Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 781 posts

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

#401

Post by Mountain_Skies »

alvah wrote: post #319
GoofballJones wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alex Jones being kicked off those services isn't the same thing. He was spreading major misinformation and targeted harassment at innocent people that were involved in a tragedy. He wasn't "conspired" against. They just told him to go host his hate somewhere else. And stop with these "censorship" BS. Alex Jones has every right to start his own network if he wants and put anything on it. There's nothing stopping him f…

"Alex Jones has every right to start his own network if he wants" Ah, the tired old "start your own Google / Facebook / Twitter / YouTube" trope. That can't be too hard /sarc Why is delegating (effective) censorship to Big Tech suddenly a good idea?

>Why is delegating (effective) censorship to Big Tech suddenly a good idea?

Because they currently have alignment with the correct political ideology. When that changes, so will this attitude. History shows that it will eventually change. History also shows that those currently in control will erroneously believe they will forever be in control.

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

#402

Post by stOneskull »

tedivm wrote: post #240
herostratus101 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We only burn the bad books!

Nobody burned anything. You can head over to his website and watch his videos if you want. Not giving someone a platform isn't taking their free speech away, any more than me telling religious people attempting to convert me to get off my property is violating their religious rights.

if you had many videos up, and they were all taken down, it is like book burning. they were published, then destroyed.

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

#403

Post by thundergolfer »

hourislate wrote: post #263
pharke wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to keep in mind that Joe is a comedian first and foremost. Comedians have had the rug pulled out from under them with COVID-19. He's doing what's right for his family at the moment. I fully expect this to come up in one of his next episodes and since he's up front about this stuff it'll probably be summed up as "Sorry you fucks, a man's gotta eat!"

He made over $30 million last year on just his podcast. HE still gets checks every month for News Radio since it syndicated. He has several investments in several businesses. He works for the UFC. He has Netflix specials. Some guess he is pulling in over 100 million a year. I'm sure he and his family are going to be ok. I figure Jamie probably makes 1 million a year...

Of all the places on the internet I visit, HN is the only place I regularly see comments like the one you’re responding to, suggesting that people with literally tens of millions of dollars are making some decision so they can “provide for their family”, as if they couldn’t do that already with a fraction of the interest they can make on their wealth.

I can’t put my finger on why it’s used so much. To frame the super rich 0.1% as merely responsible fathers and mothers?

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

#404

Post by stOneskull »

jaybeeayyy wrote: post #188
herostratus101 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We only burn the bad books!

Alex Jones said trans people murder babies with democrats for their blood...

psychopaths rise to power so i wouldn't be surprised if there is some truth to that. someone once said 'a dumb psychopath is the serial killer, who kills a few people, and is imprisoned. a smart one drops bombs on thousands of people at once and gets paid for it.' something like that anyway.

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

#405

Post by CyberDildonics »

mattcaldwell wrote: post #394
CyberDildonics wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw it live. I remember it being crystal clear that he was talking about the context of someone's physical attributes when they are fighting. Maybe you should actually listen to someone before you call what they say "transphobic and borderline hate speech".

I did listen and have watched it more than once. I understand the context, but at the very least, he's being a dick. And he shouldn't be surprised when his words are interpreted in that way. It's a vulnerable population and there are better ways to talk about sensitive issues like that.

Before you just said it was "transphobic and borderline hate speech". Now you are saying he was being a dick, which would make a lot of sense if he wasn't talking about someone literally using confusion of how to handle transgender athletes to brutalize women.

Do you understand that this person was beating women unconscious and broke a woman's skull in 2014? Fallon Fox had a daughter, joined the navy, worked as a truck driver, transitioned, and fought in MMA without disclosing her past. This person is doing a huge disservice to transgender people.

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

#407

Post by jachee »

revnode wrote: post #349
tomlin wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, in general - yeah. But Alex Jones? I've personally launched a few streaming video platforms for audiences within the same # of listeners as AJ's demo - with far less money than AJ has. It's actually not that big of a deal to load an MP4 into a tag, turns out.

> It's actually not that big of a deal to load an MP4 into a tag, turns out. Kind of a big deal if you can't host that MP4 somewhere? If Google/Twitter/Facebook/etc. don't want your stuff ... chances are Amazon doesn't want to host it either. Even if you stand up your own hardware, you're at the mercy of whatever company is providing you the internet connection. Free speech as a principle isn't about hearing stuff yo…

Quashing hateful, exploitative, conspiracy-theory-for-profit "free speech" is a societal value I can get behind.

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

#408

Post by [deleted] »

mattcaldwell wrote: post #381
shoulderfake wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I listen to Rogans podcast all the time , when has he ever made hate comments about transgender people ???? No way I'd have missed him saying something hateful about anyone period, let alone transgenders

He explicitly referred to Fallon Fox, saying "You are a fucking man." Not a very tactful way to speak about a transgender woman. And yes, that's transphobic speech.

[deleted]

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

#409

Post by XMPPwocky »

xupybd wrote: post #385
XMPPwocky wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't discount how unfair it would be for women to compete against people who have lived for years with high testosterone levels. If a man has had naturally low testosterone all his life, should he be allowed to compete against women? If a woman has had naturally high testosterone all her life, should she only be allowed to compete against men?

Perhaps, I think that would be worth investigating. You'll find that most athletes at the top are genetic outliers. There is already some unfairness towards those with low testosterone. However if you allow people that have lived long periods of time with high testosterone to complete against women who have not I suspect you'll find very few of those women ever make it to the top.

Maybe, but why is fairness on this one particular axis the only one I ever hear about?

Look at the 100m sprint. Of the top 25 (regardless of gender), as far as I can tell, none of them have two X chromosomes.

But none of them are Caucasian, either.

Why isn't there a large movement arguing that sprinters should only be allowed to compete against those of the same race? If I (as a white man) took up sprinting (ha!), it would kind of suck knowing that I don't seem to stand a chance of setting the world record just because of my genes. But it seems like white sprinters manage to deal with it.

And, well, if there were separate races for people of different races... that wouldn't really change anything, would it? The world's fastest sprinter would still probably be non-white, the only real difference would be that the world's fastest white sprinter would get to say "I'm the world's fastest white sprinter (but still not the world's fastest sprinter)". You're just giving out an extra trophy- everybody knows who's actually the fastest.

Why isn't this argument valid for sex separation in sports, too?

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

#410

Post by chroma »

GoofballJones wrote: post #283
busymom0 wrote: post #122

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…

Alex Jones being kicked off those services isn't the same thing. He was spreading major misinformation and targeted harassment at innocent people that were involved in a tragedy. He wasn't "conspired" against. They just told him to go host his hate somewhere else. And stop with these "censorship" BS. Alex Jones has every right to start his own network if he wants and put anything on it. There's nothing stopping him f…

You are conflating two forms of free speech: The right to freedom of speech enshrined in the constitution and the norm of free speech that we all tend to grant each other. Of course YouTube is a private company and can ban and delete whatever they want. But they are breaking a norm and the consequences of that may be worse than the consequences of letting us watch videos of crazy people.

I've said it before and I'll keep on saying it: The original formulations of freedom of speech weren't about protecting the rights of the speaker or writer. They were about protecting the rights of those who wanted to listen or read. Every time you ban a document or silence a speaker, you are also preventing people from reading what they want to read or hearing what they want to hear. That harm is far greater than whatever happens to the author.

Again, YouTube is a private company and they can do whatever they want when it comes to curating the information they store. I would be against any law that compelled them to host information that they didn't want to host. But in the long run, I think their current policy is extremely counterproductive. Imagine if YouTube existed 30 years ago. Would they have banned atheist views? Would they have banned videos critical of Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal? What about videos endorsing transgender ideas? Many views that were considered crazy at that time are now acceptable today. Suppressing heterodox views means that fewer are exposed to them and moral progress is impeded. Yes, most fringe ideas are bullshit, but every once in a while we stumble onto a diamond: Slavery is wrong. Men and women should have the same rights. Homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals. Etc. These were all extremely controversial ideas when they first came into the public sphere. Earlier versions of our society suppressed them as dangerous misinformation.

So far, we haven't figured out a way to separate good ideas from bad ones besides exposing people to them and seeing which memes reproduce in the population. In other words: If you ban people like Alex Jones, you also ban people who are activists for causes that society will adopt in the future. And we all end up worse off.

There are certainly views that we hold today that future generations will condemn us for. Better that we discover them sooner rather than later.

Post reply on HN