161–170 of 781 posts
This seems like short-term thinking from Joe. I'm sure he got paid big time. But his audience will shrink massively and he'll become a niche personality. It'll be similar to what happened to Howard Stern when he went to satellite radio; he quickly faded into relative obscurity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it interesting that the radical left seeks to silence rather than find a competitor. Ideas are just as marketable as products. I've listened to Joe Rogan for years and have found it educational and entertaining. It's fairly easy to listen while not agreeing to everything with his guests' viewpoints. I believe the content is high-quality, researched, and thoroughly unique. If you do not like the content, you do…
It's a lucrative business to be an entertainer masquerading as someone who is educated about 1000s different topics to his fans. He speaks whatever his fans want to hear so that their beliefs will be reinforced and will continue watching. Nothing more...nothing less.
I agree with JRE leaving YouTube over the censorship but I disagree with him moving exclusively to spotify for following reasons: 1. Spotify was the one who conspired with Facebook, Apple and Google to ban Alex Jones and others. So if Joe is moving off of YouTube because he doesn't like the censorship, he's not getting anything better with Spotify. 2. Currently, Spotify doesn't have video (except album cover clips wh…
I don't see how 1 is an issue when Alex Jones et al were deliberately spreading hateful misinformation. Aiming to CYA by booting someone off of a private platform and others following suit is not the same thing as "conspiring to censor" someone
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Spotify was the one who conspired with Facebook, Apple and Google to ban Alex Jones and others Alex Jones has a right to free speech, but if he's going to claim Sandy Hook was a hoax causing grieving parents to be harassed, nobody owes it to him to give him a platform. He can pay his own hosting fees.
Alex Jones is a much less serious threat then 2 or 3 large companies deciding what can discourse can be promulgated. (not a Jones supporter. nor can I imagine how anyone would be)
Alex Jones is a thoughtless jerk though, and can still find/provide his own hosting/distribution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Spotify was the one who conspired with Facebook, Apple and Google to ban Alex Jones and others Alex Jones has a right to free speech, but if he's going to claim Sandy Hook was a hoax causing grieving parents to be harassed, nobody owes it to him to give him a platform. He can pay his own hosting fees.
I'm not sure OP would disagree with you. He made a separate point: > So if Joe is moving off of YouTube because he doesn't like the censorship, he's not getting anything better with Spotify.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how 1 is an issue when Alex Jones et al were deliberately spreading hateful misinformation. Aiming to CYA by booting someone off of a private platform and others following suit is not the same thing as "conspiring to censor" someone
In my opinion your comment is spreading hateful misinformation about YouTube, and I would like for Hacker News to delete it and ban you permanently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Re permission , that's not quite true. His show is on YouTube, and his shows are allowed on there only at their pleasure. Censorship there is not unheard of, and though I've watched only a couple, his shows seem like something that could set them off.
It's available as an rss feed that can be consumed by any podcast player. It's not just YouTube.
From the second paragraph of the article "The show will hit Spotify September 1, and become exclusive to the platform later in the year."
Doesn't this mean it will no longer be available via the RSS feed?
Edit: typo
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Spotify was the one who conspired with Facebook, Apple and Google to ban Alex Jones and others Alex Jones has a right to free speech, but if he's going to claim Sandy Hook was a hoax causing grieving parents to be harassed, nobody owes it to him to give him a platform. He can pay his own hosting fees.
Alex Jones is a much less serious threat then 2 or 3 large companies deciding what can discourse can be promulgated. (not a Jones supporter. nor can I imagine how anyone would be)
Likewise, if the WSJ decides not to publish my letter to the editor, they aren't violating my freedom of speech, they are just deciding not to amplify it.
I agree with JRE leaving YouTube over the censorship but I disagree with him moving exclusively to spotify for following reasons: 1. Spotify was the one who conspired with Facebook, Apple and Google to ban Alex Jones and others. So if Joe is moving off of YouTube because he doesn't like the censorship, he's not getting anything better with Spotify. 2. Currently, Spotify doesn't have video (except album cover clips wh…
I don't see how 1 is an issue when Alex Jones et al were deliberately spreading hateful misinformation. Aiming to CYA by booting someone off of a private platform and others following suit is not the same thing as "conspiring to censor" someone
Censor - prohibit or restrict the use of something
Yeah, they conspired to censor.
I agree with JRE leaving YouTube over the censorship but I disagree with him moving exclusively to spotify for following reasons: 1. Spotify was the one who conspired with Facebook, Apple and Google to ban Alex Jones and others. So if Joe is moving off of YouTube because he doesn't like the censorship, he's not getting anything better with Spotify. 2. Currently, Spotify doesn't have video (except album cover clips wh…
[1] - https://artists.spotify.com/faq/music#what-content-is-prohib...