Spotify

[jammindude]

All your points are valid, but I could say the same thing about the modern Internet age. you can still go out and get yourself a website, that doesn’t guarantee that anyone’s gonna look at it. The major platforms are just the modern day “publishers”.

[SoundscapeMN]

I've actually wanted to write and get a book published for a few years, ever since seeing so many other people do it, and finding 1 million hits in my blog.

I even started outlining it, etc

I just haven't had the time to really focus on it the last few years for various reasons. But it's still a long term goal, which to be realistic, might not happen until the day I'm retired, lol.

[bl5150]

[wolfking]

 

[TAC]

 

[jingle.boy]

Idk Chad. Rogan is the #1 podcast on Spotify.   Brene Brown doesn't crack the top 50. It would take many big time podcasts to drop to force their hands.

I just want to come back to this, given Rogan has "apologized" and Spotify is now going to be adding content advisories.  Not saying Brown individually had anything to do with it*, but her podcasts rank 18th and 33rd in the USA.

Clearly, Spotify is trying to get ahead of this before it gets out of hand.

*Especially considering Harry/Meghan jumping on the bandwagon as well.

[Stadler]

My problem is, that spotify pays Joe Rogan a shitload of money to spread his shit. Reportedly he has a 100 million dollar deal. So they not only tolerate his podcast, they actively support it.

And in this light, I can see some merit to Youngs actions.

And another question is, why can they pay him so much and other artists get only a couple of cents?

I am sure others can break it down on a more micro level than I can, but the old adage is, you are worth what someone is willing to pay you.  I am not a podcast guy, but they are all the rage now, and if you have a hugely popular one, which Rogan apparently does, then someone is going to pay you a lot of money.

Right or wrong, artists just get paid very little now by streaming sites for their work, which is why we are seeing many artists struggling since the pandemic started (and some bands go belly up), as it is hard to maintain when you cannot tour and you get very little from streaming and the tiny amount of CD and vinyl sales you manage to muster (for 99.999% of the artists out there).

There's paying for and paying for.  The rate at which an artist gets paid per download is different than the amount an artist is paid in order to use their likeness in advertising, etc.  I'm going to assume that they are getting something more than just the podcast catalogue for that $100m.

I pay $12.99 for the new Kiss record; more correctly, I pay $12.99 for a plastic CD with data on it, and a license to listen to that data as I see fit (more or less) with certain restrictions.  I cannot use Gene Simmons' likeness in any commercial way, nor can I cite Gene Simmons in any advertising I do (not that I do any) just from buying that license.  That's the equivalent of a Spotify download.   If I paid Gene Simmons $100 million, I could presumably use his likeness or cite him in advertising. I don't, automatically, get a license for any of his music unless it is explicitly included in that deal.  I'm thinking this is the Rogan deal.

[King Postwhore]

Idk Chad. Rogan is the #1 podcast on Spotify.   Brene Brown doesn't crack the top 50. It would take many big time podcasts to drop to force their hands.

I just want to come back to this, given Rogan has "apologized" and Spotify is now going to be adding content advisories.  Not saying Brown individually had anything to do with it*, but her podcasts rank 18th and 33rd in the USA.

Clearly, Spotify is trying to get ahead of this before it gets out of hand.

*Especially considering Harry/Meghan jumping on the bandwagon as well.

All around pressure but here we are again in this dumb world Chad were McDonalds has to have on it's cups that coffee is hot, because the world if full of idiots who has to be told to because coffee is hot.

Just like Rogan does not believe in the vaccine, we have to have a label because it makes people feel better.  Just don't listen to him.  Listen to your doctor.  People are stupid.

[Stadler]

Man the goalposts have shifted so much I feel like I'm playing a different sport with every post. I don't even like sports.

Actually on topic for once though, I kind of doubt many other big names do a Neil Young. In general I think people prefer money over principle.

Or maybe they prefer a DIFFERENT principle than you?   I'm a libertarian at heart.  I have no affinity for Joe Rogan, I don't listen to him and I don't follow what I understand to be his points of view; having said that, MY overriding principle is the crucible of ideas.  I think Neil Young has the right to pull his music if he wants; I defend that to the limit.  I do NOT think he has the right to force Spotify to "make a choice" in that way.   I think that is just market manipulation, bullying, and/or censorship.   The answer isn't shutting down Joe Rogan, it's putting in the hard work.  If you think he's wrong or in error or spewing misinformation, then the onus is on the rest of us to counter that with the correct information, not bully that guy into silence.  Silence doesn't change minds, it just forces the idea underground.  People have the right to decide this stuff, and we have to live with the concept that people aren't always going to think like we do.

[hefdaddy42]

Rogan's thing isn't that he promotes misinformation.  He doesn't promote anything.  But he has guests on his show of ALL opinions and makes no distinctions about them, presenting them all as equally valid, to get all perspectives out there.  On the face of it, that sounds nice, but of course it will occasionally mean that his huge audience gets exposed to some crackpot bullshit, and since Rogan doesn't call it crackpot bullshit, the influence is now there.

Having said all of that, Spotify itself is just a platform.  If I were NY, I wouldn't have done what he did, but he is a codgy old fucker with lots of weird opinions, and its HIS music, so whatever.

Spotify announced they will have some kind of bumper before podcasts dealing with COVID, and Rogan said he's perfectly fine with that, so case closed for me.

EDITED

[Stadler]

That's not what people want these days Tim.  If their core beliefs don't match up with his core beliefs, you wipe them off the face of the earth.  Instead of not watching or listening to that person.

1000%.  And the divisiveness burns deeper and people entrench further.  We never learn.  In-groups and out-groups.

[Stadler]

and watch this video (warning - lots of unnecessary language, but the points he makes still make it worth watching):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szSff7TUkv8

I had to shut that off after about four minutes. You know that old expression, it's not what you say, but how you say it...that guy must be unfamiliar with that line of thinking, because even if everything he was saying was true, saying it like a condescending d-bag is not the way to win people over.  I am open to watching other links with a similar argument, but one with someone who can make an argument without acting like a child.

He's definitely a douche...but seeing the financial breakdown of spotify's payouts as being identical to that of CD sales payouts took away any inhibitions I had about using the service.




I mean, every product under the sun I'd imagine has a few chinks in their moral armor. Is the chocolate I'm eating or the clothes I bought at Target supporting child labor? Does the MCU donating to the Trump campaign make my enjoyment of Wandavision any less? Does Dream Theater tastelessly releasing a beer named after song about the horrors of alcoholism mean I need to boycott their shows? It's free market, pick and choose our battles.

As someone that really despises the (over)use of the word "moral" in these instances, I would argue that that problem is not having chinks in the moral armor, it's assuming that there should be a moral armor to begin with.  Despite the common misconception, corporations are NOT people (the case law that says they are was only to give people the right to sue them, nothing more).   They have no obligation, no FACILITY, to act "morally", and even then if and when they do, it's subject to the eyes of the beholder.  MY morals are not yours, and on down the line.  The Dream Theater thing for example; it probably has a greater impact to you than to me.  There are other things that probably impact me more than you.   I think we're asking too much to expect corporate entities to be all things to all people.   As a result, they are likely nothing to no one.

[jingle.boy]

People are stupid.

No argument there.  But I also have no problem in people using their influence to be the change in the world that they want to see.

[Stadler]

The whole idea of “cancel culture” is kind of stupid anyway. So much of it comes down to the younger generations (of which I’m a part of) wanting accountability for people’s actions. We will always have to weigh the pros and cons of things when making decisions as nothing in this world is perfect (I’m a huge animal love but also love all things meat related), but these awful things can’t be swept under the rug anymore. Nobody should be criticized for making a choice if that choice isn’t hurting anybody, but society deserves full transparency so that people have all of the facts to make the decision they feel is right.

But - and I have three kids in this zone of "younger generation" - the problem has always been accountability to WHAT?  That's where the younger generation - with whom I nominally agree more often than not - I think is missing the point.  I find I don't disagree with the base premises as much as I disagree with the mechanism for getting there.  If you're REALLY against a certain point of view, this false notion that squashing it, silencing it, cancelling it, is the answer is where I have the problem.  It seems to be in keeping with our culture; feel good and short term takes precedence over hard work and long haul.   I think by many accounts, the problem of racism is worse today than it was 30 years ago. And what have we done in the meantime?  Made any discussion of racism that isn't in full accord with the "agenda" almost verboten.  And what happens?   The alternate viewpoints - and I don't even mean "racist" point of view, but just that not in keeping with the common wisdom - gets pushed underground and only bubble up when the pressures get too high.  Hashtag Me Too; we pushed the concept of sexual abuse underground for years, and it bubbled up in the form of Jeff Epstein, and Harvey Weinstein, and that douche Olympic doctor, and Peter Nygard... and now we're back to pushing it back underground by holding people accountable not for sexual assault, but bruised egos and awkward social interactions.

I guarantee you, not ONE PERSON is going to change their mind as a result of Neil Young's actions.  NOT ONE.  Those that think Rogan is a tool bag will continue to think he's a tool bag and carry resentment that they can't listen to the live 15-minute "Cortez The Killer" in shitty sound on Spotify.   Those that think Rogan a freedom fighter are going to cheer and rail against the cranky antics of a has-been washed up hippy that thinks he's still at Woodstock and writing protest songs.

[King Postwhore]

People are stupid.

No argument there.  But I also have no problem in people using their influence to be the change in the world that they want to see.

Yeah but what Hef said above.  People are no longer accountable for their own though process.  They blame others.  It's tiring.

I have many friends who we all do not agree with publicly.  It never affects us because we treat each other with respect.  It's sorely missed these days.

[Stadler]

It's funny to be how people complain about "the mob" when actions like boycotts and being deliberate about one's consumption are the only real power anyone not in government or on a board of investors has under capitalism.

It's all "if you don't like it, you don't have to buy it, but don't tell other people what they can't do!", right? But the minute people start getting together to say "hey, yeah, that's right, we DON'T like this, and so NONE of us are going to support it anymore" it's right to the handwringing about "bullying and censorship these days". It happens with other things, too, like the food industry... "don't eat meat if you don't like it!" becomes "what's with all these snowflake vegetarians these days??" So wait - we all have freedom to speak with our dollar, until we all start doing that, then suddenly people act like we owe these corporations out business...

As one who is pretty strident on the point that you're dismissing, that's not a complete assessment.  I have ZERO problem with people voting with their wallet.  I am reluctantly on board with communicating that desire to others, in the hopes they do the same. That's just the spread of information, and we should all be able to choose where we come out.  It's the next part, though, where if one opts NOT to participate, there are repercussions, or, worse, those people are no longer given the choice to opt out.

If you don't want to listen to Joe Rogan, fair enough.  If you disagree with his take on things, fair enough.  But denying me the ability to hear that message and make my own decisions, not so fair enough. I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't go as far as you are with castigating people for their views.  If anything I take shit here for being TOO lenient with people for their points of view.  I should be able to buy Iced Earth records if I want (FWIW, I do not).

[lonestar]

and watch this video (warning - lots of unnecessary language, but the points he makes still make it worth watching):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szSff7TUkv8

I had to shut that off after about four minutes. You know that old expression, it's not what you say, but how you say it...that guy must be unfamiliar with that line of thinking, because even if everything he was saying was true, saying it like a condescending d-bag is not the way to win people over.  I am open to watching other links with a similar argument, but one with someone who can make an argument without acting like a child.

He's definitely a douche...but seeing the financial breakdown of spotify's payouts as being identical to that of CD sales payouts took away any inhibitions I had about using the service.




I mean, every product under the sun I'd imagine has a few chinks in their moral armor. Is the chocolate I'm eating or the clothes I bought at Target supporting child labor? Does the MCU donating to the Trump campaign make my enjoyment of Wandavision any less? Does Dream Theater tastelessly releasing a beer named after song about the horrors of alcoholism mean I need to boycott their shows? It's free market, pick and choose our battles.

As someone that really despises the (over)use of the word "moral" in these instances, I would argue that that problem is not having chinks in the moral armor, it's assuming that there should be a moral armor to begin with.  Despite the common misconception, corporations are NOT people (the case law that says they are was only to give people the right to sue them, nothing more).   They have no obligation, no FACILITY, to act "morally", and even then if and when they do, it's subject to the eyes of the beholder.  MY morals are not yours, and on down the line.  The Dream Theater thing for example; it probably has a greater impact to you than to me.  There are other things that probably impact me more than you.   I think we're asking too much to expect corporate entities to be all things to all people.   As a result, they are likely nothing to no one.

You completely missed the point of what I'm saying by trying to assume I'm making a specific moral stance here. Corporations do have the freedom to do whatever the fuck they want, it's our moral standards as individuals that decide whether we use their products or not, and of course our moral standards vary from individual. Tucker may not give a fuck about the Native American on Land o Lakes butter but get butthurt over the asexualization of the green M&M...my perspectives are different. I'm trying to think of an instance where a corporation got actually nixed out through such an instance...

[Stadler]

Free speech seems to mean something different to everyone and in itself is a non-argument to me. Name one platform or even country that is true free speech in every sense of those words. Everything is moderated to some degree, with good reason. It is about where you draw a line, which is different for everyone. And for me that line is crossed by spreading misinformation that spreads harm to people/populations. I actually think that is way, way worse than inappropriate jokes or dickish behaviour (the usual things that lead to online meltdowns). That does not necessarily mean I want them to kick someone of a platform, aka "cancel" someone, but I do think there is merit to moderating certain things. Medical misinformation comes at a human cost. And doctors I personally know have witnessed the result of that cost first hand over the last two years, a lot of times.

But what if you disagree?  How do we regulate that?   I've said multiple times here, I'm a libertarian. That means, to me, that I'm allowed to be wrong, and I'm allowed to make mistakes.  I have no obligation to optimize YOUR existence, especially at the detriment to my liberty.  I just don't (and that's not my opinion, the law, at least in the States, generally supports that).  What we WANT others to do, and what we can FORCE others to do are not the same thing. So how do we reconcile the spaces between?  As humans we're not really capable of seeing the big picture here.  We lament the deaths that have occurred, but we have no way of knowing the ULTIMATE cost.  I can't speak for anywhere else, but here in the States, we've tried to take the short cut and it's not proven out to work.  We've not put in the hard work to build consensus; instead, we've opted for hate, acrimony and partisanship.  And when that (not at all surprisingly) has failed, we've now resorted to blunt force to force people to adhere to our wishes.  It's a vicious cycle, with no end in sight.

[Skeever]

It's funny to be how people complain about "the mob" when actions like boycotts and being deliberate about one's consumption are the only real power anyone not in government or on a board of investors has under capitalism.

It's all "if you don't like it, you don't have to buy it, but don't tell other people what they can't do!", right? But the minute people start getting together to say "hey, yeah, that's right, we DON'T like this, and so NONE of us are going to support it anymore" it's right to the handwringing about "bullying and censorship these days". It happens with other things, too, like the food industry... "don't eat meat if you don't like it!" becomes "what's with all these snowflake vegetarians these days??" So wait - we all have freedom to speak with our dollar, until we all start doing that, then suddenly people act like we owe these corporations out business...

As one who is pretty strident on the point that you're dismissing, that's not a complete assessment.  I have ZERO problem with people voting with their wallet.  I am reluctantly on board with communicating that desire to others, in the hopes they do the same. That's just the spread of information, and we should all be able to choose where we come out.  It's the next part, though, where if one opts NOT to participate, there are repercussions, or, worse, those people are no longer given the choice to opt out.

If you don't want to listen to Joe Rogan, fair enough.  If you disagree with his take on things, fair enough.  But denying me the ability to hear that message and make my own decisions, not so fair enough. I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't go as far as you are with castigating people for their views.  If anything I take shit here for being TOO lenient with people for their points of view.  I should be able to buy Iced Earth records if I want (FWIW, I do not).

To clarify, I don't have a problem with any platform allowing Joe Rogan's show to exist.
What I did say here is that the whole episode gave me pause to reconsider the market today compared to what it looked like when I became a Spotify Premium member probably 10 years ago.

There are now better apps, with better sound quality, that prioritize getting artists a bigger cut. I was "fine" with Spotify, but thanks to the whole Rogan controversy, I was able to take a step back and reevaluate. So I'm not leaving Spotify because of Joe Rogan, but it is thanks in no small part to it.

[XeRocks81]

Joe Rogan’s existed for years before he had a deal with spotify.  If suddenly he didn’t have one his show would still be available like it was before.  Podcasts are freely available on many platforms

[lonestar]

Joe Rogan’s existed for years before he had a deal with spotify.  If suddenly he didn’t have one his show would still be available like it was before.  Podcasts are freely available on many platforms

Very true, I'm sure there'd be a line of services waiting to take up the slack

[Stadler]

But whatever they decide, it's not a Free Speech issue. It's a Branding issue. And that shirt would never see the salesfloor to begin with for just that reason.

The magic words are "whatever THEY DECIDE".  The issue, as I see it, is taking that decision point away from them.  Wal-mart can make whatever business decisions they want to make; being forced into a business decision they wouldn't otherwise make because of the voice of a loud minority is where we begin to have trouble, and that gets worse when there are repercussions for CUSTOMERS of Wal-mart for not abiding by that loud minority.

I think back to the Chik-fil-A issue; there was some backlash for people who ate Chik-fil-A for being "homophobes".  No.  It's far too complex an issue, and there are far too many other variables in there to make that determination with any credibility.

[lonestar]

But whatever they decide, it's not a Free Speech issue. It's a Branding issue. And that shirt would never see the salesfloor to begin with for just that reason.

The magic words are "whatever THEY DECIDE".  The issue, as I see it, is taking that decision point away from them.  Wal-mart can make whatever business decisions they want to make; being forced into a business decision they wouldn't otherwise make because of the voice of a loud minority is where we begin to have trouble, and that gets worse when there are repercussions for CUSTOMERS of Wal-mart for not abiding by that loud minority.

I think back to the Chik-fil-A issue; there was some backlash for people who ate Chik-fil-A for being "homophobes".  No.  It's far too complex an issue, and there are far too many other variables in there to make that determination with any credibility.

Being homophobes isn't a deal breaker for me, but serving that sad excuse for a chicken sandwich is.

[Stadler]

I got into a debate about this on another platform and just asked the simple question, “if you had written a book and no one was willing to publish that book, is that still an infringement on your free speech?“

I got crickets.

 It seems a fair question to me. Before the Internet, being in print was the only way to spread your message far and wide. Yet you might find yourself in a position where no one was willing to publish your nonsense.  I didn’t hear about anybody complaining that their free speech was being violated at that time.

That's a false question, though. There's a prohibition on the GOVERNMENT blocking certain speech, but there's no DUTY ("obligation") on private parties to FURTHER certain speech.

And pre-Internet, there were MANY ways of spreading a message.  Books in print, yes, but also movies, plays, fliers, songs, speeches...   Me showing up on the steps of the Capitol Building to spread anti-vaxx messages... government can't stop me from delivering my message, generally, but if there's a compelling reason - say, public safety, or blocking the door for regular business - they CAN tell me to take that message down the street.   Think of the "No political messages within 75 feet of the polling station" restrictions.

[Stadler]

Free Speech is a concept. It's a concept guaranteed by the constitution of the USA. It's so you can say, "This government sucks." And the government can't throw you in jail because you told them "they stink like poo poo." Which other countries, like North Korea does when you tell their leader or even declare that he "smells like dog piss."

Well, unless you're deplorable, and you're caught on video at the Capitol Building.  Amirite? 

[King Postwhore]

Free Speech is a concept. It's a concept guaranteed by the constitution of the USA. It's so you can say, "This government sucks." And the government can't throw you in jail because you told them "they stink like poo poo." Which other countries, like North Korea does when you tell their leader or even declare that he "smells like dog piss."

Well, unless you're deplorable, and you're caught on video at the Capitol Building.  Amirite? 

You mean broke into the Capitol Building. 

[Stadler]

Rogan's thing isn't that he promotes misinformation.  He doesn't promote anything.  But he has guests on his show of ALL opinions and makes no distinctions about them, presenting them all as equally valid, to get all perspectives out there.  On the face of it, that sounds nice, but of course it will occasionally mean that his huge audience gets exposed to some crackpot bullshit, and since Rogan doesn't call it crackpot bullshit, the influence is now there.

Having said all of that, Spotify itself is just a platform.  If I were NY, I wouldn't have done what he did, but he is a codgy old fucker with lots of weird opinions, and its HIS music, so whatever.

Spotify announced they will have some kind of bumper before podcasts dealing with COVID, and Rogan said he's perfectly fine with that, so case closed for me.

EDITED

But some of that general (not yours, specifically) logic is misguided.  "Misinformation" isn't like syphillis.  You don't get "infected" just from being exposed to it.  Hell, if that was the case, I'd be voting for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and be a Bernster, right?  (Yes, some of their platforms are predicated on misinformation).  This notion that information cannot exist else it causes harm is another weapon in the partisan divisiveness game. To me, it's intellectual laziness.  If the information is wrong, counter it with correct information.  The problem today, and the reason Joe Rogan has so many followers, is because the mainstream avenues for the dissemination of information have themselves become corrupt.   Forget FOX and CNN; when I go on NBC, and hear Chuck Todd spewing his barely disguised liberalist opinions, it brings all the other things on that station into question.  When I read stories like this, it puts it all into a different perspective.  We should be targeting ALL misinformation, not just that information we personally disagree with.

[Kwyjibo]

I beg to disagree, misinformation is highly infectual, otherwise every demagogue wouldn't have any followers and every propaganda machine wouldn't work.

And the more influential you are, for whatever reason, the more people you can infect. And therein lies the real danger.

[Ben_Jamin]

Free Speech is a concept. It's a concept guaranteed by the constitution of the USA. It's so you can say, "This government sucks." And the government can't throw you in jail because you told them "they stink like poo poo." Which other countries, like North Korea does when you tell their leader or even declare that he "smells like dog piss."

Well, unless you're deplorable, and you're caught on video at the Capitol Building.  Amirite? 

Yeah and those humans in that building should fear the people they work for. If their duty is not for the people, then that system is corrupt.

Rogan's thing isn't that he promotes misinformation.  He doesn't promote anything.  But he has guests on his show of ALL opinions and makes no distinctions about them, presenting them all as equally valid, to get all perspectives out there.  On the face of it, that sounds nice, but of course it will occasionally mean that his huge audience gets exposed to some crackpot bullshit, and since Rogan doesn't call it crackpot bullshit, the influence is now there.

Having said all of that, Spotify itself is just a platform.  If I were NY, I wouldn't have done what he did, but he is a codgy old fucker with lots of weird opinions, and its HIS music, so whatever.

Spotify announced they will have some kind of bumper before podcasts dealing with COVID, and Rogan said he's perfectly fine with that, so case closed for me.

EDITED

But some of that general (not yours, specifically) logic is misguided.  "Misinformation" isn't like syphillis.  You don't get "infected" just from being exposed to it.  Hell, if that was the case, I'd be voting for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and be a Bernster, right?  (Yes, some of their platforms are predicated on misinformation).  This notion that information cannot exist else it causes harm is another weapon in the partisan divisiveness game. To me, it's intellectual laziness.  If the information is wrong, counter it with correct information.  The problem today, and the reason Joe Rogan has so many followers, is because the mainstream avenues for the dissemination of information have themselves become corrupt.   Forget FOX and CNN; when I go on NBC, and hear Chuck Todd spewing his barely disguised liberalist opinions, it brings all the other things on that station into question.  When I read stories like this, it puts it all into a different perspective.  We should be targeting ALL misinformation, not just that information we personally disagree with.

The hilarity of it all. A great example is the Tom Brady retirement misinformation that was spread. By "sources", yet Tom Brady himself never said anything about retiring. Now those who spewed this information out to the public are scrambling to save face. And a lot of people believed this misinformation, yet are not complaining about shutting those sports or news people that spewed the fake news of Tom Brady retiring.

[Ben_Jamin]

I beg to disagree, misinformation is highly infectual, otherwise every demagogue wouldn't have any followers and every propaganda machine wouldn't work.

And the more influential you are, for whatever reason, the more people you can infect. And therein lies the real danger.

But is it the fault of the person spewing the information, or the person who assumes that Information to be true and factual without looking into it themselves?

There's a reason why the bible uses the metaphor of a Shepard and his flock. People are sheep that need a Shepard to lead their flock.

The problem lies with manipulation. And those that understand psychology and mentalities of others utilize this knowledge to manipulate the sheep to lead them off a cliff.

[lonestar]

Free Speech is a concept. It's a concept guaranteed by the constitution of the USA. It's so you can say, "This government sucks." And the government can't throw you in jail because you told them "they stink like poo poo." Which other countries, like North Korea does when you tell their leader or even declare that he "smells like dog piss."

Well, unless you're deplorable, and you're caught on video at the Capitol Building.  Amirite? 

You mean broke into the Capitol Building.

And vandalized government while assaulting police officers

[Stadler]

and watch this video (warning - lots of unnecessary language, but the points he makes still make it worth watching):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szSff7TUkv8

I had to shut that off after about four minutes. You know that old expression, it's not what you say, but how you say it...that guy must be unfamiliar with that line of thinking, because even if everything he was saying was true, saying it like a condescending d-bag is not the way to win people over.  I am open to watching other links with a similar argument, but one with someone who can make an argument without acting like a child.

He's definitely a douche...but seeing the financial breakdown of spotify's payouts as being identical to that of CD sales payouts took away any inhibitions I had about using the service.




I mean, every product under the sun I'd imagine has a few chinks in their moral armor. Is the chocolate I'm eating or the clothes I bought at Target supporting child labor? Does the MCU donating to the Trump campaign make my enjoyment of Wandavision any less? Does Dream Theater tastelessly releasing a beer named after song about the horrors of alcoholism mean I need to boycott their shows? It's free market, pick and choose our battles.

As someone that really despises the (over)use of the word "moral" in these instances, I would argue that that problem is not having chinks in the moral armor, it's assuming that there should be a moral armor to begin with.  Despite the common misconception, corporations are NOT people (the case law that says they are was only to give people the right to sue them, nothing more).   They have no obligation, no FACILITY, to act "morally", and even then if and when they do, it's subject to the eyes of the beholder.  MY morals are not yours, and on down the line.  The Dream Theater thing for example; it probably has a greater impact to you than to me.  There are other things that probably impact me more than you.   I think we're asking too much to expect corporate entities to be all things to all people.   As a result, they are likely nothing to no one.

You completely missed the point of what I'm saying by trying to assume I'm making a specific moral stance here. Corporations do have the freedom to do whatever the fuck they want, it's our moral standards as individuals that decide whether we use their products or not, and of course our moral standards vary from individual. Tucker may not give a fuck about the Native American on Land o Lakes butter but get butthurt over the asexualization of the green M&M...my perspectives are different. I'm trying to think of an instance where a corporation got actually nixed out through such an instance...

I'm sorry if it read that way (sincerely).  I wasn't really intending to assume anything, I just wanted to respond to that phrase "moral armor".   I liked the imagery.

I don't know if a corporation  got nixed out; I suppose Wal-mart has come closest, but it'd be hard to say they've actually incurred any harm, other than to just reputation.

[Ben_Jamin]

It's actually hilarious and says something about the stupidity of humanity that Spotify, or any other platform, has to put a warning label like..."Do not drink this beautiful smelling liquid that you use for washing clothes." As people are influenced by Tik-Tok challenges and end up eating these liquid detergents because a social media platform challenged them to do it.

Should we ban Tik-Tok because of the influence these challenges has on the masses?

[lonestar]

and watch this video (warning - lots of unnecessary language, but the points he makes still make it worth watching):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szSff7TUkv8

I had to shut that off after about four minutes. You know that old expression, it's not what you say, but how you say it...that guy must be unfamiliar with that line of thinking, because even if everything he was saying was true, saying it like a condescending d-bag is not the way to win people over.  I am open to watching other links with a similar argument, but one with someone who can make an argument without acting like a child.

He's definitely a douche...but seeing the financial breakdown of spotify's payouts as being identical to that of CD sales payouts took away any inhibitions I had about using the service.




I mean, every product under the sun I'd imagine has a few chinks in their moral armor. Is the chocolate I'm eating or the clothes I bought at Target supporting child labor? Does the MCU donating to the Trump campaign make my enjoyment of Wandavision any less? Does Dream Theater tastelessly releasing a beer named after song about the horrors of alcoholism mean I need to boycott their shows? It's free market, pick and choose our battles.

As someone that really despises the (over)use of the word "moral" in these instances, I would argue that that problem is not having chinks in the moral armor, it's assuming that there should be a moral armor to begin with.  Despite the common misconception, corporations are NOT people (the case law that says they are was only to give people the right to sue them, nothing more).   They have no obligation, no FACILITY, to act "morally", and even then if and when they do, it's subject to the eyes of the beholder.  MY morals are not yours, and on down the line.  The Dream Theater thing for example; it probably has a greater impact to you than to me.  There are other things that probably impact me more than you.   I think we're asking too much to expect corporate entities to be all things to all people.   As a result, they are likely nothing to no one.

You completely missed the point of what I'm saying by trying to assume I'm making a specific moral stance here. Corporations do have the freedom to do whatever the fuck they want, it's our moral standards as individuals that decide whether we use their products or not, and of course our moral standards vary from individual. Tucker may not give a fuck about the Native American on Land o Lakes butter but get butthurt over the asexualization of the green M&M...my perspectives are different. I'm trying to think of an instance where a corporation got actually nixed out through such an instance...

I'm sorry if it read that way (sincerely).  I wasn't really intending to assume anything, I just wanted to respond to that phrase "moral armor".   I liked the imagery.

I don't know if a corporation  got nixed out; I suppose Wal-mart has come closest, but it'd be hard to say they've actually incurred any harm, other than to just reputation.

I've been wracking my brain and can't think of any either.

[Stadler]

I beg to disagree, misinformation is highly infectual, otherwise every demagogue wouldn't have any followers and every propaganda machine wouldn't work.

And the more influential you are, for whatever reason, the more people you can infect. And therein lies the real danger.

Having followers doesn't mean "infectual".   And not every propaganda machine does work.   So what's magic about "misinformation" and "information"?   What's the mechanism for the brain to discern and somehow prioritize "misinformation"? 

Not you, specifically, but I think some of this is fear driven. We FEAR that it is effective.  We FEAR it just like we FEAR that violent video games make kids want to shoot other kids (they don't) or that talking about sex makes our kids want to fuck (they don't need the talking).