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

721–730 of 781 posts

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

#721

Post by revnode »

croon wrote: post #569
revnode wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://aws.amazon.com/aup/ They explicitly prohibit content that is "offensive". "Offensive Content. Content that is defamatory, obscene, abusive, invasive of privacy ..." Pretty sure he hits a few of those? So "Amazon doesn’t give a fuck" isn't quite right.

> It's about what values we choose to uphold as a society > "Offensive Content. Content that is defamatory, obscene, abusive, invasive of privacy ..." > Pretty sure he hits a few of those? I have a hard time reconciling your two statements. The slippery slope argument is great when you encounter a (seemingly) insignificant step in the wrong direction. Banning Alex Jones on platforms is simply upholding societal value…

You're selectively quoting me. I'm pretty sure I spent a bit of time talking about tolerance and what it means.

They could have easily said we don't allow illegal content and that would be the end of it. I would be fine with that. It would mean a jury of my peers would determine if whatever was said violated our societal values.

That's not what they said. That's not what any of them say. Instead, they very clearly state that they will determine what is and what is not allowed by their standards.

They are within their legal rights to do so ... but I am in no way in support of that. I do not want Google, Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, etc. in charge of what we can and cannot say in public. We, as a society, should frown on that and those working in those companies should speak up during meetings when that is proposed.

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

#722

Post by mythrwy »

paulcole wrote: post #686
mythrwy wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't you make the same argument about gay couples in a small town rural restaurant? But would it be morally right to ban those couples from a restaurant?

You could if it was 1950. Fortunately it’s 2020 and laws exist to protect gay couples.

I'm not sure they do to the extent you suggest.

But I agree, if you open a public service you can't not rent to blacks, you can't not serve gays nor Democrats. That is how it should be.

When you open an upload streaming service to the public, _particularly_ if you have the majority market share, you have certain obligations of non discrimination. This should include religious and political viewpoints as well as race and sexual orientation.

Maybe Jones does cross the line from political discourse into trolling and incitement to violence. Not sure because I haven't watched him except on Joe Rogan. But we need to be very careful about moving that line.

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

#723

Post by mythrwy »

meheleventyone wrote: post #556
mythrwy wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't you make the same argument about gay couples in a small town rural restaurant? But would it be morally right to ban those couples from a restaurant?

Because we have decided that after decades of bigotry, violence and discrimination that the rights of gay people to their life supersede the rights of free association for public businesses.

We have? Can you show me a national law in the US that says restaurants have to serve gays?

See how the "it's a private business so they can discriminate!" works?

Keep in mind, as you mention, the shoe has been on the other foot and it will be again. It's better to enshrine and uphold these principals at all times. Not be like a dirty cop planting evidence because "he knows the suspect did it" and try to get to "Right" by cheating. In the end that blows up and it was wrong all along anyway.

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

#724

Post by unethical_ban »

Reedx wrote: post #209
jhamilton wrote: post #140

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

It's not an issue if you happen to agree this time. Next time you might not. And then it's too late, you've made your bed.

Nothing is set in stone. Everything is a spectrum, and fights for where to draw lines on a spectrum will continue in society in perpetuity.

You are absolutely right. Right now, it isn't an issue, because Alex Jones is a legitimately awful, possibly insane human being who contributes nothing to actual political discourse, and directs hatred at parents of murdered children for his schtick. It's Youtube, not the federal government.

And while I do believe "The Internet" is the public square, I don't think Youtube is /quite/ that protected yet, and I don't think Alex Jones deserves that protection.

Other people may get shut down like AJ did, and I may not like it, and I'll argue against it.

https://wannabewonk.com/gab-and-free-speech-on-the-internet/

tldr - AJ can set up a server at home or on AWS. He may have to do compressed audio only.

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

#725

Post by unethical_ban »

slg wrote: post #61

I don't listen to his show, but as a general podcast fan this is sad. This isn't the first podcast to move away from having a free and open feed of the show, but it is certainly the biggest and it opens the doors for a lot more exclusivity deals in the future.

Yep. This is like a website moving from HTTP to behind the AOL browser.

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

#726

Post by fulldecent2 »

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #701
afiori wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not entirely sure what you mean, what I am trying to say is that if someone believe he was transphobic, then it would be enriching of the conversation if they took care not to use the fact that he is making that distinction as an argument for that statement. Specifically I think it is in the interest of the side challenging the status quo to keep their arguments as precise as possible. Otherwise conversations be…

> what I am trying to say is that if someone believe he was transphobic, then it would be enriching of the conversation if they took care not to use the fact that he is making that distinction as an argument for that statement Yes, I think I'm definitely not understanding you correctly. It seems like you're objectively stating that conversation would be of higher quality if people would construct arguments more like…

One more reply just to make sure we hit the depth limit...

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

#727

Post by chroma »

cameronbrown wrote: post #653
chroma wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a neighbor who has a "Queers Hate Techies" sticker on his car. I don't like it, but I don't want him banned from YouTube or Twitter or wherever he's saying crazy stuff.

If you had a sticker saying the exact opposite - would you expect to get banned?

I’d want Westboro Baptist Church to be able to have a YouTube channel. Cloudflare still does TLS termination and DDoS protection for their website https://godhatesfags.com so it doesn’t seem totally out of the question.

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

#728

Post by chroma »

Dobbs wrote: post #605
gadders wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It was clearly a joke. Are we also going to ban stand-up comedians for making Holocaust jokes?

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

#729

Post by jokit »

I hope and doubt this will change JRE much.

On the topic of libertarianism..

Almost all statists share some libertarian perspective on some issues. No libertarian has statist perspective on any issues. There are a lot of self proclaimed libertarians, Christians, Muslims, or people of any principle, who are incorrect. Unlike "Republican" and "Democratic" which don't mean anything, "libertarian" means something. You can claim you are "libertarian" just like you can claim you're a "martian", but it doesn't make it so.

Joe Rogan and Adam Carolla are not the only two who mistakenly call themselves "libertarian" at times. They just don't know what it means.

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.

Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." — L. Neil Smith

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

#730

Post by paulcole »

mythrwy wrote: post #722
paulcole wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could if it was 1950. Fortunately it’s 2020 and laws exist to protect gay couples.

I'm not sure they do to the extent you suggest. But I agree, if you open a public service you can't not rent to blacks, you can't not serve gays nor Democrats. That is how it should be. When you open an upload streaming service to the public, _particularly_ if you have the majority market share, you have certain obligations of non discrimination. This should include religious and political viewpoints as well as race…

I was replying to what you specifically said:

> Couldn't you make the same argument about gay couples in a small town rural restaurant?

And the answer is "no, you can't."

Post reply on HN