Spotify wants you to think this is an issue about "silencing voices being a slippery slope" but they don't give a fuck about that. They give a fuck about money. And silencing voices is perfectly fine as long as it protects their bottom dollar.
You're missing the part where Neil Young literally said "You can have Joe or you can have Neil". He was pushing for Joe's removal from the platform and when he didn't get what he wanted, he left.
I adore the David Crosby thought process that tells him the next natural person in this lineage after Graham fucking Nash is obviously one Taylor Swift.
That being said, the reason the Left has so much trouble building a coalition is bc we are so quick to police every single word that comes out of someones mouth and disown them for it, when we should be more quick to accept people on their overarching views and hopefully teach and learn from each other as we move forward. I guarantee you if India Arie tweeted Joe and said "Let me on your show so i can correct your views on this" he would gladly oblige. At the end of the day, he has more progressive views on race in America than he does, say, conservative or alt-right views, and we should want him in our corner rather than being so quick to dismiss him. Joe Rogan calls the Trump family a bunch of idiots every fucking episode, and yet you STILL see Trump Jr. tweeting out support for him like every week bc its more valuable to pretend he is in your corner than the other.
As much as I've been defending Joe round these parts as of late, mostly as it regards to content moderation from big tech groups, i gotta agree that i loathe this sort of rhetoric. We say "black" as a society bc not all dark skinned people are African American, so "black" basically encompasses a segment of people who are not white/asian/hispanic. It's not that difficult to understand.
Omg I swear yall got the most dated ass base level understanding of free speech as it exists in 2022. Is this comment section a time warp and every commenter actually exists in 1922?
Lol ok but the first amendment was written in *checks google* 1971. I don't believe at that point they had the foresight to see that a few big tech platforms would control 99% of content floating throughout the world. I understand what free speech is as it was written over 200 years ago, I understand that Spotify doesn't have an obligation to host any content they don't want to. But the fact is that they decided they DID want to host his content, and them caving to the establishment consensus that Joe fucking Rogan is the cause root of our nations vaccination rate, in my opinion is not a very good sign of where we are headed in terms of the first amendment. It ain't that hard.
Something will come out about this weird culty retreat thing he does 100%
https://www.lofficielusa.com/pop-culture/jared-leto-cult-croatia-thirty-seconds-to-mars-gucci
Knew i'd see an Amber Mark write-up here today! This album is so funnnn and i just can't really fathom how "Competition", "Foreign Things" and "Worth It" weren't already #1 hits.
I mean im not denying its a double edged sword, but my answer to this dilemma would absolutely never be "Spotify makes too much money from ads...let's push for censorship".
Respectfully, you are missing the point.
Ok so you're not a man-baby with a huge following or whatever. The point is that if deplatforming can happen to someone at the absolute highest level, how easy it will be to censor someone who is a nobody.
This whole "private" company nonsense. You realize you are protecting big-tech when you refer to them as private, right? Yes, even though technically private, in the tech-age, private IS public. A private company, Facebook, is now the largest way for people to communicate in the WORLD. We aren't talking about some tiny corner restaurant that wants to take down a flyer someone put on their window. We are talking about literally granting permission to big tech to silence people on the largest social channels available. You can see how this is not setting a very good precedent, right?
"Overvealous with their moderation", how do you quantify that? What makes something overzealous? Once we get to that point, isn't it safe to assume we will be so far down the rabbit hole that Joe will have nowhere to go? And that also by that point, your own speech may have been infringed upon as well?
Censoring Joe is not the answer. Its merely plucking a blade of grass when you need to get to the root of why people are so distrusting of the government in the first place.
Spotify is a business that prioritizes profits over people. You have that correct. You have had that correct the last 10 times you have said it. Every major evil fucking corporation prioritizes profits over people. It's literally the only blueprint there is for becoming a billionaire. Spotify doesn't give a fucking shit about free speech. Believe me if they were able to silence every single artist who spoke out about their shitty fucking pay, they probably would. So why in Earth would you want to open those flood gates by giving them the responsibility to moderate content? The power will be abused. If it can happen to Joe, it can happen to you.
Honestly not a bad hill to die on. Anyone who's take on this is "Fuck Joe Rogan, take him down" is ultimately siding with the establishment, which im sure is not what 25 yr old Neil Young would have done. The mainstream media establishment wants nothing more than to get Joe down bc 1) He's a massive threat to their capital and 2) If they can pin all their shortcomings (to put them nicely) on him, it completely misplaces the blame of all the harm they have caused in the struggle for trust in government institutions. People don't trust the government, which leads to distrust in vaccines. This is not a Joe Rogan problem, and to pretend that it is is carrying forward a false and misleading narrative about what exactly is wrong in our country right now.
Comments