Spotify reportedly fighting with employees about hosting episodes of Joe Rogan • Hacker News Board

Re: Spotify reportedly fighting with employees about hosting episodes of Joe Rogan

#151

Post by reincarnate0x14 » Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 4:56 AM UTC

dkdk8283 wrote: post #64

mef79 wrote: post #47

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…

This was always the case, it's only that recently you feel it's been extended to your particular issues.

At various times in the history of the US specifically, but analogues exist in most other places, you could have been fired or otherwise pariah'ed for:

Freely discussing the conditions and rights of laborers

Discussing political ideologies like communism

Discussing various sects of Christian belief

Discussing Non-Christian beliefs

Being for or against political popular movements

Being against police authority

Discussing or demonstrating opposition to wars

Simply being one of a set of ethnicities

Being, or discussing, being gay

Being, or discussing, being an atheist

While I personally think that Joe Rogan's podcast, the conversations of a pedestrian comedian and self-professed moron who sometimes lands interesting guests, is a strange hill for Spotify to be fighting on, there was no time in US history that such "unfortunate and unacceptable" events weren't happening.

McCarthyism and the blacklisting of many otherwise wealthy entertainers is usually the textbook case of this and that is within living memory. This sickness is rooted deeply in American culture, and we only think there was some reprieve due to the academic freedoms and immense prosperity of a post-WW2 boom era that ended 40 years ago, followed by a brief period of online semi-anonymous expression that lasted until around 2000 when the great masses finally found it and brought it back to the baseline awfulness of the rest of the culture

Re: Spotify reportedly fighting with employees about hosting episodes of Joe Rogan

#152

Post by scruple » Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 4:59 AM UTC

t_sawyer wrote: post #5

Lol but they’ve got no problem with Spotify hosting Eminem songs since it’s inception? This is ridiculous.

I'm not arguing one way or the other here, just pointing out the absurdity of the situation... They apparently won't host Chris D'Elia's appearances on the JRE podcast but they host his comedy albums. Brilliant.

Re: Spotify reportedly fighting with employees about hosting episodes of Joe Rogan

#153

Post by jjeaff » Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 5:00 AM UTC

bdibs wrote: post #66

MereInterest wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Except Rogan’s podcast is full length and unedited, which is exactly why he chose the format.

They do cut things out at times. Which is also why they don't love stream it anymore. They needed to be able to cut out certain things. Though I don't know what their criteria is.

Re: Spotify reportedly fighting with employees about hosting episodes of Joe Rogan

#154

Post by StillBored » Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 5:00 AM UTC

not_a_moth wrote: post #98

As a long time listener I will go to bat for Joe's show, he is a loving, rational, open person, and he simply does not platform hateful people or not challenge unjust statements. Some media, political actors, and certain people who don't listen to his show want to spin him as a hate speech alt-righter, especially now on this election year since he platforms Bernie and Tulsi but is against Biden. Find the amount of ba…

Yah, people on both sides condemn him because he will have Alex Jones on his show one week and then Bernie the next, two people about as far from each other as possible.

He reminds me a bit of Charlie Rose's ability to just talk to people on both sides of the political spectrum. And do it without creating a lot of drama. And like Charlie Rose, he will call people's BS (and let them call his), but then move on before it gets heated.

So everyone can find something to hate about him if they try for 1/2 a second, but in reality I think those people are the problem, which is actually one of ongoing central themes he carries, when he talks about how he doesn't read the comments on his episodes/etc anymore. Personally, I believe there is a place for the social shunning (and alex jones might be one of them), but I'm also of the opinion its being wielded for petty/trivial things by people who are only interested in censoring people they don't agree with. This article being one of them. The guy literally has something like 3k+ hours of conversations online, and they find a couple sentences they find challenges their world and they are trying to deplatform him. I'm actually a fairly large supporter of "you can do anything you want in your bedroom" which extends to marrying anyone you please. But I don't really need gay pride flags, and lunch and learns about it at work. The people trying to shout him down are doing more to harm their cause IMHO than JRE ever could.

Re: Spotify reportedly fighting with employees about hosting episodes of Joe Rogan

#155

Post by xnxn » Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 5:01 AM UTC

hnzix wrote: post #132

omosubi wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like Rogan's podcast but he definitely won't talk to anyone - When was the last time there was someone on that didn't agree with him on the major issue or issues they were brought on the podcast to discuss? They may quibble over certain things but at the end of the day he wants to have a fun conversation and arguing with trans rights people for 2 or 3 hours isn't going to happen. Also they've already censored his h…

> When was the last time there was someone on that didn't agree with him on the major issue or issues they were brought on the podcast to discuss? Rogan's schtick is that he lets his guests explain their ideology without directly attacking it. Instead he has an assistant fact-check any claims they make, and Rogan is also very forthright about calling them out on logical inconsistencies - "you said x just before, now…

Why does he then use his own voice to breathlessly repeat debunked rumors about left-wing activists in Portland? You think he'll correct the record in the next episode?

https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-rogan-podcast-forest-fir...

Re: Spotify reportedly fighting with employees about hosting episodes of Joe Rogan

#156

Post by StringyBob » Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 5:06 AM UTC

As a Spotify premium subscriber, I don’t particularly like that a chunk of my subscription is going to their ‘exclusive podcasts’, while musicians I listen to are getting minimal payouts. I’d be much more comfortable with my subscription being split amongst the things I choose to listen to.

Re: Spotify reportedly fighting with employees about hosting episodes of Joe Rogan

#157

Post by rjtavares » Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 5:09 AM UTC

chmod775 wrote: post #150

rjtavares wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced we're worse off than in previous decades. Granted, the type of views that are "offensive" changed and there were some clear power shifts (and from your statement I assume you're on the losing side of that shift), but having to conceal your views for fear of retribution was always a thing.

Now I don't know what this was like previously, but nowadays one of the most common travel advice for vacations in the US is "Do not talk about politics with Americans. It's not a good topic for dinner conversation over there." Make of that what you will. Now what I've been wondering after hearing that advice multiple times is: What do Americans talk about at dinner and other occasions? Because here political issues…

If you're actually interested in the topic, google for a bit and you'll learn that is an old advice.

Here's a post about it: https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/nev...

Re: Spotify reportedly fighting with employees about hosting episodes of Joe Rogan

#158

Post by rjtavares » Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 5:13 AM UTC

xfitm3 wrote: post #143

rjtavares wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the 90s some politicians tried to ban gangsta rap, and there was an official policy that "prohibited any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing their sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces". I'm not trying to negate your experience. I'm just adding context about other people's e…

I'm not claiming the past was perfect. Some changes are absolutely positive. Here's my anecdote. I look back at films from the 80s and 90s where free speech was discussed or otherwise a component of the plot. It was unthinkable to censor thoughts, or allow the government to spy and collect data on the citizens. Both of these notions seem to have disappeared.

Government spying was unthinkable in the 80s?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12333

Re: Spotify reportedly fighting with employees about hosting episodes of Joe Rogan

#159

Post by 1270018000 » Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 5:20 AM UTC

xfitm3 wrote: post #143

rjtavares wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the 90s some politicians tried to ban gangsta rap, and there was an official policy that "prohibited any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing their sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces". I'm not trying to negate your experience. I'm just adding context about other people's e…

I'm not claiming the past was perfect. Some changes are absolutely positive. Here's my anecdote. I look back at films from the 80s and 90s where free speech was discussed or otherwise a component of the plot. It was unthinkable to censor thoughts, or allow the government to spy and collect data on the citizens. Both of these notions seem to have disappeared.

Private companies censoring isn't a new thing.

Regardless, information is shared as such a rate now that comparing them to anecdotes from the 80s isn't even applicable. I'd have trouble believing a radio talk show host from the 80s would host self-proclaimed neo nazis like Joe Rogan has. If anything, speech is so free now that we see opinions that wouldn't have seen the light of day a few decades ago. Which is why content hosters are having to tackle the question of what they allow, and hopefully they make the right decision.

Re: Spotify reportedly fighting with employees about hosting episodes of Joe Rogan

#160

Post by dingaling » Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 5:22 AM UTC

mef79 wrote: post #63

CivBase wrote: post #23

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.

Spotify should be permitted to host what it wants to. But they should also listen to their employees who do the work that makes the platform run. This article isn't about an angry Twitter mob making demands of a private company, it's about workers raising an issue with the company leadership and expecting an appropriate response (which does not necessarily mean removing content) The article is pretty sensationalized…

> But they should also listen to their employees who do the work that makes the platform run.

Only if those employees are presenting objective arguments e.g. "adding this podcast may lead to customers cancelling their subscriptions, or to legislation being applied".

If it's a case of "I don't like it" then the company doesn't have any obligation to listen.