Live data from Hacker News

Spotify censored Joe Rogan episodes

reddit.com

11–20 of 45 posts

Re: Spotify censored Joe Rogan episodes

#11

I don't know his show, but these are probably the episodes that are most interesting. Controversial stuff is often the most interesting...

I think some of these might just be cleaning up for advertising? e.g. "Sarkon of Akkad" (Carl Benjamin) is an unpleasant liar who once declared "I wouldn't even rape you" to a politician online - not exactly perfect for advertiser's on Spotify Free?

Re: Spotify censored Joe Rogan episodes

#13

I don't enjoy being the one to say this but censored is the wrong word. Censoring is something governments do. We can't keep using the wrong words and expect communication and discourse to improve. Words matter.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor

As a verb, it's used the same as Merriam Webster defines it. There is no need for it to be the government, just someone that is suppressing or deleting things that are objectionable.

Everyone knows what is meant here, so there's no problem with the clarity of communication.

Re: Spotify censored Joe Rogan episodes

#14
post #11

I don't know his show, but these are probably the episodes that are most interesting. Controversial stuff is often the most interesting...

I think some of these might just be cleaning up for advertising? e.g. "Sarkon of Akkad" (Carl Benjamin) is an unpleasant liar who once declared "I wouldn't even rape you" to a politician online - not exactly perfect for advertiser's on Spotify Free?

Hm, yes "cleaned up" content for advertisers would fall exactly into that category. I think he should prefer platforms where advertisers cannot make editorial decisions. This should be clearly communicated to users, so that animosity from controversial topics is not directed at advertisers.

Re: Spotify censored Joe Rogan episodes

#15

Now we know which episodes are the most interesting. Also which guests reveal who/what can't be criticised or discussed. That said, I'm not surprised that Alex "they're turnin' the friggin frogs gay" Jones is on that list.

I suspect this has to be more to do with particular things said on these episodes that may make Spotify legally liable, rather than a blacklist of people. Eddie Bravo and Joey Diaz have been on tons of episodes other than the ones listed. I can't even imagine JRE without Joey as a regular.

Some people strike me as particularly odd for blacklisting: Louis Theroux, Brian Dunning and Rickson Gracie must be politically uncontroversial, unless I'm missing something.

Re: Spotify censored Joe Rogan episodes

#16
Really, a link to a reddit thread? Can't we get something resembling journalism instead of ranting fanboys spreading rumors.

I recognize few people on that list but I can see why Spotify wouldn't want the headache with advertisers over Alex Jones, Milo Y and Gavin Mcinnes. Rogan chose this when he went exclusive with Spotify.

Re: Spotify censored Joe Rogan episodes

#17

I don't enjoy being the one to say this but censored is the wrong word. Censoring is something governments do. We can't keep using the wrong words and expect communication and discourse to improve. Words matter.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor As a verb, it's used the same as Merriam Webster defines it. There is no need for it to be the government, just someone that is suppressing or deleting things that are objectionable. Everyone knows what is meant here, so there's no problem with the clarity of communication.

Here? Maybe. But here isn't always here. There is zero value in perpetuating a false narrative. We can't maintain an affinity for LCD and still expect positive change.

Finally, you're making assumptions. I'll leave it at that.

Re: Spotify censored Joe Rogan episodes

#18

I don't enjoy being the one to say this but censored is the wrong word. Censoring is something governments do. We can't keep using the wrong words and expect communication and discourse to improve. Words matter.

No, it isn't, please stop repeating this misconception. Censoring and censorship are not limited to governments.

Many TV stations literally have censorship departments, whose job it is to decide what is and isn't shown, in line with the agenda of the network, not merely what the law mandates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship

Re: Spotify censored Joe Rogan episodes

#19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor As a verb, it's used the same as Merriam Webster defines it. There is no need for it to be the government, just someone that is suppressing or deleting things that are objectionable. Everyone knows what is meant here, so there's no problem with the clarity of communication.

Here? Maybe. But here isn't always here. There is zero value in perpetuating a false narrative. We can't maintain an affinity for LCD and still expect positive change. Finally, you're making assumptions. I'll leave it at that.

> There is zero value in perpetuating a false narrative.

I agree, it just happens that your narrative is wrong.

There are important distinction to be made between government and private censorship, of course. Nevertheless, the word "censorship" never implies "government censorship".

Re: Spotify censored Joe Rogan episodes

#20

Now we know which episodes are the most interesting. Also which guests reveal who/what can't be criticised or discussed. That said, I'm not surprised that Alex "they're turnin' the friggin frogs gay" Jones is on that list.

Yes, things being put into water were claimed by scientist to be turning frogs gay, which is why he made the comment.

"Scientists are continuing to sound the alarm about some common chemicals, including the herbicide atrazine, and link them to changes in reproductive health and development. Endocrine disrupting toxic chemicals have been found to feminize male frogs and cause homosexual behavior. "

(2011) https://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=11-P13-000...

He even goes to lengths to say he doesn't hate gay people, he just doesn't want to be turned gay without consent.

"And I'm not saying people didn't naturally have homosexual feelings. I'm not even getting into it, quite frankly. I mean, give me a break. Do you think I'm like, oh, shocked by it, so I'm up here bashing it because I don't like gay people?"

Him saying it, and I do get what he's doing, putting real media bullshit together to form a narrative -

https://youtu.be/THFoayEgsV8?t=291

So yes, I do want to see him, it's important to see what he's really like. It takes to seconds for his fans to know the frogs are gay from polluted water is a science thing.

Post reply on HN