I mean, I can’t speak for Neil Young or why he did what he did. Neil Young said some pretty homophobic things back in the day and he has changed and shown he’s learned from his mistakes, so why would he assume Joe Rogan is beyond hope and can’t be reasoned with? In either case, these decisions are about money and the bottom line. Spotify is not going to cancel Joe Rogan since he is one of their biggest draws (and Spotify already has enough troubles). I’m not personally a fan of Joe Rogan, but I’m always going to say that people should debate, discuss, and talk about problems and controversies rather than try and shut up people they disagree with. That’s kind of my whole thing.

@demosthenes
Thanks for pointing out a flaw in the question and agree with your assessment and reasoning.

I’ll add for others who will respond, why should or shouldn’t Neil Young have chosen this route?

Neil going on Rogan’s show would benefit Rogan.

@filmfann
Do you think not going on his show to talk and cancelling him benefits society? Why would it only benefit Rogan? He’s already getting paid and has a huge audience.

First, I’ll say that I have listened to many episodes of JRE over the years – mostly because he had someone on that I was interested in, and I have some thoughts on Rogan and the podcast:

Rogan is irrefutably one of the dumbest humans on the planet, and in some respects this is what has made JRE so compelling for many people. To witness him find himself in conversations about topics he hadn’t even thought about before allowed his fans to empathize. Joe mostly comes off as a child (and I don’t mean this in a bad way), and his truly naive curiosity during some conversations has allowed people to be apart of his journey of discovery.

That said, he never seems to learn anything from the exchanges. He can have in depth discussions of a topic, and you can tune in a few months later to hear a man that talks as though the discussion never happened. And anecdotally, the people who I have known over the years who adore JRE and Rogan have been the same way. They appear earnestly interested in a topic for about 5 minutes after listening to the episode, but forget about the entire topic and never do any further research.

Most of the people I have known that are long-time JRE fans all really appreciate the one consistent ideology that Rogan does carry through his show: anti-“cancel culture”, appreciation of alt-right race scientists, a flattening of power, etc. I don’t think the overall JRE project is a good thing – mostly because you can’t have an adult that never learns interview people for years.

That said, I think much of the anti-JRE of the years has been motivated by corporate media. The threat that a literal idiot with a microphone poses to their job is obvious, and they are desperate to quash all threats – podcasts and non-traditional media. The criticisms from many are disingenuous and are really embarrassing. Corporate media do not have any more integrity than this dullard with a microphone and time to interview people. Corporate media (all of it) is a destructive arm of the global capitalist system. It has no other function.

So back to JRE and the supposed “cancellation”. Doesn’t exist. That literally doesn’t make sense outside of a JRE episode. What does “cancelling” mean?

Re: Neil Young – He’s just someone who heard that someone was propagating dangerous ideas and decided to put his money on the line to make a statement. That isn’t “cancelling” anything. It’s completely understandable, and I have no problem with it.

Would going on JRE have been better? How? By bringing more money to a guy (and platform) you feel is harmful? Even if Young was a legit scientist with something coherent to say, we’ve all seen what happens when they end up on Rogan. The whole myocarditis debacle from a couple of week ago was a perfect example. “Jaime, pull that up” schtick is ridiculous. Rogan’s child-in-adult’s body routine isn’t always passive. He will push back with guests in very predictable ways.

So, do I think Rogan is being “cancelled” because Young pulled his content from Spotify? No. Not at all. That sort of thing doesn’t exist.

Young is canceling no one. He is removing his work from a service that supports ideologies counter to his own. You can’t really fault him for that. I don’t suppose he thinks it will have any outsized impact except within his fan base.

Joni Mitchell is removing her songs from Spotify, also.

@chyna So those people who are both Joe Rogan and Joni Mitchell fans are the kids in a divorce.

It’s Young’s venue for protest. The point that it’s useless is irrelevant. Rogan is just another sign of the times, one more nail in the coffin for an empire in decline. Those of us relics from the days of the empire’s apogee must stare in bewilderment and frustration at its spiraling demise.

1) why waste the time talking to Rogan. Wasted breath. Nothing would change.

2) this is the free market in action. Spotify can pay Rogan $60 million – they’re choice.

And if Young and other performers (content providers) don’t feel comfortable, they can leave, with the assumption that will have a financial effect on Spotify. But even if it doesn’t cost Spotify one cent, the content providers are satisfied.

Free markets mean you don’t need to do business with people that disgust you. (I don’t shop at Hobby Lobby for the same reason)

I can’t say I really cared for Rogan himself. He’s a meat headed goofball. His podcast though took on a life of it’s own and over the years he has had some great guests along with some real stinkers too. In the age of tik tok and soundbites it was nice to hear long conversations from interesting people. I could care less about artists leaving spotify.

Spotify’s stock has tanked since Neil Young pulled his content from Spotify. Down 25% from the 1st of the year. Joni Mitchell has drop out and several other rock and roll / folk musicians are dropping off of Spotify. Bruce Springsteen’s guitarist Nils Lofgren will be off Spotify on Monday.

If Neil had no intention of changing his mind, why would he waste his time discussing it on the show? Also, I’m not sure if Rogan has listeners calling in, because I’ve never heard his show, but he does, they’d probably be pro-Rogan and attacking Neil, so why would Neil want to deal with that?

I would imagine that many, if not most, supporters of Rogan would applaud Neil Young’s approach to showing his disapproval of Rogan’s platform for misinformation. In a free market society, the way to vote your approval or disapproval is through economic choices. Young, and the other musicians following his action, are not directly hurting Rogan: he’s not suing him, taking legal action, or forcibly preventing his podcast. Rather, he is telling his client (Spotify) that he doesn’t like their business practices and will take his business elsewhere. If they decide to change their business practices, he might patronize them again. That’s what we do, legally and appropriately, in a free society.

Misinformation, fact checked: NY Times article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/08/arts/music/fact-check-joe-rogan-robert-malone.html