> removing from their platform whoever Neil Young tells them to
they aren't though, and Neil isn't saying they should because he says so, but out of a sense of moral decency, and he simply doesn't want to be associated with them if they're going to be gibing a platform for dangerous nonsense.
It's actually up to Joe to take responsibility for his role as a public service broadcaster (whether he likes it or not) and ensure he moderates his message. He's too big to be an "outsider" "upstart" or "underdog" or whatever it is people think it is that justifies contrarian hot takes.
It's time to step back and realise that he's in a "Free Speech Antitrust" kind of category.
> Because it is not exactly opinion-free and society-building.
What a backwards way of characterising a style of vocal delivery. As I was reading your comment I was listening to the group 'clipping.' deliver the story of an uprising on an interstellar slave ship, the loneliness of the lone survivor drifting in and out of hypersleep for millenia, and the ship's computer realising the hate it had been taught for people with a skin color had no bearing in reality.
The GP talked about a specific person taking specific actions that they think was worth taking a stance against. Is your counter-argument to that highly pointed argument really to talk about everyone using a specific vocal technique?
Criticise a specific artist if they step over the line. Criticise someone like Immortal Technique for his 9/11 conspiracy bullshit and his rampant homophobia, but don't use someone like him to claim that somehow _all of rap_ should be discarded.
What is considered morally decent or “dangerous” nonsense varies wildly from person to person. Why should Spotify apply Neil Young’s set of morals above all others’ to their platform? Because he said so?
Exactly, the justification for silencing people based on threats from artists makes no sense and relies on circular logic :) Hopefully now you understand why being quick to deplatform anyone who is mildly controversial is a bad idea and too morally absolutist. Here’s a better idea: don’t worry so much about speech you don’t like. The connection between them and actions (what actually matter) is weak at best.
they aren't though, and Neil isn't saying they should because he says so, but out of a sense of moral decency, and he simply doesn't want to be associated with them if they're going to be gibing a platform for dangerous nonsense.
It's actually up to Joe to take responsibility for his role as a public service broadcaster (whether he likes it or not) and ensure he moderates his message. He's too big to be an "outsider" "upstart" or "underdog" or whatever it is people think it is that justifies contrarian hot takes.
It's time to step back and realise that he's in a "Free Speech Antitrust" kind of category.