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

601–610 of 781 posts

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

#601

Post by raxxorrax »

gerland wrote: post #596
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…

> Free speech doesn't mean everyone is forced to listen to that speech. You are completely right. Free speech does not mean that anyone will force you to listen to Alex Jones or any other nutjob. It means that AJ will have the right to speak and you can ignore him. From the top of my head, let me just list a few of the poeople that were considered crazy and could not initialy find a platform to express their ideas: C…

> You get my point?

If have come to the conclusion that you either get why people defend his presence as a price for many advantages or you do not. These are not the people that buy his "man-oil".

Some say the smarter ones give in, although that should not be applied on this topic in my opinion.

> Free speech doesn't mean everyone is forced to listen to that speech.

It is just a personal dislike of Alex Jones, not an elaborate thought. Not that hard to sympathize with, which makes defense against content regulation quite exhausting. But it is also a lie, since nobody was forced to listen to Alex Jones at all.

We have seen targeted harassment against Russians by mainstream media outlets. It is the same strain of reasoning, although I would put it anywhere near reason to be honest.

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

#602

Post by luckylion »

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…

> 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.

This is "a murderer has not granted others the right to not be killed, so why should we not just hang him right here and now?", make no mistake.

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

#603

Post by rorykoehler »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #477
slg wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Joe Rogan doesn't move culture by himself. It doesn't matter how many presidential candidates he talks to, he has had multiple guests on his show that have already been kicked off mainstream platforms like Twitter, Youtube, and Facebook. I guarantee there will be controversy for Spotify if Rogan continues to have on this type of guest in the future.

Nonsense. Nobody cares about the fact that he is willing to have a conversation with just about anyone, except the whiny cancel culture twitter mob. We need more conversations with people we don’t (think we) like.

His conversations are like empty calories. No substance. No hard questions. 100% ego stroking. His podcast is basically an advertorial. It’s painful to watch.

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

#604

Post by coding_lobster »

toofy wrote: post #595

Rogan’s claim to be doing this as message to Youtube is silly. He’s signing a contract to do a “podcast” with spotify where his “podcast” will not be a podcast at all. Podcasts are not platform specific. They’re open and distributed to any app which can read the RSS file. This is nothing but an act on his part to appeal to the outrage brigade. Re spotify, theyve been heavily ramping up their podcasts lately and doing…

I've never heard about the "podcast" quality being conditioned on platform availability.

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

#605

Post by Dobbs »

gadders wrote: post #573
darawk wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's pretty arguable. Hate speech laws in the UK have been used in pretty questionable ways: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/stephen-birrell-s-convic... https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-19883828 https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/03/satanic-isla... This is just a small selection. Obviously the UK has not "devolved into a dictatorship", but it is clearly censoring non-violent political…

Count Dankula was a big case as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Meechan#Arrest

He was arrested and convicted for literally saying "gas the jews". That is inciting violence, and a very clear case of hate speech.

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

#606

Post by jaspax »

JohnBooty wrote: post #393
ravenstine wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if he got his "day in court", and I'm not sure he deserved one since these platforms can do what they want on an individual basis. What is dangerous is a handful of platforms dominating communication and then conspiring to censor the same person all at the same time, which is exactly what happened with Alex Jones. Though it seems reasonable to tell an undesirable to "find your own X", it's also a sentime…

The challenge with giving an equal platform to bad-faith disinformation artists like Alex Jones is that it's simply not a fair fight. Respectable news reporting organizations are bound by an obligation to research and vet their stories. People like Alex Jones are not, and they can look 95% as slickly presented as a "real" news organization for 1% of the cost and 0% of the moral obligations. They can churn this stuff…

> Respectable news reporting organizations are bound by an obligation to research and vet their stories.

Bound by whom? Where is this obligation written? Who holds them to it? What are the consequences if they break it?

Or more to the point: what consequences have they suffered for the fact that they have already broken this obligation over and over again over the past decades?

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

#607

Post by [deleted] »

coding_lobster wrote: post #604
toofy wrote: post #595

Rogan’s claim to be doing this as message to Youtube is silly. He’s signing a contract to do a “podcast” with spotify where his “podcast” will not be a podcast at all. Podcasts are not platform specific. They’re open and distributed to any app which can read the RSS file. This is nothing but an act on his part to appeal to the outrage brigade. Re spotify, theyve been heavily ramping up their podcasts lately and doing…

I've never heard about the "podcast" quality being conditioned on platform availability.

[deleted]

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

#608

Post by coding_lobster »

antonyh wrote: post #592
chasebank wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be more in line with your local library refusing to catalog your book. Youtube is a content host, not a publisher.

YouTube looks a lot like a content publisher to me. It's a monitisation platform. It transcodes for devices. It indexes the content and makes search & discovery available. Even the terminology is consistent with publisher - channel, subscriber, and so on. If the content is explicitly uploaded to YT, then how is it not a publisher?

> YouTube looks a lot like a content publisher to me. It's a monitisation platform. It transcodes for devices. It indexes the content and makes search & discovery available.

The monetization aspect seems to be the only differentiation between what would consist a virtual library and a publisher.

And we know how difficult it is to get monetized on YouTube and make it a viable source of income.

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

#609

Post by rorykoehler »

ilaksh wrote: post #533
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…

It's probably well over $100 million dollars. I would love to see you stand on those principles of yours and turn down $100 million dollars.

It’s $100m on the dot. JR is already a multi-millionaire. Surely there is a point where money buys you the ability to live by your principles otherwise what’s the point in having principles at all?

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

#610

Post by leereeves »

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?

Even the Supreme Court has called social media "the modern public square".

> what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square.

The power to ban someone from social media is the power to cut them off from society. That's too much power for any private corporation to hold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packingham_v._North_Carolina

Post reply on HN