Do you think Spotify should continue to host Joe Rogan's podcast?

[lonelyapple]

Quite a few singers (Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, Nils Lofgren to name a few) have said they want to have their music removed from Spotify as a protest against Spotify hosting Joe Rogan's podcast (they think he is spreading covid vaccine misinformation), so Spotify will have to choose between hosting their music or Joe Rogan's podcast.

I personally think this is ridiculous as Joe Rogan talks to a range of people about a range of different subjects and his podcasts are interesting and popular and people can always choose not to listen to them and even if they do, it doesn't mean they believe everything being said. I don't think Spotify should cave to such threats and I think this would set a dangerous precedent.

www.ft.com/content/a9fdaf0d-8d46-4a16-881f-a1b0635d3ce3

YANBU - Spotify should keep Joe Rogan's podcast.
YABU - Spotify should not keep Joe Rogan's podcast.

Oh, I see you have completely misconstrued what I said. I clearly wasn't talking about JR in that comment. I was talking generally about an assertion that suggested that you don't have free speech if it loses you your livelihood.

I was just wondering how that works in reality.

I think what I'm getting at Fluffy is that no one gets her up when horrible people lose their platform for spouting horrible things, but this has a knock on effect and it's really easy to find yourself on the wrong end of 'acceptable'. My kids think I'm awful because I'm not wholly in favour of treating trans people as their preferred sex, without any checks and balances, for example. People have been vilified for not holding the current 'acceptable' view.
In order to have free speech we have to accept hearing views we don't like and accepting that people have a right to hold those views, even when they are personally abhorrent to us.
Once a person's ability to keep their job is threatened, because they hold an unpopular pov, then there's no free speech and we are all just pretending to have freedom.

This whole Spotify thing is a few celebs throwing their toys out of the pram because they've been told no!

Things are getting very divisive in society - it's think how I think or else! We've seen it with Brexit, with women's rights and now with vaccinations.

I'd also rather live in a world where I know what people are really thinking, hiding opinions doesn't make them go away and I'd rather know who I was talk to in life.

"There is also no such thing as ‘cancel culture’, it’s simply that some people who previously spoke without thought and without consequence now experience reality like the rest of us. "

Tell that to Kathleen Stock
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-59084446 and JK Rowling

[quote EmmaH2022]How cheesy is this 😂
Reminds me of being a kid

[/quote] For some reason, reading that reminded me of FRANKIE SAYS ! from the (earlier ) 80s.

(Ask your grand parents)

@Aderyn21

Personally I define freedom as being able to say/do whatever you like up to the point where it begins to inhibit another person's freedom to go about their lawful business.

So Joe Rogan's podcast (or any anti vax opinion) doesn't inhibit anyone else from going ahead and getting vaccinated. You might argue that in not vaccinating, those people put others at risk but as a society we only are obliged to have vaccinations of there's a direct benefit to the individuals having it - that it protects society via herd immunisation is a nice side effect but not the main reason.

Of course other artists also have the freedom to remove their content from Spotify. The market will decide whose work is most valued by the consumer and Spotify will likely respond accordingly.

If the consequence of free speech is that you lose your livelihood, then you effectively don't have free speech. I think it's essential to protect that freedom because who wants to live in a country where only sanctioned opinions are allowed?

Yes, exactly.

I find it interesting that a newspaper sacking a columnist is considered censorship. No paper owes any individual a platform for their views

I would argue that if you set yourself up as a disseminator of "news" then you have a duty to present all sides not just the ones you personally agree with.

@LondonWolf

I find it interesting that a newspaper sacking a columnist is considered censorship. No paper owes any individual a platform for their views

I would argue that if you set yourself up as a disseminator of "news" then you have a duty to present all sides not just the ones you personally agree with.

a) that still doesn't mean any individual has a right to be shown in print. b) the kind of places that would hire Katie Hopkins in the first place are not going to be giving much space to left wing viewpoints. Sacking her isn't going to change that.

I think a lot rests on what was actually said, and the likelihood of harm that it could cause, which in this case is likely highly contested. I don’t think booting trump off Twitter for trying to incite people to overthrow the govt (I didn’t read the tweets so again I cannot be confident that’s exactly what was said, but from other evidence it’s certainly his style).

In the case of ‘antivax’ information, my understanding of often what is actually said is not that no one should get vaccines, but is a critical look at vaccine injury, efficacy, and cost benefit analysis of whether vaccines are a good idea for young and healthy people. There are of course the ‘world is run by lizards’ people who think vaccines have microchips in, but I think we are all robust enough to cope with the knowledge that some people believe that, without being compelled to join in? To me it is very troubling not to be able to share and discuss data that suggests there can be issues with vaccines and govt strategy around them.

If you shit down any discussion that isn't 100% positive about vaccination, then I think you actually increase vaccine hesitancy, since people then don't trust the information and feel the truth is being hidden.

Shut down obvs 😆

Absolutely Aderyn, since most people will at least know someone who’s had minor negative side affects such as menstrual impacts, up to more serious issues like heart or neurological issues, and feeling that questions about that are mocked and minimised is a sure way to encourage distrust.

Joe rogan should not be de platformed. We always need to hear both sides of a story. I want to hear about all the scientific studies not just the ones that back up a narrative that’s been decided already. Things change and are newly discovered all the time. By the way, I’m vaccinated but I believe in freedom of speech and the autonomy to be able to decide freely what we put in our bodies.

I don't know this podcast but think it's important to have free speech. If you ban Rogan for this then where does it stop? Surely they could put some sort of disclaimer on the start of the episode?

Funny this but they do not take down tick tok lefties and crazy people influencing young teenagers into abomination.

I think everyone has a right to air their views. Most intelligent people will read and listen to a variety of opinions before informing their own.

This assertion that private companies can do what they like, surely raises the question of just how much power these private companies now hold, with unelected, unregulated people getting to decide who speaks and when - even POTUS. It would take a very honourable person indeed not to nudge things nicely along their own personal political path in my opinion. Personally I find it terrifying but others seem not to mind at all - they're right here on this thread asserting that there's no such thing as cancel culture and it's totally fine to just shut people down when they say things you don't like.

@MidCenturyClegs

I think everyone has a right to air their views. Most intelligent people will read and listen to a variety of opinions before informing their own.

True but for many people listening to different opinions, then critically evaluating them in order to form your own opinion takes time and head space they don't have or don't want to do.

It is far easier to accept the "one acceptable and established truth" and shout down anyone exploring or even mentioning alternative views as "spouting ant vaxx misinformation".

I'm super pro-vax. I had Covid in 2020, got triple vaxxed in 2021, got Omicron in 2022. Will be getting my DS vaccinated once he's past the post infection wait period. However, I don't agree with de-platforming Rogan. I'm not an expert on him, so I could be wrong, but as far as I know he isn't anti-vax, he just isn't super gung-ho about it and acknowledges that there are potential downsides to the vaccine, which there are. An open discussion about what can go wrong but why it's still important for most of us to get vaccinated is actually important. Shutting down any negative talk about the vaccine is authoritarian and takes us to a place where anyone pointing out the potential issues is seen as anti-vax. It creates a them and us which is so, so, so fucking far from helpful that it's actually very dangerous. I disagree with some of what I have heard from Rogan but I don't think he's saying anything that needs to be shut down rather than discussed. He's not a Covid in the 5G, vaccines are Bill Gates microchips realm of stupidity. He's just talking about potential downsides, which are actually real.

The whole situation just has echoes of the whole JK Rowling's hateful comments about trans people situation. So many people I actually know accuse her of being a harmful, hateful transphobe, when nothing she said was hateful. People can disagree with her opinion but by being open to hearing her and talking it through, consensus could be found. By accusing her of hate and attacking her, all that happens is lines are drawn and ultimately people will suffer.

I'm so, so, so fucking beyond tired of this shitty polarisation of society that's happening. While we attack people for disagreeing with us even a little and refuse to listen to anything we don't like or that challenges the narratives we've attached ourselves to. It's fucking stupid and regressive and really, really dangerous.

it's totally fine to just shut people down when they say things you don't like

It's totally fine for any private company to serve whoever they choose. That's not the same as 'shutting people down', as there are always other avenues, and places that are run by people that hold similar beliefs and values. That's what happens with newspapers - they have columnists and journalists that reflect their own political stance. There's no obligation for them to give space to viewpoints they don't agree with. And with the internet, it's very easy to create your own space that you can fill with anti-vaxxers or Katie Hopkins fans or whatever you want. It has literally never been easier to showcase your views, even if one platform doesn't want you, than it is now. And it's fair to say that this 'stooshie' won't do JR's listening figures any harm at all.

@MidCenturyClegs

I think everyone has a right to air their views. Most intelligent people will read and listen to a variety of opinions before informing their own.

(Disclaimer - I’ve picked up on your post but I’m not ‘interrogating’ you personally but your post illustrates a bigger point of view)

Do you think that the anarchists cookbook should be freely for sale? Do you think that terrorist propaganda videos including the torture and beheading of their prisoners are ok to be given a platform in popular media if there’s a disclaimer? Are you against celebrity injunctions taken out to protect privacy? Are we saying that people in other circumstances who succumb to any type of brainwashing weren’t intelligent (I’m thinking along the lines of heavens gate and jones town)?

I’m absolutely not drawing any direct comparisons with JR but I am curious where the popular boundary falls because we absolutely do censor speech and the press but seem to have a lot of people who think this is a new thing.

Again I’ll say things that were disinformation this time last year are now assimilated into the mainstream. We’re trying to shut down any discussion and censor the news about the vaccines but all it does is make people more distrustful.
I was called a shill on these boards for discussing the side effects my family had experienced. Now all these rare side effects are accepted and are being researched such as period problems, heart problems and the effect on blood clotting conditions and allergic reactions such as anaphylaxis.

I wonder if in another year some of the things Rogan is discussing such as heart problems in athletes and young people will be mainstream too. Remember when the lab leak theory was enough to get you banned from social media, now it’s a mainstream news story.
Cloth masks not being very effective is now said by CDC in America, the vaccines not stopping transition was a shibboleth last January, now an accepted fact.Natural immunity was only supposed to last 5 months, now we see natural immunity is much longer lasting.
This is a new situation and it’s fast moving. If we ban anyone that doesn’t agree with the governments policies discussing covid and the vaccines we are going further down a very dark road as there has already been huge censorship and deplatforming around this issue.
Obviously the vaccines stop serious illness and death. But to pretend there are no side effects at all and that everyone has the same covid risk profile isn’t true.

@Buwch

biden kamala and others all said they wouldn't take it, no good tying to gild the lily You are lying.

Hardly, there would be no point.

cornettoninja I think your examples would maybe stray into the point at which those actions prevent other people from going about their lawful business? Obviously we can't have people inciting violence against others and that's the point at which the line has to be drawn I think, but showing videos of people committing murder is a bit different from expressing anti vax opinions or other generally unpopular opinions.

I was in Cardiff a while ago and a woman was holding up a large colour banner showing an aborted foetus. Do I think she should have the right to say she is anti abortion? Absolutely! Do I think she should be able to force other people (including children) to see images they haven't consented to see? Absolutely not!
She should have freedom to speak but not freedom to do iyswim.

@Wanderingowl

I'm super pro-vax. I had Covid in 2020, got triple vaxxed in 2021, got Omicron in 2022. Will be getting my DS vaccinated once he's past the post infection wait period. However, I don't agree with de-platforming Rogan. I'm not an expert on him, so I could be wrong, but as far as I know he isn't anti-vax, he just isn't super gung-ho about it and acknowledges that there are potential downsides to the vaccine, which there are. An open discussion about what can go wrong but why it's still important for most of us to get vaccinated is actually important. Shutting down any negative talk about the vaccine is authoritarian and takes us to a place where anyone pointing out the potential issues is seen as anti-vax. It creates a them and us which is so, so, so fucking far from helpful that it's actually very dangerous. I disagree with some of what I have heard from Rogan but I don't think he's saying anything that needs to be shut down rather than discussed. He's not a Covid in the 5G, vaccines are Bill Gates microchips realm of stupidity. He's just talking about potential downsides, which are actually real.

The whole situation just has echoes of the whole JK Rowling's hateful comments about trans people situation. So many people I actually know accuse her of being a harmful, hateful transphobe, when nothing she said was hateful. People can disagree with her opinion but by being open to hearing her and talking it through, consensus could be found. By accusing her of hate and attacking her, all that happens is lines are drawn and ultimately people will suffer.

I'm so, so, so fucking beyond tired of this shitty polarisation of society that's happening. While we attack people for disagreeing with us even a little and refuse to listen to anything we don't like or that challenges the narratives we've attached ourselves to. It's fucking stupid and regressive and really, really dangerous.

great post 100% agree!

I agree, I am pro vax, but if you think your position cannot stand up to mere discussion what does that day about your position.

He has merely interviewed vax-sceptics, not waged a war on the vax position.

I also think trying to silence the conversation gives more sway to conspiracy theorists in any case.

If the position is sound it can handle debate.