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

211–220 of 328 posts

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

#211

Post by Aerroon »

rjtavares wrote: post #137
xfitm3 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We absolutely are. We're more divided than ever. I am on the losing side of the shift. I never had to conceal my views for fear of retribution before. I could be in an echo chamber, but I am not alone in this sentiment.

In the 90s some politicians tried to ban gangsta rap, and there was an official policy that "prohibited any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing their sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces". I'm not trying to negate your experience. I'm just adding context about other people's e…

I think the big shift is that back then everything wasn't recorded. This made it so that limitations on speech were dependent on where you spoke and with whom. Nowadays everything can be recorded and outrage spreads faster too.

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

#212

Post by rjkennedy98 »

loopback_device wrote: post #188
dkdk8283 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is unfortunate and unacceptable. Joe should have a free and censorship free place to discuss topics. We have lost our minds: the ability to freely and discuss literally any topic was an American staple. Now you don’t dare say something that could potentially offend someone. I could be fired if I said what I really think about some controversial issues and linked it to my identity. That’s not a world I enjoy livi…

> We have lost our minds: the ability to freely and discuss literally any topic was an American staple. Sex, breasts, swearwords? As far as I can remember the American staple was and is to bleep every fucking thing that could potentially be connected to a nipple.

Bleeping swearwords and sex is about keeping things innocent and appropriate for children. Has nothing to do with censorship. No ideas are discussed when a breast is blacked out.

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

#213

Post by Aerroon »

4ggr0 wrote: post #193
loopback_device wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have lost our minds: the ability to freely and discuss literally any topic was an American staple. Sex, breasts, swearwords? As far as I can remember the American staple was and is to bleep every fucking thing that could potentially be connected to a nipple.

Exactly. It's weird to watch US talk shows as a european.

I don't know about the rest, but I think bleeping swearwords is partly an editing decision. It makes swearing seem more effective (powerful?) to me. It's a at to emphasize swearing.

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

#214

Post by mk81 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #84
justwalt wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we’re playing with words here. That’s really not what that poster meant when they said “identity politics”.

No, really, the only difference is the identity around which it is organized: if the identity is membership in “our country”, the poster supports it, and he opposes the increasing political relevance of alternative primary identities as a threat to the power of his preferred identity.

Cue Teddy Roosevelt.

As OP said, identity politics (i.e. I'm trans instead of I'm American) is extremely polarizing and destabilizing to society.

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

#215

Post by auganov »

4ggr0 wrote: post #195
ALittleLight wrote: post #177

There's a quote in the Vice article that this seems to be based on discussing a recent guest Shrier who wrote a book against transgender youth. "She also described wanting to transition as a "contagion" with the potential to infect other children, an entirely scientifically baseless idea, Men's Health noted." The idea that transgender identification is, in part, a social contagion, is the subject of academic research…

This reminds me of people back in the day saying that homosexuality is a "disease" which is being spread by homosexuality. I'm not a scientist, but isn't it just the fact of being educated that such exist? If I don't know about transgenderism, or I know about it but people view it as a negative thing, I would never get the idea of being it myself, right? I just live my whole life with a strange feeling of not really…

> This reminds me of people back in the day saying that homosexuality is a "disease" which is being spread by homosexuality.

You're just assuming that the hypothesis of contagion necessarily carries some negative connotation.

I generally tend to believe there's a strong contagion element to all kinds of behaviors. But that doesn't inherently make them wrong.

A lot of the born-this-way arguments for all kinds of phenomena arose simply in response to negativity. The point being "if I can't change it, you cannot judge me for it". Almost implying that it is indeed a bad thing.

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

#216

Post by krageon »

dkdk8283 wrote: post #189
drlobster wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to read the paragraph a few times, but I think what is being said is that "Joe has hosted self proclaimed neo-Nazis'.

Which is completely acceptable. Everyone deserves the chance to talk. You don’t have listen.

Everyone does not deserve the chance to talk. Pick up a history book, I think you will find some good examples for why Nazis do not deserve a platform or space to talk about their political views in society.

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

#217

Post by rjkennedy98 »

threatofrain wrote: post #41
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.

Is Spotify a platform for intellectual curiosity and free speech? On the matter of free speech, Spotify isn't a public square. Facebook isn't a public square. A masonic fraternity isn't a public square. One of the key things about public squares is that it's funded by public money and administered by public officials. How are people so keen on asking private companies to behave like public institutions... without ask…

> How are people so keen on asking private companies to behave like public institutions

It's ironic to see the same people turn around and say that the internet is a public utility and service providers shouldn't throttle content or filter content.

> people have come to actually TRUST big corps to be more morally responsive

That is a pretty outlandish statement to make without something to back it up. I'd love to see an actual poll if people trust Google and Facebook to police what is moral. Last time I checked there was a poll that said people are more afraid than ever to say what they feel in public. https://www.cato.org/publications/survey-reports/poll-62-ame...

> would you like to see what concept of digital town square the UK or the US government would produce

This is a straw man. US Government struggles to build a basic website - they aren't going to build a "digital town square". On the other hand, I don't think it's unreasonable for the government to have clear policies on a person's legal rights to use large platforms to discuss what they want without fear of being de-platformed.

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

#218

Post by krageon »

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 simply cannot be trusted and should not exist.

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

#219

Post by Aerroon »

666lumberjack wrote: post #205
dogma1138 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the thing puberty blockers aren’t exactly reversible when used for any substantial duration and quite often cause developmental issues in general, these aren’t cases of premature puberty you can’t just pause it for a few years and expect things to go back.

>Puberty blockers aren't exactly reversible That's not what the medical consensus[1] says. I hope you have some damn good evidence to the contrary if you want to deny tens of thousands of people access to life-saving medical treatment. [1] https://www.seattlechildrens.org/pdf/PE2572.pdf

Do puberty blockers fully delay puberty? Most people who go through puberty seem to behave in ways that is frowned upon if done by older individuals. If puberty blockers also block that, then won't this affect the social maturation of the person? Going through puberty in your 20s seems quite rough. Or does that not happen?

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

#220

Post by jwond »

1270018000 wrote: post #161
throwawaysea wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False. Neither freedom of speech nor censorship are tied to the concept of a government. They are much more fundamental and basic than that. Additionally large tech platforms control enough of societal discourse that they function as defector public squares. Censorship by tech companies is as effective as censorship by governments.

Here is the first amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The concept of free speech is larger than the first amendment. They are not synonymous.
Post reply on HN