Hacker News Reader

Comment by hawkesnest | Hacker News Reader

Is this at all surprising? Spotify paid a lot of money to have Rogan on their platform because he (supposedly) makes them more money. Young gave a request of the "choose-him-or-me" variety, and Spotify honored that request. I doubt Young's body of work really amounts to much money for Spotify.

Did Young really think that Spotify would drop Rogan over him? Would he have preferred to keep the status quo? I believe Young got what he asked for and/or wanted. He's no longer on the same platform as Rogan. That's a win, right?

View on HN

> Did Young really think that Spotify would drop Rogan over him?

No, he's hoping that other artists will follow suit and that collectively they will choose the artists over Rogan. I don't see it happening, but open to being wrong.

I'm not sure what a "win" in this case is, but it seems fair. I didn't genuinely get the impression that Young thought he'd push off Rogan, but rather really didn't want to be on the same platform as Rogan. I think he has that right, although I think most people raised in the social media era are more comfortable with sharing platforms with divergent views.

'divergent views' is a very weasley way of saying 'intentional misinformation'

Isn't intentional misinformation a contradiction in terms? Perhaps you meant to say disinformation?

I think his idea is that if a few popular artists took a stand like him, Spotify would have to change their decision.

I don't think he expected them to drop Rogan, I think he just did this out of principal, but it really ended up being embarrassing for him. It was an opportunity to hear a collective "Who?" out of the under-50 demographic, and reminded a lot of fans that they hadn't listened to him in many years.

It came off like he was shouting his irrelevancy from the rooftops. I hope he gained some sense of satisfaction or peace from his, because he won't be gaining much else.

Had no clue who he was, but I commend him for this principled stance. How he'd have to be embarrassed for me not knowing who he is, I can't fathom. He also doesn't know who I am.

I don't think he expected Spotify to cancel Rogan, I do think he expected to raise awareness of Rogan's dangerous and anti-scientific medical nonsense, and he quite succesfully did that, at his own expense.

The embarrassment is with Spotify, who'd have very likely have cancelled Rogan right away had he been a nobody, an insignificant part of their business, spouting anti-scientific nonsense on their platform. Spotify chose the money. I'd probably have doen the same in Spotify's shoes, but they may at least be embarrassed about it, and Niel Young certainly doesn't. It was a matter of principles that you're downplaying to it ostensibly being a matter of it being a popularity contest.

Don't forget what he's doing. He's not just refusing to listen to a podcast he doesn't like. He wants to take it away from the millions of people who enjoy listening to it. He wants tell other people they shouldn't be allowed to hear something.

That's not commendable in my book.

That's not what he's doing. He explained it on his website:

> When I left Spotify, I felt better. I support free speech. I have never been in favor of censorship. Private companies have the right to choose what they profit from, just as I can choose not to have my music support a platform that disseminates harmful information. I am happy and proud to stand in solidarity with the front line health care workers who risk their lives every day to help others.

That's absurd. Spotify is not the only place you can publish a podcast.

That makes it futile (for someone as big as Rogan anyway), yes. But Young still made the ask. It's the ask I find objectionable. He could have just taken his ball and gone home, but he went farther than that.

Then why does he care if it's on spotify? Bit of cognitive dissonance going on here eh?

This is absolutely Young pulling an authoritarian "You're not allowed to hear things I don't like" move. There's really no other way to spin it. Disagreement with people is great, to then take the next step and say that others should not get access to the things I do not like.... well that's just a step another rung up the authoritarian/fascist ladder. It's a elitist control freak mindset.

It's so opposite of what his music is supposedly about you have wonder whether he's just been a sellout this whole time.

Like most people under 50, I also had no idea who Neil Young was. But I literally took the opposite message away from it.

Spotify did exactly the right thing, not giving into to arbitrary censorship is a principled stance. They should be applauded for that (Though lets not pretend there isn't also a financial motive as well)

I certainly thing Neil Young should be embarrassed. My person opinion of him is now very low.

I mean, I'm sure you have way more experience than Neil Young at irrelevance and being a nobody, so I'm inclined to defer to your expertise.

This is needlessly confrontational and insulting. I'm not making fun of Neil Young. I'm a fan and always will be. I'm still going to listen to his music. I legitimately felt bad for him because what he did was an instant PR disaster.

"Did Young really think that Spotify would drop Rogan over him?"

I don't want to speak for Neil Young, but I imagine he knew for certain Spotify would choose Rogan. But there's no such thing as bad press right? He knew he could force them to publicly take a position and now here we are all talking about it. Mission accomplished by Young I'd say.

> Young gave a request of the "choose-him-or-me" variety

Young's request was unconditional. "I want you to let Spotify know immediately TODAY that I want all my music off their platform." Probably he would reconsider if they dropped Rogan. Certainly he expected they wouldn't.

He has fuck you money and a history of taking stands. All of us are talking about what he wanted people talking about. Surely he'd like if it started a movement. I think he got everything he expected though.

I have no idea how popular Neil Young is, but I can imagine this can boost his popularity which then he can cash in somehow.

Neil Young has sold over 75 million records and is likely wealthy beyond most peoples dream. He probably doesn't care a lick about lost Spotify revenue and "cashing in" in is likely raising awareness for a cause he believes in.

I imagine leaving the most popular streaming platform is going to be hurt financially in the long run.

I really don't think Neil Young cares about lost Spotify revenue at all. He's already wealthy and at 76 years old and this is more about publicity for something he believes in.

Maybe not; Spotify is famous for how little they pay artists for song plays. Most artists seem to think of it as a marketing channel like radio, not a revenue source.

> Spotify is famous for how little they pay artists for song plays

Maybe, but

> 60% of Young's streaming revenue comes from Spotify meaning the move is likely to cost him and his record label, Warner Bros[1]

So what "little" they paid him was still the majority of what he was making. And I think it will be hard for someone from his genre (1960's/70's) to make a come back. Most people under 35ish-40 have never heard of him and likely won't listen due to the genre.

[1] https://www.euronews.com/culture/2022/01/27/spotify-grants-n...

He sold 50% of his music rights for $150 million last year. And he was rich already. His investments should make much more than streaming. He just signed a deal with SiriusXM too.[1] I think he'll be all right.

[1] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/siriusxm-...

Deals like this are happening because there is so little revenue from streaming.

This is why you hear Led Zeppelin and Dylan songs in car ads now. With little revenue from recording sales or streaming, artists are leaning more on other revenue like sync licenses and co-marketing deals. If you read carefully, the Sirius deal is not just access to Young’s back catalog, it is using his name to market Sirius. He gets paid for that on top of the music itself.

LOL

Do you really think musicians make most of the money they make from streaming? Dude could have 1 concert a year and pull in more than his streaming would in a decade. Not to mention merch, commercial licensing.. etc..

LOL

> So what "little" they paid him was still the majority of what he was making streaming

There, I fixed it. LOL

60% of his miniscule streaming revenue?

60% of 1% is 0.6%, I think he'll be okay.

I'm sure he'll miss the quarterly $2.23 royalty checks real bad.

It's a win for Young too - Spotify complying to the request shows they lack a spine!

I think it shows they do have a spine and won't comply with wokeism.

Neil will be the first of many to do it.

Do you believe that for empirical reasons or ideological reasons? So far this appears to be false.

I think they are just articulating NY's actual reasoning.

I don't see how Joe makes them money. My understanding is that the consumers he brings make them money, so maybe same thing.

Either way, it's bad for the consumer. It's the people using Spotify themselves, and Joe Rogan for signing with them that made this potential censorship possible by allowing themselves to be walled off.

Neil Young hasn't lost. He's kicked off the anti-free speech war on Podcasts. It's always been coming, the messaging has been clear: the far right operate with impunity and spread hate and disinformation on podcasts, and it's uncensorable. This has to change.

Once the king goes, everyone is fair game. That's why they are after Joe, and it isn't going to stop.

I highly doubt Joe doesn't end up back on an .RSS feed hosted by Gab servers before the end of the 2024 election.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com