Live data from Hacker News

Spotify reportedly fighting with employees about hosting episodes of Joe Rogan

businessinsider.com

231–240 of 328 posts

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

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She brought attention that people put social pressure on underage teens to get trans operation without their parents' consent. I would be very angry if it would happen to my 13-17 year old daughter, as children in that age are not yet capable of understanding the consequences of the operation for there whole life (includung shortening it and making it painful by injecting hormones).

While on one hand yes, I understand that as a parent you want to guard your children against decisions that you feel might negatively impact them you have to keep in mind that there is a reason why a teenager goes to someone else with their problems. That reason starts with your behaviour as the parent, and not with an environmental factor. That said, children are not your property. They are your responsibility. If y…

,,If you're doing your job right, they've at that point been educated about what it means when someone transitions and what sort of impact it has on their life. ,,During that talk, I expect you would speak about why you think that shouldn't happen before they're done growing.''

I have no opinion actually on whether the transition should happen or not, I'm sorry if I came out too strongly about that.

I believe it can be a good decision if a child is clearly behaving and feeling like she is a boy.

What I'm most afraid is that lesbian children thinking that heterosexual girls will like them if they transition.

The parents are responsible for the children as long as they are given the chance to respond, which is taken away by law in a few countries. But I'm right now 38 and I still have lots of secrets about my sexual life that I don't talk about with my parents, and I think that's OK, as none of them can be compared to the consequences of transitioning.

What I see really important is to make sure that people know about the changing laws, make sure that those important changes are talked about.

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

#232

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.

Free speech is not defined by the first amendment.

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

#233
post #132
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…

But narrative goes beyond just logical inconsistencies. People can make entirely bs arguments that appear internally consistent to a surface view. Rogan is absolutely not doing leftists a favor by platforming right wing personalities, even if Milo did self-destruct.

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

#234
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…

> Joe should have a free and censorship free place to discuss topics.

He does. Nobody forced him to choose a contract with Spotify.

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

#235
post #18

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.

Rogan’s views aren’t extreme no sexual reassignment for minors and no XY in female sports isn’t an extreme view.

Presentation matters. Calling somebody a "man in a dress" is wildly transphobic. He didn't dispassionately discuss his opinions about transgender people. He resorted to nasty transphobic depictions.

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

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spotify has the right to choose what is on their platform. Spotify employees have the right to voice their concerns if the company they work for is alienating them. But I guess that's not the kind of freedom you are interested in.

> But I guess that's not the kind of freedom you are interested in. I do not see a suggestion by anonu that the people they disagree with should be deprived of their freedom. To criticize people for saying something is not the same as saying they shouldn't have the right to say it. That would only be the case if somebody had an absolutely authoritarian mindset. It unnerves me how quick some are to conflate these posi…

I'm pretty sure threeseed is pointing out that anonu's comment is selective about the freedoms worthy of defense.

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

#237
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He had Abigail Shrier as a guest to promote her book called Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters , so that's kind of a bright line?

I do not agree. How is that transphobic? Is the action of inviting an author motivated by irrational fear of trans people? Are the views[1] of the author irrational and based in fear of trans people? My understanding is the author is skeptical of the rise in reported cases of gender dysphoria over time. She contends that the rise in cases is partly a result of tangential social influences that are ultimately detrimen…

> How is that transphobic?

This is a frustrating line of argument. What would make you the authority on what transphobia is?

> Are the views[1] of the author irrational and based in fear of trans people?

To "arrive" does not mean "to cross a river". To be "awesome" does not mean "to be terrifying". Meanings are not constructed by etymology. Transphobia is not "the irrational fear of transgender people".

The author is not a "rational skeptic", as clearly evidenced by her wildly biased choice of analysis presented as solid science. Her work has been widely criticized by the scientific community and is not far off from forming opinions about racial differences in IQ by asking aparthied leaders about their opinions and experiences and taking it as gospel evidence.

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

#238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to read the paragraph a few times, but I think what is being said is that "Joe has hosted self proclaimed neo-Nazis'.

Which is completely acceptable. Everyone deserves the chance to talk. You don’t have listen.

No, it’s not. Everyone deserves the chance to talk, but everyone does not deserve to be broadcast to an audience of millions.

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

#239
post #199
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hosted guests like Alex Jones who say things like Sandy Hook was staged Did you actually listen to that episode? I did, and he explicitly said that he no longer believes that. It's rather ironic that you are arguing that we should respect facts in the same post.

Alex Jones was on JRE on Feb 27, 2019, which appears to have been at the height of the litigation against him (1). I'll take your word that's what he said (so in that sense, you're right, it's a "fact"), but if you're giving him the benefit of the doubt...well, what could anyone say? He's been held in contempt of court, de-platformed, has a DWI and, more damning, has made similar inflammatory claims since. (1) - I ju…

What bothers me here is this pattern of personal destruction.

It seems that certain people have somehow been declared "unpersons". The tactic is to develop a list of the 6 or so worst-sounding things they've ever done, always phrased in the shortest and most inflammatory way and devoid of any context or later explanations that might mitigate how bad they are. Then, any time that person's name comes up, a crowd of people appears to repeat those same sound bites in various combinations over and over again. The goal is not understanding, but to discredit and destroy people. Anybody who tries to provide context or mitigating factors for the selected sound bites may become a target of the destruction too.

Alex Jones is not an angel. But then a great many people in public life have done things that can appear damming when packaged into sound bites like this. What matters is not whether Alex Jones is good or bad, but who decides what persons this tactic will be deployed against.

What also matters is what kind of world we are building with this tactic. If somebody has done something bad, do they not deserve a chance to explain themselves, give their side of the story? Maybe roll back some ideas that turned out to be a mistake. If somebody has been declared to be an unperson somehow, and the goal is to do our best to prevent them from speaking at all in any forum by shouting them and any supporters down like this, well exactly what is it that we want them to do?

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

#240
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…

> But RSS distribution is hard to monetize.

There’s quite a few podcasts with in show ads doing quite well. I think it’s possible to make more money through youtube, Spotify, etc. But it’s not hard to make money, it’s just possible to make more using techniques that are more closed.

I mean proprietary app stores make more money than open platforms, but yet Linux still exists and independent software devs with their own storefronts still exist.

Post reply on HN