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

201–210 of 781 posts

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

#201

Post by mythrwy »

paulgb wrote: post #168
mythrwy wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alex Jones is a much less serious threat then 2 or 3 large companies deciding what can discourse can be promulgated. (not a Jones supporter. nor can I imagine how anyone would be)

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.

And my point is that it's undesirable to have a handful of companies with this kind of control.

The "host your own" argument is done to death truly. If one type of speech can be hosted for "free" by a company with 80%+ market share, so should another without discrimination.

To allow otherwise is to risk of erosion of our values and enable corruption. Even if you don't like Jones.

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

#202

Post by notaharvardmba »

gen3 wrote: post #162
nojito wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a lucrative business to be an entertainer masquerading as someone who is educated about 1000s different topics to his fans. He speaks whatever his fans want to hear so that their beliefs will be reinforced and will continue watching. Nothing more...nothing less.

I’m having a hard time making sense of this. He certainly isn’t without bias (no one is), but he has brought a wide variety of people on the show (Bernie Sanders, Andrew Yang, Ben Shapiro). I don’t follow him heavily, but from the interviews I’ve seen, he just seems to try to get the guest to talk.

Yeah, I think Joe would be the first to say (and I believe he has said exactly this many times) "I'm a dumbass comedian, don't listen to me as an authority for any changes you make to your life, I'm stupid and this is just entertainment." I personally like how not only does he say stupid shit, but then the next day he says the opposite and talks about how he learned something new, they never speculate when they can just look something up on Google, etc. I think it has a lot of live integrity and fact-checking. Yes, sometimes they have figures on which are complete assholes. But they also have fringe people who are very smart who you would never hear from otherwise who have offered a huge range of insightful new theories. You don't listen to JRE to get "news", you listen to stimulate your mind in different directions, and get motivated to do something yourself. I don't want to be like Joe at all, but there is something motivating about how unapologetic he is about basically just being a dumbass comedian with a big platform and he's literally not doing anything of real value with it. It's art. I think it's one of the best things in media today.

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

#203

Post by type0 »

TylerE wrote: post #173
css wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, ads are not the issue. The freedom to listen without being spied on is.

You really think your http requests aren't being "spied on"? Especially since virtually every podcast is served via a CDN.

You really think your phone conversations aren't being "spied on"? Especially since virtually every phonecall is set up via SS7.

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

#204

Post by omgwtfbyobbq »

herostratus101 wrote: post #185
omgwtfbyobbq wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the bigger threat is us enabling 2 to 3 large companies to the degree where their decisions can affect discourse. Alex Jones is a thoughtless jerk though, and can still find/provide his own hosting/distribution.

You presumably also would be in favor of domain brokers restricting speech (correct me if I'm wrong). Does every controversial political speaker also need to host his or her own ICANN domain? Or should they just promote their speech entirely offline?

I'd like people to use a multitude of domains/providers/companies to minimize the ability of a small group of companies to influence discourse.

Having said that, I understand that practically avoiding those companies is tough.

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

#205

Post by TylerE »

type0 wrote: post #203
TylerE wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really think your http requests aren't being "spied on"? Especially since virtually every podcast is served via a CDN.

You really think your phone conversations aren't being "spied on"? Especially since virtually every phonecall is set up via SS7.

No, I'm not a conspiracy freak with a persecution complex.

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

#206

Post by MisterPea »

jankassens wrote: post #193

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.

Not many podcasts have the following and clout of JRE. Seems like the podcast you mentioned in Germany has it as well.

But platform exclusive content is the exact opposite of what pretty much every podcast listener wants. Someone in another comment mentioned how podcasts are the last distribution of media thats completely open and this is the first big step in the wrong direction.

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

#207

Post by mythrwy »

paulgb wrote: post #168
mythrwy wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alex Jones is a much less serious threat then 2 or 3 large companies deciding what can discourse can be promulgated. (not a Jones supporter. nor can I imagine how anyone would be)

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.

I'd be more sympathetic to your point if you hadn't said at first (paraphrased) "Alex Jones said this awful thing I disagree with". Therefore you presumably believe it's ok he got kicked off of whatever platform, because of _what_ he believes.

You really don't see the moral hazard in that?

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

#208

Post by lukifer »

mythrwy wrote: post #160
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.

Alex Jones is a much less serious threat then 2 or 3 large companies deciding what can discourse can be promulgated. (not a Jones supporter. nor can I imagine how anyone would be)

Battles over freedom of expression have nearly always occurred at the boundary of the vile: see the obscenity battles over the rap group 2 Live Crew [0], or Chomsky's vociferous defense for the right of Europeans to express Holocaust denial [1], despite he himself finding those views to be inaccurate and repugnant.

It's a simple formula: Take the most awful idea you can imagine, that any reasonable person would also find unworthy of the public square. Now walk it back it by 1%. Still worth banning? Okay, do it again. Rinse and repeat, until anything anyone finds even vaguely controversial or upsetting is verboten. I can trivially produce a compelling argument that any opinion on abortion or the military (for or against), is hateful, vile, and dangerous.

In practice, we need specific exemptions for libel, slander, conspiracy to commit a crime, etc. (It's worth remembering that the infamous "fire in a crowded theater" line was used as a justification for suppressing pamphleteering against the draft [2].) We have such exemptions, and their details are certainly debatable. But they must be targted very narrowly, and the burden of proof must be high, lest moral panics or realpolitik throw out the baby with the bathwater, and outlaw thinking itself.

[0] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1447/2-live-crew

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faurisson_affair

[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

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

#209

Post by Reedx »

jhamilton wrote: post #140
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…

I don't see how 1 is an issue when Alex Jones et al were deliberately spreading hateful misinformation. Aiming to CYA by booting someone off of a private platform and others following suit is not the same thing as "conspiring to censor" someone

It's not an issue if you happen to agree this time.

Next time you might not. And then it's too late, you've made your bed.

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

#210

Post by paulgb »

mythrwy wrote: post #207
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.

I'd be more sympathetic to your point if you hadn't said at first (paraphrased) "Alex Jones said this awful thing I disagree with". Therefore you presumably believe it's ok he got kicked off of whatever platform, because of _what_ he believes. You really don't see the moral hazard in that?

I believe YouTube has the right to remove it whether or not I agree with it, because they don't owe it to anyone to pay their hosting bill.
Post reply on HN