media matters

[Farfromgeneva]

All the sudden we have this on our hands

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KY5Ug1OW5O4

[DMac]

Don't listen to Joe (or any of the others for that matter), have only seen a couple of clips of his "apology" which (naturally) only amounted to sound bites. If you haven't seen the whole thing I think you should. "Credentialed up" people with differing opinions, hence the confusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSqLWrSVWaY

[jhu72]

The mother load of right wing hypocrisy, Faux News, promotes an anti-vax policeman, makes him a media hero and then ignores him in death.

This people are real sh*t bags.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The mother load of right wing hypocrisy, Faux News, promotes an anti-vax policeman, makes him a media hero and then ignores him in death.

This people are real sh*t bags.

909,001…..

[Farfromgeneva]

A exurban county school district about 30-40mi from Atlanta is removing books now (Forsyth Co)

Big Tech boycotts tend to be short-lived
Axios
Sara Fischer, Neal Rothschild

Data: Google Trends; Chart: Will Chase/Axios
Spotify's weekend of boycott threats may have made headlines, but recent history suggests the controversy won't dent Spotify's business.

Why it matters: Boycotts of tech services have become more frequent amid growing political polarization and frustration over misinformation. But data shows that boycotts and the press attention around them are typically fleeting.

Driving the news: Spotify's stock was up more than 13% Monday, after its most popular podcaster, Joe Rogan, said he agreed with Spotify's newly announced platform changes to label any podcast episodes with COVID-19 discussion.

Some critics argued the streamer didn't go far enough, but by making some changes and unveiling its policies, Spotify was able to reassure investors without triggering much further backlash from mainstream artists.
Be smart: Even some of the most intense boycotts hardly impacted Big Tech giants beyond a single news cycle.

Facebook's boycott by major advertisers in June of 2020 certainly sucked up a lot of press attention, but it barely impacted the tech giant's revenue, and most advertisers returned to the platform after a month. The public and the media, according to Google trends data, quickly moved on.
YouTube faced a serious advertiser boycott in 2017, but months later said that most advertisers had returned to the company. The company's ad business continues to balloon, in part because — like Facebook — it's not reliant on blue-chip advertisers for the majority of its revenue. (Mainstream brands usually face the most pressure to boycott tech firms in the wake of scandal.)
Netflix saw a brief spike in subscription cancellations following backlash to the debut of a French film called "Cuties," but the following quarter, Netflix's subscriber additions spiked again.
Amazon was the target of a viral pro-labor boycott campaign timed to a union push in Bessemer, Ala. The labor union teaming up with the Alabama workers said it was not involved in the boycott call, and many argued the effort was counterproductive. In the month following the campaign — and the voted-down union drive (since ordered to be redone) — Amazon stock jumped 33%.
Yes, but: Boycotts have also sometimes forced tech firms to make policy changes or to be more forthcoming about their content-moderation policies.

Neil Young's ultimatum to Spotify ultimately inspired other artists to join his crusade, which eventually forced Spotify to publish its closely held content-moderation policies and to add a disclosure to podcasts discussing COVID-19.
What to watch: Young, Joni Mitchell, Bruce Springsteen's E Street Band guitarist Nils Lofgren and podcaster Brené Brown have been the only big names to ditch Spotify.

It would take a much bigger exodus from the Spotify library to alter the company's calculus on Rogan.

[MDlaxfan76]

Don't listen to Joe (or any of the others for that matter), have only seen a couple of clips of his "apology" which (naturally) only amounted to sound bites. If you haven't seen the whole thing I think you should. "Credentialed up" people with differing opinions, hence the confusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSqLWrSVWaY

I liked his apology effort, think it was likely intended genuinely (that's Rogan's gift, the ability to come across as thoughtful and genuine). But I think he grossly understates what he's said and done and why it matters.

Focusing on just those two episodes (problematic as they were) misses a lot of other pretty darn major problems that have been ongoing. He gets things badly wrong, claims he "corrects" that, but often he repeats the same incorrect statements and 'opinions'. He does not go back to the original podcasts and provide a warning/correction for what he got wrong. So, they stand uncorrected, unless you happen to catch a sliver of another conversation. So, those uncorrected podcasts, and excepts from such, get spread all over the internet to those gullible enough to give them weight.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-roga ... 1af2634cfc

https://www.bbc.com/news/60199614

The steps he and Spotify are promising are indeed positive ones. The question is whether he can truly do better than simply a "conversation" about "opinions".

[DMac]

Don't listen to Joe (or any of the others for that matter), have only seen a couple of clips of his "apology" which (naturally) only amounted to sound bites. If you haven't seen the whole thing I think you should. "Credentialed up" people with differing opinions, hence the confusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSqLWrSVWaY

Thanks for the response, MDlax, was writing this as you posted.

So no one has anything to say about this?
All credentialled up, says one thing.
All credentialled up, says another thing.
One's a Dumbforistanian mouther breather
and the other isn't?
Wear your mask from the door to the bar
then take it off. Put it back on to go to
the men's room, then take it back off at
the bar. W*T*F, does it work/is it needed or
not? No mask on the court/field, masks in
the stands. W*T*F, needed or not? What say
ye about the things that were once banned
from the air but are now news?

[MDlaxfan76]

Don't listen to Joe (or any of the others for that matter), have only seen a couple of clips of his "apology" which (naturally) only amounted to sound bites. If you haven't seen the whole thing I think you should. "Credentialed up" people with differing opinions, hence the confusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSqLWrSVWaY

Thanks for the response, MDlax, was writing this as you posted.

So no one has anything to say about this?
All credentialled up, says one thing.
All credentialled up, says another thing.
One's a Dumbforistanian mouther breather
and the other isn't?
Wear your mask from the door to the bar
then take it off. Put it back on to go to
the men's room, then take it back off at
the bar. W*T*F, does it work/is it needed or
not? No mask on the court/field, masks in
the stands. W*T*F, needed or not? What say
ye about the things that were once banned
from the air but are now news?

That was actually one of the things I didn't like in the Rogan 'apology'...he makes several claims that "if you said X, Y or Z you got taken off of social media"...I don't think (not 100% sure) that any of those actually caused anyone to be removed from platforms. For instance, simply questioning the relative efficacy of different masks didn't get people removed...even saying "masks don't work, take off your masks you sheeple" didn't either, best I recall, though certainly the latter would be "medical misinformation dangerous to public health".

What did get one removed was recommending drinking bleach...and only if you were prominent enough to have a significant audience that might respond by actually drinking bleach...

There's a ton to critique about the communication missteps of those entrusted with communicating about public health, setting policies, etc. And critiquing didn't get one removed either.

Flat lying...another matter. Or at least should be, IMO.

[jhu72]

... in the you can't make this up category

[Farfromgeneva]

Don't listen to Joe (or any of the others for that matter), have only seen a couple of clips of his "apology" which (naturally) only amounted to sound bites. If you haven't seen the whole thing I think you should. "Credentialed up" people with differing opinions, hence the confusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSqLWrSVWaY

I liked his apology effort, think it was likely intended genuinely (that's Rogan's gift, the ability to come across as thoughtful and genuine). But I think he grossly understates what he's said and done and why it matters.

Focusing on just those two episodes (problematic as they were) misses a lot of other pretty darn major problems that have been ongoing. He gets things badly wrong, claims he "corrects" that, but often he repeats the same incorrect statements and 'opinions'. He does not go back to the original podcasts and provide a warning/correction for what he got wrong. So, they stand uncorrected, unless you happen to catch a sliver of another conversation. So, those uncorrected podcasts, and excepts from such, get spread all over the internet to those gullible enough to give them weight.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-roga ... 1af2634cfc

https://www.bbc.com/news/60199614

The steps he and Spotify are promising are indeed positive ones. The question is whether he can truly do better than simply a "conversation" about "opinions".

I didn’t get the sense he was subversively working the system and he was speaking from within his bandwidth so if he is understating it I didn’t get the sense it was intentional.

[MDlaxfan76]

Don't listen to Joe (or any of the others for that matter), have only seen a couple of clips of his "apology" which (naturally) only amounted to sound bites. If you haven't seen the whole thing I think you should. "Credentialed up" people with differing opinions, hence the confusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSqLWrSVWaY

I liked his apology effort, think it was likely intended genuinely (that's Rogan's gift, the ability to come across as thoughtful and genuine). But I think he grossly understates what he's said and done and why it matters.

Focusing on just those two episodes (problematic as they were) misses a lot of other pretty darn major problems that have been ongoing. He gets things badly wrong, claims he "corrects" that, but often he repeats the same incorrect statements and 'opinions'. He does not go back to the original podcasts and provide a warning/correction for what he got wrong. So, they stand uncorrected, unless you happen to catch a sliver of another conversation. So, those uncorrected podcasts, and excepts from such, get spread all over the internet to those gullible enough to give them weight.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-roga ... 1af2634cfc

https://www.bbc.com/news/60199614

The steps he and Spotify are promising are indeed positive ones. The question is whether he can truly do better than simply a "conversation" about "opinions".

I didn’t get the sense he was subversively working the system and he was speaking from within his bandwidth so if he is understating it I didn’t get the sense it was intentional.

I'm willing to give him a smidgen of benefit of the doubt as my hunch is that he really doesn't understand fully. But he needs to do so.

The day after his apology he made the same sort of knee jerk mistake by tweeting out the inaccurate story about ivermectin, despite it having been corrected...he needs to put a filter on himself to check things out much more thoroughly before spreading it through his platform to those who see him as an 'authority'. Doesn't matter that he acknowledges and warns that he's not an expert, there are many who see him as such.

And it's not that difficult to know what deserves extra attention...EVERYTHING that is not accepted and recommended by the public health "bureaucracy" that has the role for such. Wait a heart beat, be darn sure you have it right, don't rush...

We're not talking about you like catfish better than salmon, or whether the OT rules need to be changed in NFL playoff games...

[runrussellrun]

Don't listen to Joe (or any of the others for that matter), have only seen a couple of clips of his "apology" which (naturally) only amounted to sound bites. If you haven't seen the whole thing I think you should. "Credentialed up" people with differing opinions, hence the confusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSqLWrSVWaY

Thanks for the response, MDlax, was writing this as you posted.

So no one has anything to say about this?
All credentialled up, says one thing.
All credentialled up, says another thing.
One's a Dumbforistanian mouther breather
and the other isn't?
Wear your mask from the door to the bar
then take it off. Put it back on to go to
the men's room, then take it back off at
the bar. W*T*F, does it work/is it needed or
not? No mask on the court/field, masks in
the stands. W*T*F, needed or not? What say
ye about the things that were once banned
from the air but are now news?

How many "fans", maskless, gleefully sent their fully masked 8 year old to elementary school on Monday morning, after the game played in California ?

Hypocrites. child abusers.

WPI (worcester poly tech )...has lost 7 students to suicide. No one cares.

back to US....vs......THEM.

the vast majority of Americans don't belong to either, yet we have to endure the taats hate, grifting and white collar welfare economic disparity.


.

[Farfromgeneva]

Don't listen to Joe (or any of the others for that matter), have only seen a couple of clips of his "apology" which (naturally) only amounted to sound bites. If you haven't seen the whole thing I think you should. "Credentialed up" people with differing opinions, hence the confusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSqLWrSVWaY

I liked his apology effort, think it was likely intended genuinely (that's Rogan's gift, the ability to come across as thoughtful and genuine). But I think he grossly understates what he's said and done and why it matters.

Focusing on just those two episodes (problematic as they were) misses a lot of other pretty darn major problems that have been ongoing. He gets things badly wrong, claims he "corrects" that, but often he repeats the same incorrect statements and 'opinions'. He does not go back to the original podcasts and provide a warning/correction for what he got wrong. So, they stand uncorrected, unless you happen to catch a sliver of another conversation. So, those uncorrected podcasts, and excepts from such, get spread all over the internet to those gullible enough to give them weight.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-roga ... 1af2634cfc

https://www.bbc.com/news/60199614

The steps he and Spotify are promising are indeed positive ones. The question is whether he can truly do better than simply a "conversation" about "opinions".

I didn’t get the sense he was subversively working the system and he was speaking from within his bandwidth so if he is understating it I didn’t get the sense it was intentional.

I'm willing to give him a smidgen of benefit of the doubt as my hunch is that he really doesn't understand fully. But he needs to do so.

The day after his apology he made the same sort of knee jerk mistake by tweeting out the inaccurate story about ivermectin, despite it having been corrected...he needs to put a filter on himself to check things out much more thoroughly before spreading it through his platform to those who see him as an 'authority'. Doesn't matter that he acknowledges and warns that he's not an expert, there are many who see him as such.

And it's not that difficult to know what deserves extra attention...EVERYTHING that is not accepted and recommended by the public health "bureaucracy" that has the role for such. Wait a heart beat, be darn sure you have it right, don't rush...

We're not talking about you like catfish better than salmon, or whether the OT rules need to be changed in NFL playoff games...

I don’t pay nearly as close attention. Was a solid response Dmac linked which I watched in full but the “haters” w a grin comment at end still catches my attention because of the choice of using that specific word which implies no merit to any difference of opinion or perspective to him, just some unjust disdain/anger and that’s not what some people are saying regarding his situation. (And I thought the Neil young story would be wayy better than the one he told which was pretty boring)

But then again I never looked at media and entertainment people for any guidance on thought, living life, etc. Except when Chuck Barkley said this: (ironically one year before OJs wife was magically decapitated by a killer OJ is still looking for…)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4gqk4WPnrpM

[Farfromgeneva]

Don't listen to Joe (or any of the others for that matter), have only seen a couple of clips of his "apology" which (naturally) only amounted to sound bites. If you haven't seen the whole thing I think you should. "Credentialed up" people with differing opinions, hence the confusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSqLWrSVWaY

Thanks for the response, MDlax, was writing this as you posted.

So no one has anything to say about this?
All credentialled up, says one thing.
All credentialled up, says another thing.
One's a Dumbforistanian mouther breather
and the other isn't?
Wear your mask from the door to the bar
then take it off. Put it back on to go to
the men's room, then take it back off at
the bar. W*T*F, does it work/is it needed or
not? No mask on the court/field, masks in
the stands. W*T*F, needed or not? What say
ye about the things that were once banned
from the air but are now news?

Like his “public” response overall but the “hater” comment, use of that specific word instead of another term at the end has me off guard. It implies unfairness and illegitimacy of any opposition and he did it with a grin. I can’t tell his intent but it’s a troubling signal kind of like with all due respect. Pulling a Rocky Bobby to his bosses son there.

As for credentials. It’s a minimum threshold not a signal of specific expertise or an intelligence or ethics test (in theory the bar is but as I understand the ethics is focused a lot on things like “can you bill two clients for work done on a flight” type of ethics). A real estate agent has credentials as does a retail financial advisor. They’re not all equal.

As to the mask thing, wasn’t it always the airborne nature only goes about 6ft in efficacy and it’s for prolonged, enclosed periods of time? So even indoors if you’re spread out or moving around such that you’re not in the Covid football “halo” space in a fixed manner relative to others it sort of doesn’t matter?

Specific to your one comment I put the mask on when walking to the bathroom probably out of social pressure more than I think I should but consider when your a urinal next to somebody and had 3-6 beers, it could be enough time in close proximity.

[PizzaSnake]

A exurban county school district about 30-40mi from Atlanta is removing books now (Forsyth Co)

Big Tech boycotts tend to be short-lived
Axios
Sara Fischer, Neal Rothschild

Data: Google Trends; Chart: Will Chase/Axios
Spotify's weekend of boycott threats may have made headlines, but recent history suggests the controversy won't dent Spotify's business.

Why it matters: Boycotts of tech services have become more frequent amid growing political polarization and frustration over misinformation. But data shows that boycotts and the press attention around them are typically fleeting.

Driving the news: Spotify's stock was up more than 13% Monday, after its most popular podcaster, Joe Rogan, said he agreed with Spotify's newly announced platform changes to label any podcast episodes with COVID-19 discussion.

Some critics argued the streamer didn't go far enough, but by making some changes and unveiling its policies, Spotify was able to reassure investors without triggering much further backlash from mainstream artists.
Be smart: Even some of the most intense boycotts hardly impacted Big Tech giants beyond a single news cycle.

Facebook's boycott by major advertisers in June of 2020 certainly sucked up a lot of press attention, but it barely impacted the tech giant's revenue, and most advertisers returned to the platform after a month. The public and the media, according to Google trends data, quickly moved on.
YouTube faced a serious advertiser boycott in 2017, but months later said that most advertisers had returned to the company. The company's ad business continues to balloon, in part because — like Facebook — it's not reliant on blue-chip advertisers for the majority of its revenue. (Mainstream brands usually face the most pressure to boycott tech firms in the wake of scandal.)
Netflix saw a brief spike in subscription cancellations following backlash to the debut of a French film called "Cuties," but the following quarter, Netflix's subscriber additions spiked again.
Amazon was the target of a viral pro-labor boycott campaign timed to a union push in Bessemer, Ala. The labor union teaming up with the Alabama workers said it was not involved in the boycott call, and many argued the effort was counterproductive. In the month following the campaign — and the voted-down union drive (since ordered to be redone) — Amazon stock jumped 33%.
Yes, but: Boycotts have also sometimes forced tech firms to make policy changes or to be more forthcoming about their content-moderation policies.

Neil Young's ultimatum to Spotify ultimately inspired other artists to join his crusade, which eventually forced Spotify to publish its closely held content-moderation policies and to add a disclosure to podcasts discussing COVID-19.
What to watch: Young, Joni Mitchell, Bruce Springsteen's E Street Band guitarist Nils Lofgren and podcaster Brené Brown have been the only big names to ditch Spotify.

It would take a much bigger exodus from the Spotify library to alter the company's calculus on Rogan.

Book banning only makes it more likely that the audiences amenable to the proscribed message are likely to become aware of and be exposed to them. The people immume from rhe ideas weren’t going to be swayed anyway.

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... school-ban

“The Pulitzer prize-winning Holocaust graphic novel Maus: A Survivor’s Tale has become a bestseller on Amazon, after a Tennessee school board banned it.“

[Typical Lax Dad]

A exurban county school district about 30-40mi from Atlanta is removing books now (Forsyth Co)

Big Tech boycotts tend to be short-lived
Axios
Sara Fischer, Neal Rothschild

Data: Google Trends; Chart: Will Chase/Axios
Spotify's weekend of boycott threats may have made headlines, but recent history suggests the controversy won't dent Spotify's business.

Why it matters: Boycotts of tech services have become more frequent amid growing political polarization and frustration over misinformation. But data shows that boycotts and the press attention around them are typically fleeting.

Driving the news: Spotify's stock was up more than 13% Monday, after its most popular podcaster, Joe Rogan, said he agreed with Spotify's newly announced platform changes to label any podcast episodes with COVID-19 discussion.

Some critics argued the streamer didn't go far enough, but by making some changes and unveiling its policies, Spotify was able to reassure investors without triggering much further backlash from mainstream artists.
Be smart: Even some of the most intense boycotts hardly impacted Big Tech giants beyond a single news cycle.

Facebook's boycott by major advertisers in June of 2020 certainly sucked up a lot of press attention, but it barely impacted the tech giant's revenue, and most advertisers returned to the platform after a month. The public and the media, according to Google trends data, quickly moved on.
YouTube faced a serious advertiser boycott in 2017, but months later said that most advertisers had returned to the company. The company's ad business continues to balloon, in part because — like Facebook — it's not reliant on blue-chip advertisers for the majority of its revenue. (Mainstream brands usually face the most pressure to boycott tech firms in the wake of scandal.)
Netflix saw a brief spike in subscription cancellations following backlash to the debut of a French film called "Cuties," but the following quarter, Netflix's subscriber additions spiked again.
Amazon was the target of a viral pro-labor boycott campaign timed to a union push in Bessemer, Ala. The labor union teaming up with the Alabama workers said it was not involved in the boycott call, and many argued the effort was counterproductive. In the month following the campaign — and the voted-down union drive (since ordered to be redone) — Amazon stock jumped 33%.
Yes, but: Boycotts have also sometimes forced tech firms to make policy changes or to be more forthcoming about their content-moderation policies.

Neil Young's ultimatum to Spotify ultimately inspired other artists to join his crusade, which eventually forced Spotify to publish its closely held content-moderation policies and to add a disclosure to podcasts discussing COVID-19.
What to watch: Young, Joni Mitchell, Bruce Springsteen's E Street Band guitarist Nils Lofgren and podcaster Brené Brown have been the only big names to ditch Spotify.

It would take a much bigger exodus from the Spotify library to alter the company's calculus on Rogan.

Book banning only makes ir more likely that the audiences amenable to the proscribed message are likely to become aware of and be exposed to them. The people immume from rhe ideas weren’t going to be swayed anyway.

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... school-ban

“The Pulitzer prize-winning Holocaust graphic novel Maus: A Survivor’s Tale has become a bestseller on Amazon, after a Tennessee school board banned it.“

I bought a copy yesterday.

[Farfromgeneva]

A exurban county school district about 30-40mi from Atlanta is removing books now (Forsyth Co)

Big Tech boycotts tend to be short-lived
Axios
Sara Fischer, Neal Rothschild

Data: Google Trends; Chart: Will Chase/Axios
Spotify's weekend of boycott threats may have made headlines, but recent history suggests the controversy won't dent Spotify's business.

Why it matters: Boycotts of tech services have become more frequent amid growing political polarization and frustration over misinformation. But data shows that boycotts and the press attention around them are typically fleeting.

Driving the news: Spotify's stock was up more than 13% Monday, after its most popular podcaster, Joe Rogan, said he agreed with Spotify's newly announced platform changes to label any podcast episodes with COVID-19 discussion.

Some critics argued the streamer didn't go far enough, but by making some changes and unveiling its policies, Spotify was able to reassure investors without triggering much further backlash from mainstream artists.
Be smart: Even some of the most intense boycotts hardly impacted Big Tech giants beyond a single news cycle.

Facebook's boycott by major advertisers in June of 2020 certainly sucked up a lot of press attention, but it barely impacted the tech giant's revenue, and most advertisers returned to the platform after a month. The public and the media, according to Google trends data, quickly moved on.
YouTube faced a serious advertiser boycott in 2017, but months later said that most advertisers had returned to the company. The company's ad business continues to balloon, in part because — like Facebook — it's not reliant on blue-chip advertisers for the majority of its revenue. (Mainstream brands usually face the most pressure to boycott tech firms in the wake of scandal.)
Netflix saw a brief spike in subscription cancellations following backlash to the debut of a French film called "Cuties," but the following quarter, Netflix's subscriber additions spiked again.
Amazon was the target of a viral pro-labor boycott campaign timed to a union push in Bessemer, Ala. The labor union teaming up with the Alabama workers said it was not involved in the boycott call, and many argued the effort was counterproductive. In the month following the campaign — and the voted-down union drive (since ordered to be redone) — Amazon stock jumped 33%.
Yes, but: Boycotts have also sometimes forced tech firms to make policy changes or to be more forthcoming about their content-moderation policies.

Neil Young's ultimatum to Spotify ultimately inspired other artists to join his crusade, which eventually forced Spotify to publish its closely held content-moderation policies and to add a disclosure to podcasts discussing COVID-19.
What to watch: Young, Joni Mitchell, Bruce Springsteen's E Street Band guitarist Nils Lofgren and podcaster Brené Brown have been the only big names to ditch Spotify.

It would take a much bigger exodus from the Spotify library to alter the company's calculus on Rogan.

Book banning only makes ir more likely that the audiences amenable to the proscribed message are likely to become aware of and be exposed to them. The people immume from rhe ideas weren’t going to be swayed anyway.

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... school-ban

“The Pulitzer prize-winning Holocaust graphic novel Maus: A Survivor’s Tale has become a bestseller on Amazon, after a Tennessee school board banned it.“

And in this case counterproductive to a correlated cause in that Spiegleman is donating all nee proceeds to voter rights.

[runrussellrun]

PT Barnum.........

Didn't realize we had so many Blackwater cheerleaders.....

We need censorship....more of it.

[Farfromgeneva]

Gibberish, gibberish. I demand you focus on only topics I care about and nothing else refuse to cooperate in dialogue and refuse to make myself intelligible!

[jhu72]

Graham Nash joins Spotify boycott.