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

Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive multi-year deal

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 781 posts

Re: Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive multi-year deal

#191

Post by 2019-nCoV »

roenxi wrote: post #186
slg wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding point 1, the article has been updated to reflect that Spotify is holding Rogan to their content policy. This content policy prohibits "Hate Content" [1]. By any mainstream definition that would include Alex Jones and potentially other guests. Some people would even say that applies to Rogan himself for his comments about transgender people. Unless Rogan makes changes to his show or his booking, it is only a…

> By any mainstream definition... Rogan has millions of downloads month and had at least one presidential candidate appear for an interview. Joe is one of the people who sets the mainstream definition.

Alex Jones has been on JRE multiple times in the past. Will he be allowed to return under the Spotify banner?

Re: Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive multi-year deal

#192

Post by herostratus101 »

CydeWeys wrote: post #187
herostratus101 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a fairly cheap argument. Presumably the reasons why it's bad for the government to ban speech are also largely applicable to platforms that are almost universally used to discover new viewpoints.

You're free to make that argument and try to get a new law or amendment passed, but the existing laws and Constitution very clearly only apply to government.

You're completely missing the point. I'm making an argument about how companies should behave, not how they are legally obligated to.

Incidentally, YouTube, Twitter, etc. should be subject to far stricter regulation when they enforce speech codes and don't behave as neutral platforms.

Re: Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive multi-year deal

#193

Post by jankassens »

Spotify has been running an exclusive high-profile podcast in Germany for multiple years now. It was previously running on radio and regular podcasts ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fest_%26_Flauschig )

It's surprising to me that popular, platform exclusive audio content isn't happening faster. All video platforms have it.

Re: Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive multi-year deal

#194

Post by jamespullar »

busymom0 wrote: post #122

I agree with JRE leaving YouTube over the censorship but I disagree with him moving exclusively to spotify for following reasons: 1. Spotify was the one who conspired with Facebook, Apple and Google to ban Alex Jones and others. So if Joe is moving off of YouTube because he doesn't like the censorship, he's not getting anything better with Spotify. 2. Currently, Spotify doesn't have video (except album cover clips wh…

Spotify actually has supported video for a while (https://support.spotify.com/us/using_spotify/features/videos...). However, the feature itself is horribly hidden. I have in the past accidentally come across music videos, but right now can't intentionally find any video content to cite as an example.

Edit: Another article discussing Spotify testing video content https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/6/21249389/spotify-video-pod...

Re: Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive multi-year deal

#195

Post by paulgb »

tomp wrote: post #177
paulgb wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that they don't get to decide that, though. They decide whether they will pay for hosting, but they can't stop him from paying for his own hosting elsewhere. Likewise, if the WSJ decides not to publish my letter to the editor, they aren't violating my freedom of speech, they are just deciding not to amplify it.

You’re trivialising the issue a bit. Remember when CloudFront stopped providing DDos protection to some white nationalist website (I forgot which one). “Just start your own multi-billion company bro!”

It's also inaccessible to me to buy a printing press, but that doesn't make the WSJ compelled to print something I write.

Re: Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive multi-year deal

#196

Post by lukifer »

gkoberger wrote: post #144
paulgb wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Spotify was the one who conspired with Facebook, Apple and Google to ban Alex Jones and others Alex Jones has a right to free speech, but if he's going to claim Sandy Hook was a hoax causing grieving parents to be harassed, nobody owes it to him to give him a platform. He can pay his own hosting fees.

The “Right to Free Speech” just means the government can’t impede. Nobody is required to give him a platform, though.

The Bill of Rights only covers negative rights: what Congress is explicitly forbidden from doing. Free Speech is a social norm as well as a legal construct; there are components of a civil society and Enlightenment values that have nothing to do with laws on the books: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

Even if one concedes that any given platform has total authority over their private property (there is a case for regulating tech giants as utilities), one is still perfectly within their rights to vehemently disagree with those decisions, or find them to be grossly counter-productive.

Re: Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive multi-year deal

#197

Post by majormajor »

herostratus101 wrote: post #180
gkoberger wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “Right to Free Speech” just means the government can’t impede. Nobody is required to give him a platform, though.

This is a fairly cheap argument. Presumably the reasons why it's bad for the government to ban speech are also largely applicable to platforms that are almost universally used to discover new viewpoints.

Why?

In many perspectives, government is considered special because of the "monopoly on force."

Having a compelling platform is very different from that. Nobody is saying "you can't say that under threat of force" they say "I choose to respond to you saying that by exercising my own rights." Do you think anyone who waves a sign on the side of an intersection should also be entitled to an editorial in the local newspaper, say?

People today have fairly limited imaginations after a couple decades of "algorithmic search and recommendation" platforms. But the internet before Google was quite successful with organic word of mouth and hyperlinks. And nobody in that world was forced to provide links to anyone they didn't like either.

Re: Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive multi-year deal

#199

Post by paulgb »

busymom0 wrote: post #183
paulgb wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that they don't get to decide that, though. They decide whether they will pay for hosting, but they can't stop him from paying for his own hosting elsewhere. Likewise, if the WSJ decides not to publish my letter to the editor, they aren't violating my freedom of speech, they are just deciding not to amplify it.

You are comparing apples to oranges. WSJ is a publisher. These tech companies are currently enjoying the benefits of being a "platform" while acting as publishers.

> These tech companies are currently enjoying the benefits of being a "platform" while acting as publishers.

If this is referring to Section 230, I think it's a misinterpration. Section 230 gives platforms the ability to moderate without being (legally) treated as a publisher, but it doesn't make them into a utility. If it's referring to a different law, I'm curious which one.

In your view, if YouTube is not a publisher, should they be required to host pornography? Are the community features part of the platform, or is YouTube entitled to host content but make it undiscoverable?

Re: Spotify signs ‘The Joe Rogan Experience’ to an exclusive multi-year deal

#200

Post by pengaru »

herostratus101 wrote: post #192
CydeWeys wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're free to make that argument and try to get a new law or amendment passed, but the existing laws and Constitution very clearly only apply to government.

You're completely missing the point. I'm making an argument about how companies should behave, not how they are legally obligated to. Incidentally, YouTube, Twitter, etc. should be subject to far stricter regulation when they enforce speech codes and don't behave as neutral platforms.

> I'm making an argument about how companies should behave, not how they are legally obligated to.

The same can be said of jackasses spouting harmful drivel within the confines of free speech.

Post reply on HN