Spotify

[The Letter M]

Just saw an ad on Facebook earlier from SiriusXM touting a Neil Young Channel as a way to promote their service and getting 3 months free. 

The comments were quite predictable and the majority of the reactions on the post were laugh reacts.

Personally, I don't use Spotify (dislike the idea of it all anyway), nor do I listen to Neil Young, so this doesn't affect me in the slightest, but yeah, I don't think his leaving, or anyone leaving the service, will greatly affect Spotify's bottom line. It would take a HUGE movement for them to do anything about Joe at this point.

-Marc.

[Setlist Scotty]

Leaving the Rogan aspect aside, would you consider leaving Spotify (if you could...many are reporting they cannot cancel their accounts without pulling their credit card info) if you thought about how terrible they are at paying the musicians and artists we all know and love a fair price for their music?

I think you need to read this thread:
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=57091.msg2840689#msg2840689

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

Both made me completely change my viewpoint of Spotify and streaming outlets in general.

[Architeuthis]

I've never listened to anything from spotify at all.  I listen to physical media only.  If I hear about a good band that I don't know about, I might check them out on YouTube.  If I really like the music, I'll order the cd or record or perhaps a live dvd.

What's the difference between checking out a band on youtube or checking out a band on Spotify?

Spotify is a viable substitute for buying physical product, while YT is just for checking out something before buy a CD/LP.
All the kids I work with use Spotify (free version) and think I'm nuts for paying for music.

This! 

[lonestar]

Leaving the Rogan aspect aside, would you consider leaving Spotify (if you could...many are reporting they cannot cancel their accounts without pulling their credit card info) if you thought about how terrible they are at paying the musicians and artists we all know and love a fair price for their music?

I think you need to read this thread:
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=57091.msg2840689#msg2840689

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

Both made me completely change my viewpoint of Spotify and streaming outlets in general.

The second video was a groundbreaking revelation for me when it first came out.

[Ben_Jamin]

Couldn't Spotify have struck some sort of compromise where they removed the Rogan podcast episode in question? I don't see why Spotify should have to remove him completely.

That's the entire basis for this censorship of social media, and video platforms. It's the basis for why there are other video services and social media platforms being created like Rumble, Bitchute, Odyssy, Telegraph, so those that were censored by these companies can still have their OPINIONS heard.

Also, there are/were other podcasts or radio shows that host people that do talk about conspiracy theories. Coast To Coast is a prime example.

I have my reasons for using Spotify, and I have listened to that episode in question. Now whether I choose to believe his guests opinions is up to me and me alone. This reason is why I say, The Joe Rogan Experience and it's content relies on who he has as a guest. And it's hilarious knowing how popular he is and the guests he has on and how many people listen to show and will listen to this episode in question.

It's interesting how others can't seem to understand that people can form their own opinions about everything. Whether one chooses to believe them is entirely up to the person. It took how long for people to believe that Galileo wasn't spewing non-sense and that the Earth in fact does revolve around the sun.

[TAC]

Couldn't Spotify have struck some sort of compromise where they removed the Rogan podcast episode in question? I don't see why Spotify should have to remove him completely.

That's the entire basis for this censorship of social media, and video platforms. It's the basis for why there are other video services and social media platforms being created like Rumble, Bitchute, Odyssy, Telegraph, so those that were censored by these companies can still have their OPINIONS heard.

This isn't a free speech or censorship issue.

[Harmony]

Leaving the Rogan aspect aside, would you consider leaving Spotify (if you could...many are reporting they cannot cancel their accounts without pulling their credit card info) if you thought about how terrible they are at paying the musicians and artists we all know and love a fair price for their music?

I think you need to read this thread:
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=57091.msg2840689#msg2840689

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

Both made me completely change my viewpoint of Spotify and streaming outlets in general.

The second video was a groundbreaking revelation for me when it first came out.

Well damn, I wish I could share that video with a couple of friends of mine who are semi-famous musicians in the industry who see the issue differently.  I'd love their opinion on what he put forward (even though at one point he's using 2016 numbers).  But the guy's rant at the end about how my musician/writer friends are "crying into their fucking benjamins" and that they are "fucking ungrateful pricks" makes that difficult for me because they are not those things.  And I wouldn't insult their intimate knowledge and intelligence of the music business that way by asking them to watch a dude on YouTube tell them what horrible people they are.

[Ben_Jamin]

Couldn't Spotify have struck some sort of compromise where they removed the Rogan podcast episode in question? I don't see why Spotify should have to remove him completely.

That's the entire basis for this censorship of social media, and video platforms. It's the basis for why there are other video services and social media platforms being created like Rumble, Bitchute, Odyssy, Telegraph, so those that were censored by these companies can still have their OPINIONS heard.

This isn't a free speech or censorship issue.

How is it not?

You have people using their weight to manipulate people into joining their mob. The same as a protestor yelling in a bullhorn to get people to gather and protest for their cause.

Spotify, understands business and business isn't always moral or ethical. So they choose to leave the episode up so people can listen for themselves and gather their own opinion on the matter. Most people do not agree with Joe Rogans guests, or Joe Rogans opinions. They just enjoy good discussion and why can't people have discussions about any topic?

Is it Joe Rogans fault that people choose to misconstrue opinions as facts? That shows me it's the education of societies fault (if I were to place blame) for not teaching these people about the difference between opinion and facts, and to do research about the person who is spewing the opinions as facts. We had to do research papers in school, and had to use varying sources for our papers. Why don't people do this, it's easier now thanks to the internet and Britannica Encyclopedia being online and you don't have to travel all the way to your local library to look stuff up, read books about the subject, or read various newspaper and magazine clippings.

It's like if someone with power told Socrates and Plato they can't have their academia meetings because it influences peoples thoughts to form their own opinions and perspectives.

[KevShmev]

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.

[TheCountOfNYC]

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.

I clicked on the link to confirm my suspicions, and I was right. I knew it was gonna be Become the Knight.

[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.

[TheCountOfNYC]

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.

I think Metallica releasing their own brand of whiskey when their singer has famously struggled with alcoholism is in much worst taste.

[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.

I think Metallica releasing their own brand of whiskey when their singer has famously struggled with alcoholism is in much worst taste.

Of course...I was just trying to hit closer to home. 

I think the point I'm trying to get, is that every company/product will have something to piss someone off, be it making their employees get vaxxed (Carhartt), changing the skin color of their advertising characters to a neutral color (M&M) or whatever. You dig deep enough, there's something. How important is the product in your daily life, and balance that with how great the company's discretions are. Spotify is giving the artists basically the same deal CD sales give them, it's the labels that are really bending over the artists, not Spotify (insert shocked face), and balancing that with how invaluable Spotify is as a service to me on a daily basis, they will continue to see my 10 bucks a month. The whole Rogan/Young shit is a nothing burger to me.

[emtee]

Making a political stand is fine but it cuts both ways. The artist may cause a boycott or movement however, they will also lose fans and support.

[Ben_Jamin]

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.

I think Metallica releasing their own brand of whiskey when their singer has famously struggled with alcoholism is in much worst taste.

Of course...I was just trying to hit closer to home. 

I think the point I'm trying to get, is that every company/product will have something to piss someone off, be it making their employees get vaxxed (Carhartt), changing the skin color of their advertising characters to a neutral color (M&M) or whatever. You dig deep enough, there's something. How important is the product in your daily life, and balance that with how great the company's discretions are. Spotify is giving the artists basically the same deal CD sales give them, it's the labels that are really bending over the artists, not Spotify (insert shocked face), and balancing that with how invaluable Spotify is as a service to me on a daily basis, they will continue to see my 10 bucks a month. The whole Rogan/Young shit is a nothing burger to me.

Precisely, I mean just look at how our food gets made. Like the little chickens getting stabbed in the head to kill them so we can have our boneless wings and nuggets. 

People have become vegen because they know how their food gets made.

If you show people the truth in how all our foods get made, would people still want to eat the food? My answer is, its up to the person, and some do take initiative not to buy, or eat those products.

Everything on this damn planet is made into a product to be sold for humans to consume.

I for one, don't care either way about Spotify or Joe Rogan. But it does bring fascinating discussions about humans and our very fabric of our lifestyles in how we consume products.

[Harmony]

Lonestar I think you are correct in that many products we use as consumers are likely guilty of something.  And it is exhausting sometimes to have to weigh the pros/cons of making informed decisions about what we consume.  I do strongly believe that choice is important here.  I don't fault you for keeping Spotify.  My kids use that platform.  I never have and likely never will because Spotify isn't that important to me.  I get my music in other ways.

Generally - not to anyone here - I'm a little bit sick of this notion that only liberals are trying to cancel things or only conservatives are protesting things.  All of us draw a line somewhere and those lines will be different for each of us.  We can choose to vote with our feet and with our wallets.  And I'm ok with that.

[lonestar]

Lonestar I think you are correct in that many products we use as consumers are likely guilty of something.  And it is exhausting sometimes to have to weigh the pros/cons of making informed decisions about what we consume.  I do strongly believe that choice is important here.  I don't fault you for keeping Spotify.  My kids use that platform.  I never have and likely never will because Spotify isn't that important to me.  I get my music in other ways.

Generally - not to anyone here - I'm a little bit sick of this notion that only liberals are trying to cancel things or only conservatives are protesting things.  All of us draw a line somewhere and those lines will be different for each of us.  We can choose to vote with our feet and with our wallets.  And I'm ok with that.

Oh there's definitely equal ire from both sides...we draw our lines and let the world judge us.

Classic example is chic'fil'a...I won't boycott chic'fil'a for their stances on homosexuality or whatever it is people hate on them about...I will for the fact that their sandwiches suck though.

[TheCountOfNYC]

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.

[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.

I think Metallica releasing their own brand of whiskey when their singer has famously struggled with alcoholism is in much worst taste.

Of course...I was just trying to hit closer to home. 

I think the point I'm trying to get, is that every company/product will have something to piss someone off, be it making their employees get vaxxed (Carhartt), changing the skin color of their advertising characters to a neutral color (M&M) or whatever. You dig deep enough, there's something. How important is the product in your daily life, and balance that with how great the company's discretions are. Spotify is giving the artists basically the same deal CD sales give them, it's the labels that are really bending over the artists, not Spotify (insert shocked face), and balancing that with how invaluable Spotify is as a service to me on a daily basis, they will continue to see my 10 bucks a month. The whole Rogan/Young shit is a nothing burger to me.

Precisely, I mean just look at how our food gets made. Like the little chickens getting stabbed in the head to kill them so we can have our boneless wings and nuggets. 

People have become vegen because they know how their food gets made.

If you show people the truth in how all our foods get made, would people still want to eat the food? My answer is, its up to the person, and some do take initiative not to buy, or eat those products.

Everything on this damn planet is made into a product to be sold for humans to consume.

I for one, don't care either way about Spotify or Joe Rogan. But it does bring fascinating discussions about humans and our very fabric of our lifestyles in how we consume products.

Food production is a great example, and one obviously close to home to me. I mean, I really can't think of any moral lines I'd draw when it comes to it, but most moral issues also have a food quality issue. A mass market cow/pig just doesn't taste as good as a grass fed, open pasture, humanely killed one (the stress of the killing process affects enzyme levels in the meat, altering the flavors, more humane killing, less stress)

[TheCountOfNYC]

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.

I think Metallica releasing their own brand of whiskey when their singer has famously struggled with alcoholism is in much worst taste.

Of course...I was just trying to hit closer to home. 

I think the point I'm trying to get, is that every company/product will have something to piss someone off, be it making their employees get vaxxed (Carhartt), changing the skin color of their advertising characters to a neutral color (M&M) or whatever. You dig deep enough, there's something. How important is the product in your daily life, and balance that with how great the company's discretions are. Spotify is giving the artists basically the same deal CD sales give them, it's the labels that are really bending over the artists, not Spotify (insert shocked face), and balancing that with how invaluable Spotify is as a service to me on a daily basis, they will continue to see my 10 bucks a month. The whole Rogan/Young shit is a nothing burger to me.

Precisely, I mean just look at how our food gets made. Like the little chickens getting stabbed in the head to kill them so we can have our boneless wings and nuggets. 

People have become vegen because they know how their food gets made.

If you show people the truth in how all our foods get made, would people still want to eat the food? My answer is, its up to the person, and some do take initiative not to buy, or eat those products.

Everything on this damn planet is made into a product to be sold for humans to consume.

I for one, don't care either way about Spotify or Joe Rogan. But it does bring fascinating discussions about humans and our very fabric of our lifestyles in how we consume products.

Food production is a great example, and one obviously close to home to me. I mean, I really can't think of any moral lines I'd draw when it comes to it, but most moral issues also have a food quality issue. A mass market cow/pig just doesn't taste as good as a grass fed, open pasture, humanely killed one (the stress of the killing process affects enzyme levels in the meat, altering the flavors, more humane killing, less stress)

Welcome to DreamTheaterForums: where a thread about a music streaming service devolves into a discussion about livestock slaughter technique.

[lonestar]

 

[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...

Back on topic: I don't think Spotify's model is necessarily unfair, but I DO have a problem with it. See, it's not even that they SHOULD pay their artists more. It's that they COULD pay artists more, or heck, make their app better. Instead, they've  built up a warchest to do things like buy off Rogan (who I dislike). If that's there business plan, and yet there are applications out there that use my subscription to give artists more while also offering a better app and higher quality stream (like Tidal), why is Spotify still owed my business?

At the end of the day, is it even about Rogan? I don't know. But the nonsense that goes on Joe Rogan's show and the obscene amount of money Spotify has invested in him has just given people pause to reconsider the other options on the table. And many have come to the conclusion that they don't need Spotify - there are better options out there, ones that offer a better quality product while doing more to support the artists.

[Ben_Jamin]

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.

Just because you love animals, doesn't mean you do not like to eat meat. That's odd thinking to me, how because you love an animal, you must now not eat any meat of an animal. Humans eating animals is human behavior for survival, heck it's a part of Nature. There are healthier, leaner, meats people used to easily hunt and eat before the processed meats we see in the grocery stores, which is pretty inhumane in how they treat the animals before, during, and after and how these animals are born for one purpose only, which is for human consumption. Is our human choice to eat fast food and consume nuggets and hamburgers hurting anyone? In some ways, it is. So what is the right choice and decision here? Should the solution be for Social Media, Youtube, and Spotify to get rid of McDonalds ads because their food does cause health issues if consumed consistently, and the beef factories where they get their supply is a cause for a lot of the air pollution? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/13/meat-greenhouses-gases-food-production-study

Welcome to DreamTheaterForums: where a thread about a music streaming service devolves into a discussion about livestock slaughter technique.

I blame lonestar and him mentioning burger. And myself because I'm hungry and haven't ate yet. 

[Ben_Jamin]

Back on topic: I don't think Spotify's model is necessarily unfair, but I DO have a problem with it. See, it's not even that they SHOULD pay their artists more. It's that they COULD pay artists more, or heck, make their app better. Instead, they've  built up a warchest to do things like buy off Rogan (who I dislike). If that's there business plan, and yet there are applications out there that use my subscription to give artists more while also offering a better app and higher quality stream (like Tidal), why is Spotify still owed my business?

At the end of the day, is it even about Rogan? I don't know. But the nonsense that goes on Joe Rogan's show and the obscene amount of money Spotify has invested in him has just given people pause to reconsider the other options on the table. And many have come to the conclusion that they don't need Spotify - there are better options out there, ones that offer a better quality product while doing more to support the artists.

Which is a good thing, as it doesn't allow Spotify to monopolize the streaming industry. What this did was expose to people, or more shine a light onto people about the business aspect of Spotify, the music industry, and the streaming service industry. Which is also a part of full transparency. If people knew what truly happens and how these businesses factually do business, a lot of people would start to wonder about things. That's why I used the food industry as an example, because I feel this Spotify situation is related to the entire music business industry and how people perceive and understand the business practices of the industry. People are actually misinformed about these things as well too.

But also, people will do what their told and will follow whatever a celebrity says is the right thing to do. Which is sort of ironic given that's why they want Spotify to pull Joe Rogan in the first place, and they use another well-known celebrity in the same industry of entertainment to drive that point. 

[TheCountOfNYC]

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.

Just because you love animals, doesn't mean you do not like to eat meat. That's odd thinking to me, how because you love an animal, you must now not eat any meat of an animal. Humans eating animals is human behavior for survival, heck it's a part of Nature. There are healthier, leaner, meats people used to easily hunt and eat before the processed meats we see in the grocery stores, which is pretty inhumane in how they treat the animals before, during, and after and how these animals are born for one purpose only, which is for human consumption. Is our human choice to eat fast food and consume nuggets and hamburgers hurting anyone? In some ways, it is. So what is the right choice and decision here? Should the solution be for Social Media, Youtube, and Spotify to get rid of McDonalds ads because their food does cause health issues if consumed consistently, and the beef factories where they get their supply is a cause for a lot of the air pollution? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/13/meat-greenhouses-gases-food-production-study

I was just using that as a non-political example since this isn’t the PR subforum, which I actively avoid.

[ErHaO]

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.

[TheCountOfNYC]

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 experienced the result of that cost first hand over the last two years.

This.

[King Postwhore]

The guy is a podcast host. Not a doctor.  Just because he does not believe in the same beliefs that I do. (Get the damn vaccine) I should want to snuff him out.

That's not a place I want to live.   There is more dangerous people out their who spread far worse rhetoric yet, I don't hear others talk about snuffing them out. 

BTW, I've never listened to his podcast. I'm smart enough to listen to doctors.   This crap started with this push to not get vaccinations for children in the last decade. I never heard any parents talk about this in my youth or as I grew up. 

[TAC]

Couldn't Spotify have struck some sort of compromise where they removed the Rogan podcast episode in question? I don't see why Spotify should have to remove him completely.

That's the entire basis for this censorship of social media, and video platforms. It's the basis for why there are other video services and social media platforms being created like Rumble, Bitchute, Odyssy, Telegraph, so those that were censored by these companies can still have their OPINIONS heard.

This isn't a free speech or censorship issue.

How is it not?

So instead of Spotify hiring Joe Rogan to provide product, let's say it's Wal Mart that hires Rogan to design a line of T-shirts. But one of the shirts says Don't Trust The Covid Vaccine, It Won't Help. Wal Mart is well within their right to not display that particular shirt in their store. And Free Speach has nothing to do with it.

[King Postwhore]

What if that tee is the best selling tee at all Wal Marts?

Sad to say.

[TAC]

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.

[King Postwhore]

Sure. That's Spotify's call. This is about outside influences.  That's like me trying to force you out of your job because you don't like 80's keyboards in your rock. So many others believe it's important step for music today but you make shirts saying it "Sucks & Blows." 

I know silly compared to a pandemic but cancel culture is on high alert these days.

[TAC]

Sure. That's Spotify's call. This is about outside influences.  That's like me trying to force you out of your job because you don't like 80's keyboards in your rock. So many others believe it's important step for music today but you make shirts saying it "Sucks & Blows." 

 

[jammindude]

 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.

[Ben_Jamin]

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.

Have you read some of these published books. 

And they also were/are banning books as well. It was big down here when schools wanted to ban Bless Me, Ultima.

Also, if no one wants to publish your book. You could find ways to do it yourself, it might take a lot of work, but you could still release a book yourself.

Publishing a book just gets it out there to the masses in a nice cover with nice smelling pages.

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."

Is it my right to punch someone because they called me a piss poor, native, broke back mountain, man?