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

291–300 of 328 posts

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

#291

Post by hervature »

dmingod666 wrote: post #191
hervature wrote: post #95

I am posting this because there seems to be a large misunderstanding about the Alex Jones episodes being "removed" by Spotify. I am also going to give you a warning. I am going to post a link to Infowars, yes, that Infowars. It is one of the few sources that actually attempts to clarify the story behind the "removed" episodes. If you are a reasonable person, you would take this opportunity to reevaluate the sources y…

Dude, friendly advice, listen to Infowars all you want, don't take them seriously, its bad for your mental health.

Aside from Rogan's interview, I've never listened to Alex Jones. In fact, the link to his story appears on the first page (last link) on DDG with "joe rogan alex jones removed episodes". Yes, the websites are also fake news outlets. But there's a difference between "fake news" the term. And news that is fake. We shall see if this news turns out to be fake.

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

#292

Post by hervature »

krageon wrote: post #223
hervature wrote: post #95

I am posting this because there seems to be a large misunderstanding about the Alex Jones episodes being "removed" by Spotify. I am also going to give you a warning. I am going to post a link to Infowars, yes, that Infowars. It is one of the few sources that actually attempts to clarify the story behind the "removed" episodes. If you are a reasonable person, you would take this opportunity to reevaluate the sources y…

> If you are a reasonable person Alex Jones plays an insane persona to make money off of his viewers. This is an established fact that he himself has admitted to. Thus, taking the words of what is essentially a cartoon character as any kind of truth is in itself the evidence of someone who has lost touch with reality. If that is you, you need (and deserve) help.

If you re-read my comment, the only thing that I am saying is why the mainstream media is sensationalizing this event "OMG - Alex Jones removed from Joe Rogan's Spotify :o!!" vs. actually asking for Spotify and Joe Rogan to comment. If there is no comment, there is no story.

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

#293

Post by hervature »

ALittleLight wrote: post #171
hervature wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Because the episodes are supposed to come down off Youtube later. It could also be that Rogan is supposed to keep quiet until Spotify can decide how best to proceed and if they want to reinstate other episodes (which they have already done). Joe speaking out of turn could be bad for Spotify.

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

#294

Post by jakelazaroff »

TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #290
jakelazaroff wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has been shown over [1] and over [2] and over [3] again that deplatforming is effective. So yes, they'll still find a way to talk to like-minded people, but you're incorrect if you think there will be nearly as many. You're coming at this based on the idea that everyone is rational and sensible and (re)evaluates their views based on logic. Our brains don't work like that; literally all it takes for someone to warm…

Using this reason to censor ideas that you disagree with _will_ lead to censoring ideas that you do agree with. Power corrupts, and if people have the power to censor certain ideologies, that will be corrupted and exploited.

I’m not advocating for de jure censorship of Nazism. But a “power corrupts” hypothetical about stigmatization makes no sense — society writ large has always had that power and will always have that power.

And yeah, it sucks that people on the margins of that such as sex workers get hurt, which is why we need to push to change those stigmas. But the alternative is letting open pedophiles teach your kids, or asking Jews to defeat their genocide-preaching Nazi coworkers in the “marketplace of ideas”. So all things considered it’s a fair trade.

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

#295

Post by gnusty_gnurc »

dolguldur wrote: post #206
gnusty_gnurc wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I never thought about it like this but this covers surprisingly much of what's currently happening.

If you're interested in understanding how postmodernism has been subverting meaning, motivating chaos, and how it's married to activism watch this interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xILBpDOqD-A

It does a good job summarizing key ideas from Derrida, et. al.

At the end of the day, people are frantically grasping for power by spreading doubt into all modes of communication, institutions, cultural ideas, etc.

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

#296

Post by CivBase »

krageon wrote: post #218
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.

Hosting content is plainly supporting it. You are helping it move to the people that are attached to your hosting (which is not normally a thing but of course in the case of spotify is, they have a captive audience). Edit: A lot of the rhetoric about "dissenting voices" fundamentally boils down to Nazis wanting to speak about Nazi shit and being given a platform. They do not deserve one, because the ideology quite si…

Why do people always jump to Nazis when discussing free speech issues? Seriously. Why do we have to compare every unpopular minority to the literal Third Reich?

Yes, many minority groups are absolutely terrible and deserve the contempt they get. That absolutely includes Nazis. However, many minority groups throughout history - ones who weren't advocating for genocide, eugenics, and world domination - have had to fight against oppression to have their voices heard.

Like it or not, what is ethically acceptable in a society is determined by popular consensus. Abhorrent ideals can, and have become acceptable by virtue of simply being popular. Our consensus should be challenged and evaluated regularly. If we truly are right, we should not be afraid of having our views put to the test.

Besides, if you don't expose people to alternative opinions (even terrible ones), then you never have a chance to adequately explain why those opinions are wrong. If you teach someone that something is right or wrong and never fairly address points from the opposition, that person is going to be relatively easy to convince otherwise.

We see that happen with people in political parties all the time. Someone grows up a staunch believer in a particular party's ideals, then suddenly flips when they are put in a position to consider the other party's points.

Simplifying the issue to "Nazis wanting to speak about Nazi shit" is extremely disingenuous.

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

#297

Post by CivBase »

wp381640 wrote: post #61
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.

They're not just hosting it - they bought it for $100 million

That's a good point. That effectively makes Spotify a publisher rather than a platform. I'm getting sick of companies trying to straddle the line between the two.

Even if Spotify wasn't effectively publishing the Joe Rogan Experience, I do think Spotify's employees have grounds to complain. Spotify has not built themselves as an open platform for free thought - they have built themselves as a curated music streaming service. Employees who do not want to support an open platform for free thought could be justifiably upset.

I'm just sick of open platforms in general being expected by external forces to curate their content like a publisher.

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

#298

Post by UncleMeat »

ithkuil wrote: post #276
UncleMeat wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If sensible people are immune to racial and ethnic hatred, then why have we seen it all over the place throughout history. People should have seen right through Blood Libel and not massacred all those innocent jewish people, right? Of course not. Media and narratives matter. Fascism has succeeded in the past at murdering millions of people. There is no fundamental reason why it couldn't happen again.

Of course media narrative matters! especially if you control what can be said and only say that one thing. And people go used to this and assume that if all official media is singing the same tune there is something fishy. I'm arguing that total deplatforming (not just effective criticism, I'm talking about total deplatforming) backfires. Letting people talking about things even if we don't like them, doesn't mean su…

> I'm arguing that total deplatforming (not just effective criticism, I'm talking about total deplatforming) backfires.

And I'm saying you should speak to some historians about this claim.

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

#299

Post by alphachloride »

UncleMeat wrote: post #237
alphachloride wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I do not presume to be an authority. In fact, that is what my original comment was asking: What is transphobia? You have rejected one definition but failed to provide an alternative. That leads me to the second part of my original comment: is it something subjective that you'll know when you see it?

I'll have to read her work in more depth to form an opinion on the rigor of her work. Suffice to say, I view your evaluation of her work with skepticism as well.

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

#300

Post by zarkov99 »

omosubi wrote: post #56
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.

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…

How about the jack dorsey episode? And the episode with the guy from Adam ruins everything?
Post reply on HN