Live data from Hacker News

Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive multi-year deal

techcrunch.com

171–180 of 781 posts

Re: Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive multi-year deal

#171
post #141

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…

> 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.

YouTube: You can pay your own hosting fees.

Namecheap: Your users can find you at your IP address.

AWS: You can run your own server hardware.

Intel: You can build your own CPU.

Electric Co.: You can generate your own electricity.

VISA: You can take payments in cash.

Hospital: You can use your own butterfly strips and an ibuprofen.

Re: Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive multi-year deal

#173
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify doesn't add ads to music if you pay for it. I don't know about podcasts. If it was a viable business strategy for them to be paid-only, I think they would have done it, I'm pretty sure they make much more profit on paying customers than free ad-supported ones.

Again, ads are not the issue. The freedom to listen without being spied on is.

You really think your http requests aren't being "spied on"? Especially since virtually every podcast is served via a CDN.

Re: Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive multi-year deal

#174

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…

He can't actually be leaving over censorship because if he was there is no way phrases like "exclusive multi-year" would be thrown around. Once burned twice shy.

There might have been some tea-leaf reading involved that YouTube isn't a supportive platform these days but this move is probably linked to obscene amounts of money changing hands.

Re: Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive multi-year deal

#175

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.

A looooot of people use Spotify, at least in the US.

Re: Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive multi-year deal

#176

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

We only burn the bad books!

Re: Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive multi-year deal

#177
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

My point is that they don't get to decide that, though. They decide whether they will pay for hosting, but they can't stop him from paying for his own hosting elsewhere. 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.

You’re trivialising the issue a bit. Remember when CloudFront stopped providing DDos protection to some white nationalist website (I forgot which one). “Just start your own multi-billion company bro!”

Re: Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive multi-year deal

#178

This is pretty strange coming from a dude who talks about how corporatism and monopolies are bad for us regular humans in every other episode. Either he's planning something or he just sold out. Either way, podcasting will stay as long we keep it alive. Rogan wants to move to a closed ecosystem, fine, that's one less podcast for me to subscribe to! Edit: one thing we can do as consumers is to stop paying for a compan…

Is Spotify a monopoly?

Exclusive deals are monopolies by definition.

Re: Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive multi-year deal

#179
post #9

This makes me incredibly sad: not that we are losing Rogan's show, but that Adtech is finally absorbing the last type of media that was truly Free.

I'm not sure why you think Youtube is "truly free". They run an enormous amount of advertising. Rogan's show has always been ad supported. Possibly you use an ad-blocker, like I do, and don't see them.

Re: Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive multi-year deal

#180
post #141

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.

The “Right to Free Speech” just means the government can’t impede. Nobody is required to give him a platform, though.

This is a fairly cheap argument. Presumably the reasons why it's bad for the government to ban speech are also largely applicable to platforms that are almost universally used to discover new viewpoints.
Post reply on HN