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

Spotify sides with Joe Rogan, removes Neil Young’s music

nypost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 116 posts

Re: Spotify sides with Joe Rogan, removes Neil Young’s music

#71

Post by cronix »

rpd9803 wrote: post #64
beeboop wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hyperbole like this doesn't help. I'm not an advocate of ivermectin because I have no idea what the science is behind it, but calling it horse dewormer is just disingenuous. This is like the leftist version of the right wing media calling Seattle's CHOP/CHAZ a war zone.

I mean, it's not hyperbolic, it's literally used to de-worm horses.

There are horse medicines with aspirin, too. Is aspirin now a horse medicine because it contains a common ingredient? Ivermectin is also literally used by millions of humans in countries all over the globe that have parasite problems, because it's an antiparasitic. My whole photo tour group was given Ivermectin when we went to Africa before covid was even a thing.

> Ivermectin is an FDA approved drug for use in humans to treat a variety of parasitic infections including parasitic worms, hookworm and whipworm. It may also be used as an effective treatment for a wide range of other conditions and as a treatment of onchocerciasis, intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis or river blindness.

https://www.drugs.com/ivermectin.html

Re: Spotify sides with Joe Rogan, removes Neil Young’s music

#72

Post by tptacek »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #56
holbrad wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ivermectin has widely been used in various countries. You can argue about the actual effectiveness, I think I remember a pre-print study being retracted. But talking about that doesn't seem to be anywhere near the scale of dangerous public menace and should be banned.

Rogan literally said "This doctor was saying ivermectin is 99 percent effective intreating Covid" to millions of millions of his listeners. You don't find that irresponsible?

It is plainly irresponsible, but if you frame it like this in a message board comment, you're practically baiting message board nerds into taking the opposing position for sport. This whole thread is pretty silly. I think the analogy between Rogan and Stern is weak, but that's all it is: a weak argument. Spinning off into 20 comments about whether Rogan is or isn't a crank isn't getting us anywhere.

Re: Spotify sides with Joe Rogan, removes Neil Young’s music

#73

Post by dekhn »

cronix wrote: post #46
micromacrofoot wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the same kind of rhetoric Rogan uses to say nothing and make it sound like it's a worthwhile opinion. Yeah, taking ivermectin to treat covid despite doctor's advice is objectively dangerous... people have actually died trying to take horse de-wormer. Rogan still spreads this nonsense. You're appreciative of Joe having Jordan Peterson on to ramble about things like "climate doesn't exist"? In the same episode…

> despite doctor's advice Despite some doctor's advice.... Joe's doctor prescribed him human grade ivermectin, not "horse dewormer." HIS doctor. So HIS doctors advice was to take it, along with monoclonal antibodies, along with vitamins, and other things. He listened to HIS doctor, and recovered, and then told people what HE did. So it's Joe's fault some idiots took horse dewormer after he never mentioned those words…

Yes, Rogan was quite smart to get a real prescription and to get the actual human medical product. CNN (and other news agencies, and people on twitter) were outright foolish in attempting to make him look dumb (he won that round). I am quite irked at the people who thought the way to recommend not taking ivermectin is to shame people.

That said if he is smart enough to anticipate what people are going to say and adjust his actions to negate them, you'd think he'd also be smart enough to see that there really isn't any strong evidence for ivermectin being useful, and it's also possible you can take the drug, have no positive or negative effects, and get better from COVID, even if ivermectin made no difference. From that perspective, thing he did that was bad was "not even being wrong" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong) in the sense that we can't say really much of anything about his experience representing a generally useful medical advice.

Rogan is smarter than the average bear, but he's not in the club of the smartest bears.

Re: Spotify sides with Joe Rogan, removes Neil Young’s music

#74

Post by tptacek »

NoLinkToMe wrote: post #25
rayiner wrote: post #19

The reaction to Rogan is like the religious right’s reaction to Howard Stern. If you don’t like it don’t listen to his show.

There's 'don't like' and then there's 'dangerous anti-scientific medical advice'. Can you appreciate there's a difference?

No, he doesn't, or he wouldn't have made the analogy. He's not dumb, and he knows the rap on Rogan. His position seems pretty clearly to be "if you don't want awful, dangerous medical advice, don't listen to the show", which is a coherent argument, just as "if you don't want to work in partnership with a company that has a significant financial interest in promoting dangerous medical advice, you should dissolve your partnership" is both a coherent and compatible argument.

What you've got here is an attempt to win this debate by DQ'ing his argument. That's never going to work, not least because it doesn't engage with the substance of what he's saying. Instead, it just invited a bunch of comments sticking up for ivermectin; it had the opposite outcome to what your premise suggests you wanted.

Re: Spotify sides with Joe Rogan, removes Neil Young’s music

#75

Post by micromacrofoot »

tptacek wrote: post #72
micromacrofoot wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rogan literally said "This doctor was saying ivermectin is 99 percent effective intreating Covid" to millions of millions of his listeners. You don't find that irresponsible?

It is plainly irresponsible, but if you frame it like this in a message board comment, you're practically baiting message board nerds into taking the opposing position for sport. This whole thread is pretty silly. I think the analogy between Rogan and Stern is weak, but that's all it is: a weak argument. Spinning off into 20 comments about whether Rogan is or isn't a crank isn't getting us anywhere.

I will have this argument as long as people insist Rogan's not a total crank. There are a lot of people that look to this guy for their worldview, which would be fine if it didn't occasionally skew into dangerous nonsense and outright denialism. People have been suing hospitals to get ivermectin treatments because of this nonsense.

Re: Spotify sides with Joe Rogan, removes Neil Young’s music

#76

Post by holbrad »

rpd9803 wrote: post #64
beeboop wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hyperbole like this doesn't help. I'm not an advocate of ivermectin because I have no idea what the science is behind it, but calling it horse dewormer is just disingenuous. This is like the leftist version of the right wing media calling Seattle's CHOP/CHAZ a war zone.

I mean, it's not hyperbolic, it's literally used to de-worm horses.

I agree that hyperbolic isn't the right word, but do you really think people who call it horse de-wormer* are really being genuine.

*(Outside the context of literally treating horses)

Re: Spotify sides with Joe Rogan, removes Neil Young’s music

#77

Post by cronix »

drcongo wrote: post #53
drcongo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One that lacks substance and likely couldn't actually be proven as stated https://twitter.com/joerogan/status/6907616035?s=20

Looks like the Rogan apologists have a similar relationship with proof as the man himself. Suddenly they're all quiet.

Because Joe was commenting on the HuffPost article that was linked in his tweet? I missed where he was actually giving advice? Commenting on something you read is not "giving advice," generally.

Re: Spotify sides with Joe Rogan, removes Neil Young’s music

#78

Post by micromacrofoot »

cronix wrote: post #46
micromacrofoot wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the same kind of rhetoric Rogan uses to say nothing and make it sound like it's a worthwhile opinion. Yeah, taking ivermectin to treat covid despite doctor's advice is objectively dangerous... people have actually died trying to take horse de-wormer. Rogan still spreads this nonsense. You're appreciative of Joe having Jordan Peterson on to ramble about things like "climate doesn't exist"? In the same episode…

> despite doctor's advice Despite some doctor's advice.... Joe's doctor prescribed him human grade ivermectin, not "horse dewormer." HIS doctor. So HIS doctors advice was to take it, along with monoclonal antibodies, along with vitamins, and other things. He listened to HIS doctor, and recovered, and then told people what HE did. So it's Joe's fault some idiots took horse dewormer after he never mentioned those words…

“This doctor was saying ivermectin is 99 percent effective in treating Covid, but you don’t hear about it because you can’t fund vaccines when it’s an effective treatment,”

Actual quote. The guy spins it as "big pharma doesn't want you to know about this" so of course people are going off script. He's a dangerous moron.

Re: Spotify sides with Joe Rogan, removes Neil Young’s music

#79

Post by dekhn »

rpd9803 wrote: post #64
beeboop wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hyperbole like this doesn't help. I'm not an advocate of ivermectin because I have no idea what the science is behind it, but calling it horse dewormer is just disingenuous. This is like the leftist version of the right wing media calling Seattle's CHOP/CHAZ a war zone.

I mean, it's not hyperbolic, it's literally used to de-worm horses.

"horse dewormer" is a type of medicine you can buy which is intended to be given to horses to deworm them. it's a different product from "people dewormer" (we call it an anti-parasitic in that context) with a different formulation and concentration. So it's not correct to say "literal" here, and just weakens your argument.

I think ivermectin doesn't work, but there's nothing wrong with a doctor prescribing it off label in a COVID context. It is not unsafe enough, generally speaking, to override the judgement of an individual doctor. The legal/regulatory system explicitly permits this, and there are other examples where doing this is likely ethically positive.

For example, there was a big controversey around lucentis and avastin where doctors found they could treat peoople with wet AMD with avastin far more cheaply, but the pharma (which marketed both) wanted people to use the far more expensive drug. Doctors actively precribed avastin instead of lucentis and treated patients (most case reports coming in positive) and then finally a large trial was run that showed it was basically as good as lucentis. Ethically, in retrospect, we say the doctors were acting in a good way (saving patients for less $$ and probably treating people who couldn't afford lucentis). I could imagine the owner of the two drugs running a PR campaign "Doctors: why are you prescribing a cancer drug to eye patients? Do you want to kill them"?

Re: Spotify sides with Joe Rogan, removes Neil Young’s music

#80

Post by cronix »

rpd9803 wrote: post #60
cronix wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Spotify is famous for how little they pay artists for song plays Maybe, but > 60% of Young's streaming revenue comes from Spotify meaning the move is likely to cost him and his record label, Warner Bros[1] So what "little" they paid him was still the majority of what he was making. And I think it will be hard for someone from his genre (1960's/70's) to make a come back. Most people under 35ish-40 have never heard o…

LOL Do you really think musicians make most of the money they make from streaming? Dude could have 1 concert a year and pull in more than his streaming would in a decade. Not to mention merch, commercial licensing.. etc.. LOL

> So what "little" they paid him was still the majority of what he was making streaming

There, I fixed it. LOL

Post reply on HN