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

501–510 of 781 posts

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

#501

Post by wolco »

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #456
laichzeit0 wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The entire western world bans holocaust denial, and it hasn't led to a chilling effect on other expressions. Debatable. Banning holocaust denial is one of the greatest travesties in Western free speech. You just gave anti-Semites one more reason to believe there’s a global Jewish conspiracy going on and another recruitment tool.

You'll have to explain why it's such a great travesty because it's not obvious.

Why is banning speech a great travesty?

Because it hides the truth. Perhaps someone will discover people you wouldn't expect involved doing things we wouldn't expect which may cause some aspects from being denied to cease to be true. Silencing one groups end up silencing another.

Why don't we have a law banning denial of other genocides like the Armenian genocide. There should be an equal concern for all genocides being denied.

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

#502

Post by hobs »

serf wrote: post #262
jaybeeayyy wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

one can be against censorship and against the message being censored. in other words : don't assume those that defend people like Alex Jones are defending his opinions. Many are defending his ability to transmit his message, regardless of the quality of that message, in the interest of preserving that ability for themselves and causes that they support.

Nah, they are using that as a front to push their agenda, because otherwise they'd be super in favor of google and youtube's free speech too, which they are not.

Alex Jones isn't legally prohibited from saying lies about Sandy Hook, and the people up in arms defending those hateful lies and saying we should be careful to preserve hateful lies on private platforms are either idiot patsies or purposefully misleading liars(like Alex Jones himself actually.)

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

#503

Post by [deleted] »

chillwaves wrote: post #484
Reedx wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, none of that. This is different. Imagine a public town square. Would you want any company acting as the gatekeeper, deciding what speech is allowed or not in that setting? YouTube, Twitter and a few others are effectively the new town square. I don't think we want to end up in a position where a few corporations are dictating acceptable speech and open debate.

What about a private business is "public town square" and why doesn't it apply to Rachel Maddow being hosted by Fox News?

[deleted]

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

#504

Post by Helloworldboy »

threeseed wrote: post #426
chroma wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> But they are breaking a norm Media companies selectively choosing what to publish has been the norm since forever. My local paper won't publish libellous comments I may write against a particular person whom I hold grudge against. And my local TV station wouldn't show a pornographic commercial that I thought would be hilarious to see. Private media companies ultimately answer to their advertisers and most of them s…

Are you saying that these platforms are publishers? Then they should be held to the same standard and have the same responsibility for content that a publisher would have. They should be held liable for willingly publishing any and all content that breaks copyright law, or contains illegal content. Why are they being treated like platforms for user content when it’s legally convenient, but acting like publishers of content when they want to restrict certain forms of speech the disagree with?

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

#505

Post by dang »

jessaustin wrote: post #387
dang wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It isn't feminist for women's bodies to be brutalized by men's bodies. If you broach the topic in this way—jumping straight to an inflammatory statement on one of the most divisive of all topics—you're guaranteeing a flamewar. That's vandalism, nay, trolling. It breaks the site guidelines, damages this place badly, and you've done it more than once before. You also committed to us that you wouldn't to do it again.…

I apologize. I thought that statement was inoffensive, but clearly I was wrong. I would edit it out if I could. Fortunately it seems not to have ignited the flamewar you anticipated, since none of the 36 replies other than your own have referenced it. The main complaint seems to be that I didn't portray the full variety of statements that Rogan has made on this issue. I had listened to a recent podcast in which he cl…

They don't have to reference it in order to react to it or otherwise be affected.

I appreciate your reply though.

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

#506

Post by fetbaffe »

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…

Shouldn’t government accounts be banned too then? Every government has spread major misinformation & harassed innocent people.

How about CNN? They do it too.

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

#507

Post by jimhi »

metrokoi wrote: post #497
willis936 wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whose lives did Alex Jones threaten? Is this a genuine question? This is HN, so it should be. However, I’m not sure how you can be this far down into this chain and not know about Sandy Hook, since it is the very incident that pushed him over the line. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_s...

At the risk of sounding like a troll, I don't see anything in that link about Alex Jones threatening lives.

I think they are saying Alex Jones is responsible because his followers ended up stalking and harassing the victims parents. One could argue he never directly said to do that so it isn't his responsibility, but he also has a big platform.

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

#508

Post by throwawaysea »

roblabla wrote: post #353
revnode wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Amazon isn't very likely to care what's hosted on their servers, as it's not as likely to be damaging - both in terms of brand and of legal liability. You don't know a website is hosted on Amazon Web Services the same way you know a video is hosted on Youtube.

It is knowable, by IP address.

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

#509

Post by chroma »

willis936 wrote: post #446
chroma wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You know who else breaks norms? Alex Jones when he peddles lies and threatens lives for profit. He needs to play by society’s rules if he wants to play by society’s rules. You can’t just pick and choose which norms you’re entitled to. That’s called being an asshole and 10 times out of 10 you will be shown the door. There’s a reason no one cried over him getting the boot. It isn’t an indication of some chilling dystop…

I don't think you understand the point I'm trying to make. I don't care about Alex Jones. I care about collateral damage: Deleting "communist bandits" comments.[1] Banning the Podcast Addict app.[2] Banning other apps.[3][4] I didn't have to look very hard to find these examples. There are certainly dozens more if one cares to delve into the issue.

There are people who we don't know about who are currently having their views suppressed. A few of them probably hold views that future societies will endorse. But because they don't have a voice, it will take longer to make moral progress. Compared to that, Alex Jones is a rounding error.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23223219

2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23219427

3. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23221447

4. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23229073

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

#510

Post by darawk »

willis936 wrote: post #446
chroma wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You know who else breaks norms? Alex Jones when he peddles lies and threatens lives for profit. He needs to play by society’s rules if he wants to play by society’s rules. You can’t just pick and choose which norms you’re entitled to. That’s called being an asshole and 10 times out of 10 you will be shown the door. There’s a reason no one cried over him getting the boot. It isn’t an indication of some chilling dystop…

Nobody wants to be in the position of defending Alex Jones. He's totally indefensible. But that is always how these things start. Once you start regulating content on the basis of factual accuracy, you put these companies in the position of making decisions about political truth, and that is an extremely dangerous thing.

These are really hard ethical questions, and I think both views are reasonable and understandable. But ultimately I think it's more dangerous to put Google in charge of regulating truth. It feels like a win in the short term to ban Alex Jones, and it is a win in the short term. But the long term consequences of things like this are really really important, and the fact that they're obscured by distance doesn't make them any less so.

Post reply on HN