> The only reason to make a threat like this was to attempt to get Rogan dropped from the service.
Not true. Young was very willing to pull his own catalog, said as much and then did so willingly and without a fuss. And yes, artists have images to uphold. Music is displayed right next to podcasts on the Spotify Home Screen. It’s totally possible for Spotify to recommend you listen to Neil Young and a Rogan podcast. And it’s really only up to Young what he decides is appropriate for his brand. What seems silly to you might be really important to him.
As for your other examples, this happens all the time in business where someone pulls out of some event or stops selling goods in a store for moral reasons. It’s within their rights. I have no problem with any business refusing to do business with any other business for any legal reason. That’s just the free market.
And no, I wouldn’t berate Young for pulling his products from a store for bogus reasons, I would challenge the reasons themselves, not the act (or threat) of pulling the products.
> And no, I wouldn’t berate Young for pulling his products from a store for bogus reasons, I would challenge the reasons themselves, not the act (or threat) of pulling the products.
And indeed, that is what I've been doing this whole time. I never said he wasn't allowed to pull his music, or that he shouldn't be able to. I've said that his reason for doing so - he wants particular podcasts to be censored - is, as you put it, bogus. That is a shitty thing to want, and it should not be promoted by any means, whether it's pulling your music catalog or anything else.
This is one of the broadest definitions of censorship I’ve ever heard then.
I understand censorship to be the total suppression of content, not a partial restriction of it, or having to view it on one major (similarly priced, similar ease of use) platform instead of another.
> to keep (something) secret : to not allow people to know about or see (something)
I haven’t seen any evidence or quotes from Young that request keeping Rogan’s content secret.
I don’t think it counts as censorship if you say a platform no longer has content that’s available elsewhere. At that point, any content dropped from any platform for any reason would be “censorship” and the word starts to lose it’s original meaning.
> This is one of the broadest definitions of censorship I’ve ever heard then.
It is the correct and commonly used definition of the word.
> I understand censorship to be the total suppression of content, not a partial restriction of it, or having to view it on one major (similarly priced, similar ease of use) platform instead of another.
You understand censorship incorrectly then. For example, every television network employs people called censors whose job it is to decide what content is allowed on the network. If you're making a prime time sitcom for NBC and you try to write in the word "Fuck", the censors will tell you you're not allowed to do that and they will refuse to air it. They will censor the word "Fuck". That is censorship. It doesn't mean that nobody anywhere is ever allowed to utter the word fuck, it means they don't allow it. You can go watch HBO and hear the word fuck, but NBC censors it.
> I haven’t seen any evidence or quotes from Young that request keeping Rogan’s content secret.
He said "You can have Rogan or me but not both". The other option there was "not have Rogan". What do you think that means except remove his programming from Spotify?
> I don’t think it counts as censorship if you say a platform no longer has content that’s available elsewhere.
Again, first of all yes it does mean that. Second of all, Rogan is exclusive with Spotify, so it's not available elsewhere.
In this case what Young is asking to be censored is any discussion of vaccines and Covid that doesn't agree with the official government narrative. This should be a huge red flag. Whenever you're not allowed to question the government that is a sign that something is wrong and a warning of totalitarianism. It doesn't necessarily mean that the government is wrong and that the people asking questions are right, but if you are right and have good intentions you should be able to welcome and address any questions to assuage people's fears and not try to silence them.
Not true. Young was very willing to pull his own catalog, said as much and then did so willingly and without a fuss. And yes, artists have images to uphold. Music is displayed right next to podcasts on the Spotify Home Screen. It’s totally possible for Spotify to recommend you listen to Neil Young and a Rogan podcast. And it’s really only up to Young what he decides is appropriate for his brand. What seems silly to you might be really important to him.
As for your other examples, this happens all the time in business where someone pulls out of some event or stops selling goods in a store for moral reasons. It’s within their rights. I have no problem with any business refusing to do business with any other business for any legal reason. That’s just the free market.
And no, I wouldn’t berate Young for pulling his products from a store for bogus reasons, I would challenge the reasons themselves, not the act (or threat) of pulling the products.