61–70 of 328 posts
Hosting content should not be treated the same supporting it. Plain and simple. A host should have the right to curate the (legal) content they host according to whatever rules they want, but simply hosting it alone should not be treated as tacit endorcement. Otherwise, discenting voices will be left without a platform.
I guess they're focusing on the JRE podcast because it's so popular, but they already host podcasts that you'd think their "LGBTQAI+/ally" employees would be up in arms about. Just a quick look through the recommended podcasts in the web player, and I see Ben Shapiro's podcast on there, who has much more extreme views on LGBT rights than Joe Rogan does.
Hosting content should not be treated the same supporting it. Plain and simple. A host should have the right to curate the (legal) content they host according to whatever rules they want, but simply hosting it alone should not be treated as tacit endorcement. Otherwise, discenting voices will be left without a platform.
The article is pretty sensationalized - it does not explicitly cite what the employees were looking for or what the leadership was willing to do. We've got the content of two employees' questions, a comment from the CEO that doesn't seem to be a response to either of them, a canned response from a comms person after the fact, and a rehash of Rogan's latest controversies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They signed an exclusive deal with Joe Rogan. I don't know if they intended to send that signal, but it made me check them out for exactly that reason.
Spotify has already made the decision to exclude multiple Joe Rogan episodes from their catalog, this is just a decision of where they draw their line.
We have lost our minds: the ability to freely and discuss literally any topic was an American staple. Now you don’t dare say something that could potentially offend someone.
I could be fired if I said what I really think about some controversial issues and linked it to my identity. That’s not a world I enjoy living in.
Lol but they’ve got no problem with Spotify hosting Eminem songs since it’s inception? This is ridiculous.
Eminem never said that trans-women shouldn't be allowed to compete in womens-MMA fighting.
I’m curious what his contract with them stipulates on these matters. As for the employees, they could contact Rogan and either ask to come on the show to discuss what they find so offensive. Joe will talk to anyone, let them have their say and explain their point of view. Arguing to censor his episode history only sends the message that Spotify isn’t a platform for intellectual curiosity and free speech.
> As for the employees, they could contact Rogan and either ask to come on the show to discuss what they find so offensive. If you think that somebody is spreading misinformation and is not arguing in good faith, why on earth would you discuss things on a platform where that person controls the editing? That sounds like a recipe for giving somebody the air of legitimacy while having no chance of convincing anybody.
This is rather funny, because all the incentives are backwards. Joe Rogan used to be available on rss, and anyone could listen in any podcast player. Now Spotify bought him out, limiting his reach and making him only available on spotify. If the employees succeed, Rogan will revert to rss and become....more widely available. I am deeply opposed to Spotify’s efforts to close off the podcast ecosystem, so I hope the em…
But in YouTube they got several videos demonetized, so there's really no escape.
This is the distribution problem. If you don't have distribution and rely on others for that you have to play by their rules even if they are ridiculous or broken.
I think that the canonical solution for Spotify would be to not run ads on the "controversial" episodes. Either way it doesn't affect JR since his contract seems to be lump sums of money for keep creating the content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One thing is free speech and another is giving a platform to dubious characters for them to promote their views unchallenged. What's the risk? you might be smart enough to know better but other's will use Rogan's vouching of X personality to validate their view points "well he was invited to Rogan's show so he must be important and must be listened to! have YOU been featured in Rogan's show?". I'll remind you that a…
> One thing is free speech and another is giving a platform to dubious characters for them to promote their views unchallenged Those are literally the same thing. Free speech means ideas compete on their merits in a marketplace of ideas and no central authority gets to decide which ideas are worth considering. You can be against free speech --- many people are these days --- but you don't get to claim to be in favor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spotify has already made the decision to exclude multiple Joe Rogan episodes from their catalog, this is just a decision of where they draw their line.
This is unfortunate and unacceptable. Joe should have a free and censorship free place to discuss topics. We have lost our minds: the ability to freely and discuss literally any topic was an American staple. Now you don’t dare say something that could potentially offend someone. I could be fired if I said what I really think about some controversial issues and linked it to my identity. That’s not a world I enjoy livi…