining why he's pulling his music. "They can have Rogan or Young. Not both." comes at the end after him explaining for a while that he's pulling his music.

Media outlets love taking things out of context, otherwise all they have to report is news. Nobody wants news anymore. Taking things out of context allows for spin and outrage. And everybody apparently lines up for outrage.

Ok, yeah, I see what you're saying 

I think so many folks operate on outrage today as their neutral. So it's comforting when media outlets confirm it. Awful codependency cycle.

Disclaimer: careerlong journalist/editor here.

dankind

AW124797 said:

dankind said:

pjl44 said:

dankind said:

The only people to turn this into a "free speech" or "censorship" issue are the media outlets because that's what gets clicks/engagement and those who are way too influenced by media outlets. Seriously, so many people had that hot take before Rolling Stone, or Fox News, etc. even told them to. And that's scary to me.

All it takes is basic reading comprehension skills of the original source (the letter) to see that this is just an old artist asking to remove his work from a platform that he'd rather not be part of because of his beliefs. No one in this situation ever asked for Joe Rogan's podcast to be pulled from Spotify. It's kind of like a film director taking a Smithee on a project that they wish they weren't part of.

You're mostly right I think but have to admit the implication of his "Rogan or Young" bit is that he'd keep his music up in the event they bounced Rogan.

A public person should be able to petition a private company if they feel something objectionable is occurring. The general public is free to either agree or call the public person a censorious ass if they'd like. Sure it's contentious, but I'd argue this is all playing out in a healthy way.

I mentioned before that out of context, the "Rogan or Young," reads like an ultimatum. If you read it in line with his letter, however, it's pretty clear that he's just explaining why he's pulling his music. "They can have Rogan or Young. Not both." comes at the end after him explaining for a while that he's pulling his music.

Media outlets love taking things out of context, otherwise all they have to report is news. Nobody wants news anymore. Taking things out of context allows for spin and outrage. And everybody apparently lines up for outrage.

Did you get a chance to see Neil's 2nd statement from yesterday?

Yes. He didn't ask for Spotify to pull Rogan's podcast in that one either. He thanked his label and hoped that any other likeminded artists might join him in removing their music as well. Nothing about restricting free speech or censorship in it at all.

But that doesn't stop folks from manufacturing that take out of thin air.

patkelly12

Yes. Only dummies could misconstrue "you can't have both". At least he maintained relevancy for 15 more minutes.

jimjam1982

OceansJenny

dankind said:

pjl44 said:

dankind said:

pjl44 said:

dankind said:

The only people to turn this into a "free speech" or "censorship" issue are the media outlets because that's what gets clicks/engagement and those who are way too influenced by media outlets. Seriously, so many people had that hot take before Rolling Stone, or Fox News, etc. even told them to. And that's scary to me.

All it takes is basic reading comprehension skills of the original source (the letter) to see that this is just an old artist asking to remove his work from a platform that he'd rather not be part of because of his beliefs. No one in this situation ever asked for Joe Rogan's podcast to be pulled from Spotify. It's kind of like a film director taking a Smithee on a project that they wish they weren't part of.

You're mostly right I think but have to admit the implication of his "Rogan or Young" bit is that he'd keep his music up in the event they bounced Rogan.

A public person should be able to petition a private company if they feel something objectionable is occurring. The general public is free to either agree or call the public person a censorious ass if they'd like. Sure it's contentious, but I'd argue this is all playing out in a healthy way.

I mentioned before that out of context, the "Rogan or Young," reads like an ultimatum. If you read it in line with his letter, however, it's pretty clear that he's just explaining why he's pulling his music. "They can have Rogan or Young. Not both." comes at the end after him explaining for a while that he's pulling his music.

Media outlets love taking things out of context, otherwise all they have to report is news. Nobody wants news anymore. Taking things out of context allows for spin and outrage. And everybody apparently lines up for outrage.

Ok, yeah, I see what you're saying 

I think so many folks operate on outrage today as their neutral. So it's comforting when media outlets confirm it. Awful codependency cycle.

Disclaimer: careerlong journalist/editor here.

100%. News outlets are relying on emotional manipulation to get people engaged (and watching their ads, so they can get paid). Then the people demand it and it’s a cycle like you said. It’s very sad. I’m sorry your profession has moved in this direction.

igotid88

patkelly12 said:

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. 

Sounds like you might be spreading some misinfo. Better not let Uncle Neil find out.

No

vant0037

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?

Tim Simmons

^^^ This. 

But also, super weird to defend guys who want to have this POV.

https://twitter.com/alexpattyy/status/1486108847412588553?s=21

Tim Simmons

At worst, they’re casually cruel. At best they sound like a dopey stoner. 

We can expect better out of people.