I don’t as a rule care about artists politics, anymore than I care about a politician’s taste in music.
But the flip-flop of so many “counterculture” artists to “cultural enforcer” would be jarring, to anyone who thought about it critically.
It made headlines last week: Neil Young, who’s spent the last couple weeks trying to shut down Joe Rogan, was participating in “Free Speech rallies” in 2006.
Now, you could call them anti-George W Bush rallies that had little to do with free speech; I certainly called them that at the time.
But the language Young used is interesting:
“Just getting up in front of a lot of people makes you nervous. But when you know that some of them are really going to be angry at you, and you’re in a crowd, and it’s a volatile situation, people have been drinking, whatever — you know, it makes you nervous.”
“It was just that critical time in history where things were turning. Things were changing,” he added. “Those who feel the way we do had some hope and those who don’t feel the way we do were angry that the change happened. And those people have got a voice, and they have a reason for feeling the way they do. They strongly believe in the convictions. They believe in the military.”
“They believe that we’re doing the right thing for the world, and they have every reason to be respected for their beliefs,” he said.
Does it look like he’s describing Rogan listeners to anyone else?
Did Neil Young become The Man? Did “Rage Against the Machine” become “Rage Enforcing The Machine?”
Maybe – but I suspect the Tea Party, and its slandering back into the shadows, from whence it emerged mean and without manners as the Trump Populist movment, had a lot to do with it. The counterculture of 50 years ago is now the dominant culture.
But . . . you ARE the man.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paJFtjy9nNg
There is more talk now, by liberals, of treating social media companies as publishers. This is because, as publishers, they can be held accountable for what they choose to publish.
All conservatives should be in favor of this because it would destroy the business model of twitter, facebook, Youtube, etc.
Imagine the lawsuits the social media companies would face if they were held responsible for what their subscribers used their platform to publish. Your ex-spouse bad mouths you on FB? Lawsuit. An unhappy customer slams your business on twitter? Lawsuit.
They would to monitor and review every message.
By all means, treat the social media companies as any other publisher.
JD.
I remember that commercial. It gave me a nice chuckle to start the day. It also is a great example of lefty speak.
Yeah, that’s a great idea MP.
Posting a video of “looters” running off with TeeVee’s and Air Jordan sneakers would be an actionable, racial slur, overnight.
America is a weird place where woke white people get offended on the behalf of minorities.
It’s been that way since the three-fifths compromise.
MP, if you treat Soci@l Tech as publishers they will IMMEDIATELY ban ALL conservative content. Right now they cannot do it without scrutiny no matter how they try. If they are publishers, they can do it wholesale and there is zero recourse. It’s a lot more complicated, just look at the yuge support on the left to “punish” Big Tech – they are not doing it to benefit conservative voices. If libturds are FOR something, they are against reason and common sense and full of malice. So no, conservatives should be dead set against it, exiting existing Big Tech and instead angling for their own platforms.
Blade, right now we have the worst of both worlds.
If someone personally defames you on FB, you have no recourse other than complaining to FB.
But if you try to post something that violates the sensibilities of an FB monitor, you can be banned.
They banned the sitting president of the US, fer God’s sake.
Treating blogs as though they are publishers would have problems, of course — it would mean the end of freewheeling comment sections like this one — but that problem can be solved by pooling liability so legal insurance would be affordable to even small time bloggers.
As a Canadian, Neil Young must certainly be working up some impassioned lyrics about defending free speech against government oppression. The lyrics practically write themselves;
“Tin truckers and Trudeau coming,
we’re finally on our own…
…more dread in Ottawa”
How many times do the courts have to say “social media companies aren’t bound by the First Amendment” before people stop acting like this isn’t a profoundly silly question to ask?
“ If someone personally defames you on FB, you have no recourse other than complaining to FB.”
Libel is an actionable tort, wherever it occurs. You’re free to sue, if you can afford to hire a law talking dude, or can convince one to take it on contingency.
I was forced to hire one to convince the UofM that having one of their Ass Profs use his position and their equipment to cyber stalk me and post libel would probably involve them, as well as their mentally deranged employee in legal action.
It worked.