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

81–90 of 116 posts

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

#81

Post by holbrad »

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.

"apologists" as if there's anything to apologise for.

You can disagree with that tweet and still be for open discussion and against censorship. Also that tweet is very old, people do change there mind. (Not that I'm a fan of Joe Rogan, or know if he still holds that belief)

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

#82

Post by dekhn »

drcongo wrote: post #43
cronix wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> dangerous anti-scientific medical advice' That sounds like an opinion. One that lacks substance and likely couldn't actually be proven as stated, but an opinion I'm happy you can express openly. I'm also appreciative of other opinions I hear on Joe's show, and others. Can you appreciate that building up a false dichotomy and then asking someone if they can spot the difference is disingenuous?

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

One thing to note is that court decisions are not required to be scientifically valid. For example, a court could find a company liable for damages, even if the plaintiff lacked any scientific evidence (or lacked evidence surpassing a reasonable doubt, or whichever standard applied in that case). That doesn't "prove" anything in a scientific sense. Further, the case found that vaccine's dont cause autism, the opposite of what rogan said.

Also, the rogan tweet links to an article written by Robert F Kennedy Jr, a well-known anti-vaxxer who recently had to apologize for saving covid vaccines were like nazis.

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

#83

Post by holbrad »

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?

I can't say I understand the full context, but not really.

I listen to a few podcasts sometimes hosts get things wrong, sometimes really wrong. That's fine.

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

#84

Post by factcheckdec »

rpd9803 wrote: post #57
kenjackson wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what a "win" in this case is, but it seems fair. I didn't genuinely get the impression that Young thought he'd push off Rogan, but rather really didn't want to be on the same platform as Rogan. I think he has that right, although I think most people raised in the social media era are more comfortable with sharing platforms with divergent views.

'divergent views' is a very weasley way of saying 'intentional misinformation'

Isn't intentional misinformation a contradiction in terms? Perhaps you meant to say disinformation?

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

#85

Post by tptacek »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #75
tptacek wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then you will have this argument forever, because you've broadcasted to the whole world that you can be trivially wound up by people making self-evidently stupid arguments, and there's a pretty decent chunk of the population that finds doing that to be an incredibly potent source of dopamine.

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

#86

Post by micromacrofoot »

tptacek wrote: post #85
micromacrofoot wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then you will have this argument forever, because you've broadcasted to the whole world that you can be trivially wound up by people making self-evidently stupid arguments, and there's a pretty decent chunk of the population that finds doing that to be an incredibly potent source of dopamine.

I had to argue with my brother about Joe Rogan for about a year until he got vaccinated (before the pandemic it was arguing with him about not sending randos on the internet money for perpetual motion devices), so I'm used to it. A big part of spreading disinfo is badgering people until they give up, so I've already resigned myself to doing this forever.

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

#87

Post by micromacrofoot »

holbrad wrote: post #83
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?

I can't say I understand the full context, but not really. I listen to a few podcasts sometimes hosts get things wrong, sometimes really wrong. That's fine.

Sure, getting things wrong is how people learn. But Joe's still pushing a lot of nonsense that he's been proven wrong about time and time again.

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

#88

Post by micromacrofoot »

cronix wrote: post #71
rpd9803 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 human…

people are literally buying and taking horse de-wormer, this is well documented... the FDA had to put out multiple statements in an attempt to get people to stop taking animal medications instead of vaccines...

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

#89

Post by tptacek »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #86
tptacek wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you will have this argument forever, because you've broadcasted to the whole world that you can be trivially wound up by people making self-evidently stupid arguments, and there's a pretty decent chunk of the population that finds doing that to be an incredibly potent source of dopamine.

I had to argue with my brother about Joe Rogan for about a year until he got vaccinated (before the pandemic it was arguing with him about not sending randos on the internet money for perpetual motion devices), so I'm used to it. A big part of spreading disinfo is badgering people until they give up, so I've already resigned myself to doing this forever.

Please keep in mind that you're not entitled to badger here; this isn't a venue for convincing people that you're right about things (for what it's worth: I'm well aware that you are right in this instance), but rather for having thoughtful conversations.

Wikipedia has a good rule in Articles for Deletion debates, where they decide which articles to keep when people nominate them for deletion. They're not votes. You can get all your friends to chime in with dumb comments saying "keep" or "delete" for stupid reasons, but the admin who evaluates the AfD debate is supposed to ignore the count of comments supporting any given argument, and just make a note of the diversity of those arguments, and then evaluate which set of arguments are stronger. You can spam an AfD with misinformation, but at least in theory it shouldn't work (in fact, you might be just as likely to piss off the admin and nudge them the other way).

That's a good way to look at HN threads as well. If you have something interesting to say, say it, and then get out of the way; let the dumb comments be the noise, not yours.

This is all very meta, I know, but this whole thread is so pointless that meta can only improve it.

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

#90

Post by snowwrestler »

pseudalopex wrote: post #45
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…

He sold 50% of his music rights for $150 million last year. And he was rich already. His investments should make much more than streaming. He just signed a deal with SiriusXM too.[1] I think he'll be all right. [1] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/siriusxm-...

Deals like this are happening because there is so little revenue from streaming.

This is why you hear Led Zeppelin and Dylan songs in car ads now. With little revenue from recording sales or streaming, artists are leaning more on other revenue like sync licenses and co-marketing deals. If you read carefully, the Sirius deal is not just access to Young’s back catalog, it is using his name to market Sirius. He gets paid for that on top of the music itself.

Post reply on HN