231–240 of 378 posts
Don't know why Joe Rogan is treated like some free-speech messiah and Spotify the villain. If he was really that adamant on getting his message out there he would have kept his podcast free. Instead he chose a $100M payday (and the associated censorship terms), and here we are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Removing random episodes offering no reasoning is tyrannical. It being "their platform" is a non-statement as that's the only place they can be tyrants.
How is it tyranny? Under the most liberal definition tyranny is: "cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control." It certainly is not cruel for any definition of cruel I am familiar with. It certainly isn't arbitrary, Spotify is not doing this on a whim and it isn't taking down all the episodes, it clearly is being very deliberate, though you may disagree with their process. The only one could be unreason…
Those are slightly incorrect interpretations of the words 'arbitrary' and 'unreasonable'.
Reasonable doesn't mean 'has reasons'. Every decisions has reasons. If a king decides to chop someone's head off he had reasons - he felt like it. Being reasonable/unreasonable is about whether an opinion can be changed by evidence and argument. Almost all moderation is unreasonable, I've very rarely seen a moderator make a call and then not stick with it (being unreasonable isn't always a bad thing). Reasonableness is a judgement call on the quality of the reasons behind a decision.
Similarly, arbitrary doesn't mean unpredictable. It is a judgement call on whether the reasons behind an action are reasonable. Being done on behalf of a policy doesn't make an action reasonable.
It is quite an easily sustainable argument that any content moderation policy is arbitrary. Compare European vs American media norms around moderating sex - it is pretty easy to argue by comparison some of the standards floating around are arbitrary, because standards differ but both continents produce great media which involves sex.
Whom does Spotify try to aquisice here? Their users? Their content creators? Or rather their staff? All 3 groups could be possible reasons. But given how little median content creators matter to the organization, users and staff are more likely. But if it were the users, then why buy Joe Rogan's users at all? Especially at a record braking price? This makes me believe it's more likely staff. If that is the case one h…
> Whom does Spotify try to aquisice here? YouTube always claims they're demonetizing videos for their advertisers. i.e companies threatening to either boycott advertising on the platform entirely, or ones who don't their products appear in videos with certain content. Maybe Spotify is doing it for the same reason?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Society in the west seems to not know how to deal with this new variety of bullying Society in the West in contrast to... what exactly? Are you under the impression non-Western societies don't shape culture based on norms and expectations about what's proper or right? How is Spotify deleting episodes from their own platform tyranny? Jesus people have become so dramatic and whiny. Here's a crazy idea, if you don't wa…
> Here's a crazy idea, if you don't want your episodes deleted don't sell rights to your intellectual property for 100 million bucks to another party It is especially weird considering this was basically a foregone conclusion the moment Rogan signed with Spotify. Take a look at the HN comments when the news broke[1]. Spotify has a policy that says they won't host certain content. Rogan and his guests have a history o…
Citation needed
This is Spotify's content policy:
https://support.spotifyforpodcasters.com/hc/en-us/articles/3...
Assuming we're not talking about infringing or illegal content, we're left to conclude that Rogan "promotes, advocates, or incites hatred or violence against a group or individual based on characteristics, including, race, religion, gender identity, sex, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, veteran status, or disability."
Note, that does not mean "has an un-PC take on something", it very specifically says promotes, advocates or incites hatred or violence. Where and when has Rogan ever done that?
Whom does Spotify try to aquisice here? Their users? Their content creators? Or rather their staff? All 3 groups could be possible reasons. But given how little median content creators matter to the organization, users and staff are more likely. But if it were the users, then why buy Joe Rogan's users at all? Especially at a record braking price? This makes me believe it's more likely staff. If that is the case one h…
> Or is it rather a few employees who, emboldened by cancel-culture, will toss their political agenda around the office while other employees, intimidated by cancel-culture, shy away from calling out the obvious BS? This is it. The intimidation is real; look at what happened to James Damore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most JRE sponsors were smaller companies targeting niche markets. He didn't have any mass market brands like Starbucks or Chevrolet.
Honest Q, but do any mass market brands like that advertise on podcasts? It seems like all I hear are the usual suspects: Me Undies, Blue Apron, etc.
On other hand, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the companies marketing on things like pod casts... Some pretty famous ones don't seem to be too special products, see Raid Shadowlegends, Raycon and all of the VPN providers...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious where the line is for you. Is there any legal content where it is permissible that Spotify doesn't want to host it?
Definitely, but Joe Rogan is nowhere near that line. I don't have a problem with the platform restricting content. I have a problem with the behavior of the employees reaching outside of their role to forward their political goals. If your job is to curate content, and you disagree with the content of JRE, you would have stopped the deal from happening in the first place.
The vast majority of executives in the corporate world are conservative, and in addition to personally supporting conservative movements, they frequently direct company resources towards furthering right leaning agendas.
Is it really that offensive that a handful of employees are at a handful of tech companies are trying to steer the ship in the other direction? Are you similarly offended when oil companies lobby the government to further the oil industries interests? Are you offended when corporations successfully push congress to pass tax breaks largely targeted at corporations and the rich?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Society in the west seems to not know how to deal with this new variety of bullying Society in the West in contrast to... what exactly? Are you under the impression non-Western societies don't shape culture based on norms and expectations about what's proper or right? How is Spotify deleting episodes from their own platform tyranny? Jesus people have become so dramatic and whiny. Here's a crazy idea, if you don't wa…
Removing random episodes offering no reasoning is tyrannical. It being "their platform" is a non-statement as that's the only place they can be tyrants.
He is being more than fairly compensated. They don't have to host his white nationalist content.
They pay him handsomely for the privilege of removing the episodes where he uncritically nods along with the likes of Stephan Moleneaux and Alex Jones.
>> Rogan, on the other hand, has confirmed that Spotify removed certain shows as a condition of their $100 million agreement with him. “There were a few episodes they didn’t want on their platform, and I was like ‘okay, I don’t care’,” Rogan shared in a recent interview with guest Fahim Anwar. It's part of their deal. Nothing to see here.
Wait, you left off the next sentence, which is very important: > Whether Rogan understood that several dozen shows were being removed — and may still be getting removed — is also unclear. 42 of his shows have been removed. Even out of 1631 shows, that seems like more than a few. For $100 million he may not care, but for general listeners its a little unnerving that Spotify would be doing this. I'm a grown adult, I ca…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Spotify exists to make investors money by creating value for the listeners. Okay, sure. > [...the rest of the post...] I don't see how this connects. > your opinions and the opinions of the employees don't matter But your opinion does? It must matter to you, since you spent a few paragraphs on it.
> But your opinion does? It must matter to you, since you spent a few paragraphs on it. Guessing that what ljm meant was that those opinions shouldn't be important in their personal choice about what to listen to or not listen to.
Their logic dictates that none of our opinions matter. That's fine by me; we're squabbling over nothing.