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

731–740 of 781 posts

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

#731

Post by karatestomp »

rtkwe wrote: post #386
karatestomp wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RSS pointing to audio files versus a closed platform. Same way a WhatsApp message isn't an email.

That's mixing the medium and the content to me like how Art Deco isn't just architecture it's a style.

If they broadcast them over radio, is it still a podcast? Emailed out the audio files to a mailing list? Distributed them on cassette tape? It seems to me the format is part of it. RSS or something equivalent (Atom), feeding audio files to whatever client you bring, is a podcast. Youtube videos aren't podcasts just because I listen to them in the background (though one might also have a youtube video of one's podcasts) or because I could youtube-dl the audio and listen to it. The format is what gave it the name—if you can't consume it in a podcast client, it's not a podcast. My physical mailbox and my email box both contain pretty similar things, but my email reader can't read my physical mail, because it's not email. If you send me a letter, I don't receive an email, because you didn't send one. If you publish your audio interviews in a closed platform, I can't receive a podcast, because you're not publishing one.

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

#732

Post by mythrwy »

paulcole wrote: post #730
mythrwy wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Well actually yes, you very clearly could.

Perhaps the restaurant is in a religiously conservative community and people won't eat there with their children if the restaurant has openly gay couples in attendance. So the gay couples being in the restaurant could negatively impact business.

What law prevents this? I'm not sure there is one in most of the U.S. Twitter and Reddit's opinion aren't so far law.

So the bottom line is yes, you could make the same argument.

But I think we both recognize this is morally unfair. When you provide a public venue, or offer something for sale to the public you have certain responsibilities towards non discrimination.

The fact the people being discriminated against are people you don't like or disagree with is irrelevant to this.

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

#733

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrryan »

jokit wrote: post #729

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 ca…

This is a little "no true Scotsman," no?

Self-identification is probably the best indicator we've got for whether a label applies to a person. If enough new people label themselves a thing, and use the word to mean something different, I'd argue the word itself has begun to change, or at least has aquired multiple definitions.

Coopting a label in the political sense sucks (see: "liberal"), but from a linguistic perspective it's silly to pretend language doesn't evolve.

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

#734

Post by RyJones »

zethraeus wrote: post #337
RyJones wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did radio die when Howard Stern signed with Sirius?

I could never set up my own radio station :). The point of spotify moving into podcasts is to make a netflix-like channel that 1) attracts user and so 2) attracts more publishers. In turn, Spotify can do dynamically targeted and unskippable advertising which attracts more advertisers, and so more publishers. As users and publishers leave the open, rss based, podcast world will have significant downwards pressure.

Point taken.

I am a paid subscriber to Stratechery and Dithering; I hope this model wins. The creators get paid directly.

https://stratechery.com/podcasts/

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

#735

Post by nailer »

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…

> 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.

Do you think Alex Jones should not have been talking about Epstein having a pedophile island, or promote a study by MIT about the effect of groundwater pollution on animals?

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

#736

Post by nailer »

willis936 wrote: post #469
isoskeles wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whose lives did Alex Jones threaten?

> 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...

> Is this a genuine question?

Incredulity is not an argument, nor does the link you provided have any information on Alex Jones threatening anyone's life.

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

#737

Post by jumpman500 »

alexmingoia wrote: post #445
jumpman500 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? They might be able to legitimately compete with Youtube. I watch a lot of podcast clips on Youtube but would much rather view it ad-free on Spotify.

You can view YouTube ad-free by paying, just like Spotify.

True. But I'd never pay for ad-free Youtube. Gladly already paying for Spotify.

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

#738

Post by afiori »

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…

This is close to what I am saying. If people want to use that argument they are free to do so, I intend to keep butting and try to steel man the opposing position without strawmanning their argument.

In part I see this as trying to avoid the `Proving too Much` fallacy [ https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/13/proving-too-much/ ]

Also I need to confess that, no, I do not actually want people to argue like I do, I argue this way because otherwise I would make terrible, inconsistent, and vague arguments. Many other people are better than me and they do not need a whole paragraph where they preemptively state their intentions.

Overall I believe that there is great value in trying to find a common ground we can agree on and base the discussion. In my perception arguments in forums like this one should be the complete opposite of a debate. If I believe A is true and you believe B is true and they are mutually exclusive, I believe that the "proper" way to argue my position by exposing the basis of my opinion so that you can both understand why I believe A and explain me your interpretation of those positions.

Now I am devolving into rambling, but I think that shaping conversations as debate is indeed damaging. As an example if I am convinced of A by some internal reasoning and you prove not A to me then only half the job is done. We (or I) need to also resolve the conflict between my internal reasoning and what you are saying. Or at the very least take note of the fact that there is an internal conflict to be resolved.

There is no foundation in anything for this opinion, but I believe that the lack of this second step in the popular sciences made the scientific community elitist and was fertilizer for things like antivaxxers.

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

#739

Post by UncleMeat »

RaleyField wrote: post #459
UncleMeat wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He took a topic that isn't inherently transphobic and added transphobia . He was rightly criticized for saying this.

You are choosing the most uncharitable reading which is not what he meant. How do I know that? Because, despite his meatheaddy appearances, he has consistently shown himself to not be transphobic, I watch his show. What he wanted to say is that her sex was biologically of male and that's why she has in this specific case unduly enormous advantage, to a degree that she is depriving others of fair chance at competing.

Transphobia is a property of actions, not an immutable property of people. Rogan may not hold transphobic beliefs. That does not stop a particular action from being harmful.

This isn't a judgement on his person. I don't want to shoot him into space. I want people to recognize that this specific sentence is harmful and we can be better than that. We can have conversations around transgender people in sports without using the same exact same phrasing as people who want to kick them out of their homes and call them freaks.

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

#740

Post by vokep »

virvar wrote: post #594
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…

I always found America’s grips on these things a tad weird. In my country you’re accountable to print the truth, and if you don’t, it comes with fines or even prison time. Because lying to the public is dangerous. That hasn’t stopped opinion pieces, but it has stopped media outlets from printing things like “the earth is flat” or “drinking bleach cures covid”. Unfortunately this is yet to apply to social media stars,…

>you’re accountable to print the truth

Whatever portion of government handles that in your country, is quite literally analogous to the "Ministry of Truth" in 1984.

>Do you really think you can have a functioning democracy when people live in completely different bubbles of subjective truth?

Nobody knows, its always been an experiment. The experiment is done with the basis that other ways of going about it (some system of enforcing a consistent "truth" among all citizens) would be totalitarian and tend towards tyranny every single time.

Post reply on HN