Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spotify reportedly fighting with employees about hosting episodes of Joe Rogan

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 328 posts

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

#171

Post by ALittleLight »

hervature wrote: post #134
pseudalopex wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Rogan tell Jones instead of his fans?

That's a good question. Contractual obligations with Spotify? I've been pondering this for a while. It does seem somewhat plausible because some of the episodes removed weren't controversial. Rogan also hasn't commented on this. It's also unclear whether he would deny it even if it was false. I've also been wondering why would Alex Jones lie about this? If he was going to create a narrative, I would expect it to have…

How does that make sense as a contractual obligation?

"You can leave some episodes up on YouTube to attract more fans... BUT you can never publicly explain why you're doing so directly, though feel free to tell your friends and they can tell the public."

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

#172

Post by raincom »

tootie wrote: post #15
asquabventured wrote: post #8

Identity politics will destroy our country. Whatever happened to freedom of thought? Shameful

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. Rogan is mostly an opinion guy but he has spread covid disinformation and hosted guests like Alex Jones who say things like Sandy Hook was staged. That's not harmless self-expression. Spotify is under no obligation to host anyone's content and certainly not required to pay $100M for content that is detrimental to society.

Every fact is theory-laden. There are no theory-neutral facts. What usually happens in natural sciences is that one theory wins over others; therefore, there is no dispute about facts such as "2 + 2 = 4" or "the speed of sound is ...".

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

#173

Post by vinay427 »

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…

Where is this travel advice coming from? It sounds like typical cultural ignorance to me. I'm American and (when I lived there) would have no qualms talking about politics with seemingly everyone regardless of meal time. There are certainly some people who will have a stronger response these days due to increased polarization, but if you speak sensibly and thoughtfully it's difficult to see it becoming an issue.

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

#174

Post by johnisgood »

gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #90
alphachloride wrote: post #76

What constitutes transphobic exactly? Is it in the eye of the beholder, like porn: you'll know it when you see it?

It’s fundamentally postmodern: impact matters, not intent. Meaning: if someone’s triggered and distressed by anything and you trigger them, you’re in the wrong, not them.

Some people need some stoicism in their life for sure.

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

#175

Post by hnzix »

tmpz22 wrote: post #162
hnzix wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Just curious, what are some constructive criticisms or areas of improvement that could make the Joe Roegan podcast better? Also how long have you been listening to his show?

I've been listening since close to the start. I much prefer the episodes around science, music and nutrition but this is HN after all.

My biggest criticism is the new format of recording multiple episodes per day. I totally understand the logistics, but I find Rogan gets tired and interacts less with the guest and the episode falls flat. The best part of JRE is Rogan's engaged curiosity.

I'd rather have one high quality episode per week than gambling on how tired Joe is. I've actually stopped listening regularly because of this format change.

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

#176

Post by retrac »

1270018000 wrote: post #161
throwawaysea wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False. Neither freedom of speech nor censorship are tied to the concept of a government. They are much more fundamental and basic than that. Additionally large tech platforms control enough of societal discourse that they function as defector public squares. Censorship by tech companies is as effective as censorship by governments.

Here is the first amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Or to quote the Supreme Court of Canada:

> The protection of freedom of expression is premised upon fundamental principles and values that promote the search for and attainment of truth, participation in social and political decision-making and the opportunity for individual self-fulfillment through expression.

There is a legalistic sense of free expression/speech in various countries, yes. But it is also a philosophy and worldview that goes far beyond a legalistic sense. One that emphasizes toleration of dissent and competing views as a process to find truth, and one that recognizes the inherent importance of expression in human actualization and dignity. In that broader sense, the state/non-state distinction starts to fade away.

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

#177

Post by ALittleLight »

There's a quote in the Vice article that this seems to be based on discussing a recent guest Shrier who wrote a book against transgender youth.

"She also described wanting to transition as a "contagion" with the potential to infect other children, an entirely scientifically baseless idea, Men's Health noted."

The idea that transgender identification is, in part, a social contagion, is the subject of academic research. [1]

It seems odd and inappropriate to me that Vice, and consequently Business Insider, cite "Men's Health" magazine as the definitive source on what is or isn't scientific and ignore actual academic research on the topic. It's also dishonest that they phrased it to elide the "social" part of the phrase, to make it seem as if the guest were claiming trans identification is communicated as a disease is.

Articles like this are something of a depressing reminder that journalists are basically bloggers who quickly bang out a story about current events for their audience. I think, ideally, journalists would try a bit harder to be fair and impartial.

1 - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6095578/

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

#178

Post by ithkuil »

1270018000 wrote: post #159
xfitm3 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

Did Joe Rogan literally proclaim himself as a neo-nazi or is it a hyperbole? Genuinely curious, since a quick web search didn't shed any light in that question

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

#179

Post by manquer »

whoisjuan wrote: post #67
graeme wrote: post #46

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 RSS distribution is hard to monetize. That's why a big part of the JRE podcast business model was uploading the videos to YouTube and also create all the highlights and such. 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 brok…

Being on Spotify and being exclusively on Spotify is not the same.

Given his reach he can make good money doing commericals within the podcast itself and do perhaps commerical free deal with Spotify.

Distribution is not that hard, discovery is hard . Monetization is hard.

Distribution is fairly easy today , it is not like 80s or 90s where distribution meant cassette and cd in every retailer. In 2000s the tech was possible but not cheap enough for a independent producer. Today the tech is accessible too.

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

#180

Post by jb775 »

mikece wrote: post #4

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.

Can't see Rogan agreeing to any type of content moderation.

It baffles me when people think it's acceptable to throw freedom of speech out the window just because someone is offended.

Post reply on HN