maelzoid

Opeth

That's the question. Are you a fan?

Firstly, it is not a question of who gets censored, but what gets censored. The content of the message should dictate any censorship, not the source. It is decided through societal consensus. It is enacted through a combination of public policy, laws and regulation of broadcast, publication and other media. On a practical level this is of course hard to get right a lot of the time. When MPs make laws over what should be censored, they are writing policy based on what they believe is best, rather than consulting with the entirety of the population, and most new policy will be based on previous versions and the public response to them - does the censorship go too far, or not far enough? Do you believe all censorship is wrong? Should we allow a platform for holocaust deniers, for IS beheading videos? I believe these things should be censored. The question we face today is should vaccine/covid disinformation be treated the same way? I haven't got a definitive answer for that, but it is indisputable that these lies have cost lives.

I'm guessing NE Somerset constituency...? Maybe you can do that hand-clapping thing in one of his surgeries....?

Absolutely. Most people who write to their MPs, do so with a complaint. So it's worth just sending a message that you support their actions.

You didn't answer the question...

But that is categorically not censorship. Because nobody here would be suppressing Rogen's output. He would be free to broadcast with anyone else who would have him. And even if it were censorship, would that be a bad thing? People seem to assume that all censorship is by definition wrong, but it has a useful role to play in society, specifically hate speech and incitement to violence. I think we are now faced with the question on whether vaccine disinformation should be censored, because it absolutely does lead to deaths. Certain platforms like Facebook and Twitter are making moves to censor vaccine disinformation, and I don't think it's outrageous to expect Spotify to do the same, especially when in this case they are creators of the content (by directly paying Rogen), rather than mere carriers.

The thing is, why did Albarn think that? I think it's because he has ignorant preconceptions about Swift (which I find odd for someone who works in the music business), and an element of those preconceptions come from prejudice. I think he has a prejudice against 'pop' (ironic in itself given that I think of Blur as making some of the best pop singles of all time), but the question here is does he also have a prejudice about female artists. I guess we won't truly know the depths of Damon Albarn's prejudices, but plenty of women in the music industry have reported that they are undermined and devalued by exactly this kind of prejudice. As for whether Swift writes her own stuff or not, she has plenty of solo writing credits on her albums, so even if she collaborates, she is by any definition a songwriter. I am by no means a Swift fan, but it actually has never occurred to me that she doesn't write her own stuff. I always assumed she did. I think because my perception has always been that she is a country artist who has crossed over into pop, rather than the cliched pop puppet moulded by industry bigwigs. I have the impression that the country music scene demands a certain authenticity of voice that requires artists perform material they have written - is that fair?

No, he's not. If Spotify, for any reason chose to stop broadcasting Rogen's show, that is still not censorship. Censorship is when an authoritative body prevents Rogen from broadcasting entirely. Young is saying he does not want to do business with a company that monetises Covid / vaccine disinformation.

So why is he an old fool? For his opposition to Spotify helping spread misinformation, or the fact that he's standing up for it?

Yes, indeed. But the outrage is not about the parties themselves, but about the gross double standards, hypocrisy, post hoc lies and cover up. None of which is illegal. From a legal standpoint, the worse BJ could get would be a fine.

As well as protesting, it's worth contacting your local MP, especially if they are a tory. Our Lib Dem MP has already issued a statement about the situation, and I have communicated my support as a constituent. I know there are some tory MPs who will stand by BJ whatever, but I suspect there's also quite a few who will instead take their lead from the voices of their constituents, if they're expressed.

I find it kind of depressing that you consider the bar that low. There's plenty you can say without resorting to misogynistic tropes. And of course, most of us will still stumble and say/do something that is part of this problem. I'm definitely guilty of this myself, but the thing is not to get unnecessarily defensive about it, to learn from it, to recognise it, to endeavour not to repeat it, to call out others when you see it, to listen to women when they relate their experience, to feel and show empathy. The same goes for racism, homophobia classism and all forms of prejudice. I'm not expecting anyone to be perfect, but my hope is that we can all improve.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-60124003 In a world gone upside down, it's great to know we can still rely on Neil Young.

A sitting PM under police investigations for criminal behaviour while in office. Is there a precedent for this? Or is BJ the first?