261–270 of 378 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is one reason I hope BitCoin gets more adoption.
I would rather move towards less discrimination based on person's nationality not because it’s impossible but because it’s not great morally.
I don't think the discrimination is related to racism in any way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's understandable. He's routinely allowed right-wing radicals such as Abby Martin and Gavin McInnes and Dave Rubin on his show. I personally would stop using Spotify if they started promoting such hateful content. Paradox of tolerance, etc.
> right-wing radicals such as Abby Martin > In September 2015, Martin launched The Empire Files, an interview and documentary series. She has hosted guests including Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Richard D. Wolff, Ralph Nader and Jill Stein. I can't tell whether you're running a satire account.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only reason I have a Spotify account is for Joe Rogan's podcast. I'm a Youtube premium member, so all the music I need comes from Google, except for Joe Rogan. He's a pro weed, universal health care loving, self-described left of center guy big in the MMA and stand-up comedy circles. He now has the world's most popular podcast, but because he frequently has guests who are right wing, despite debating them about t…
> 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.
Expressing my opinion on a message board isn't a claim that the executives should listen to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
I was (admittedly poorly) pointing out that the person I was replying to made some effort to share his favourable opinion, which comprises a significant part of the post, while also saying the dissenting ones (mine, Spotify staff) don't matter. Their logic dictates that none of our opinions matter. That's fine by me; we're squabbling over nothing.
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.
I'm not certain that tyrants pay their employees $100 million. 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.
See: Hells Angels interviews on primetime TV in the 70s-80s etc at the peak of the fear surrounding them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Spotify has a policy that says they won't host certain content. Rogan and his guests have a history of saying things that don't fit that content policy. 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 a…
I don't listen to Rogan. I can't speak to the specifics of what he says on his podcast. I know that he has had on multiple recurring guests that have been deplatformed elsewhere such as Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos. Rogan also can't seem to go more than a few months without receiving accusations of transphobia[1]. You are also welcome to click through the link in my previous comment and see the issue discussed in…
If pointing out simple biological realities like "the bodies of people who go through puberty as a male have more muscle mass than the bodies of people who go through puberty as a female" constitutes "promoting hate" then the concept has no meaning. If a phrase is "impossible to define" perhaps it is not a good basis on which to form a policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean, "meekness"? They got flak for hosting rogan in the first place. Now they're getting flak for taking down a small fraction of his content. Outrage, engaged! Are they "meek" because they're doing something you disagree with, are they "meek" for doing something you agree with, or is choosing a middle path necessarily meekness?
To be precise, Spotify and other platforms have been cowed into dropping episodes and people because they are afraid of the anonymous histrionics from small mobs. The same goes for every other platform. They directly enable and reward the very people they seem to fear. Do the platforms think these mobs can be appeased, or that they will relent once you satisfy them? They've negotiated with terrorists and compromised…
In calling them meek, you're making a value judgement. They're weak because you see them as relenting to outside pressure. But that's what businesses do -- they chase money, and to do that effectively means following the whims of the market. And people are entitled to their own opinions, which may differ from your own. Neither is meekness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't listen to Rogan. I can't speak to the specifics of what he says on his podcast. I know that he has had on multiple recurring guests that have been deplatformed elsewhere such as Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos. Rogan also can't seem to go more than a few months without receiving accusations of transphobia[1]. You are also welcome to click through the link in my previous comment and see the issue discussed in…
I do listen to Rogan and I'm aware of the trans controversy. What he actually took issue with was a trans woman who fought in women's MMA without telling her competitors that she was trans . This creates a serious safety risk in what is already a dangerous sport, and it was irresponsible of her to lie. Rogan didn't even say trans women shouldn't compete, just that they should disclose it so the people they're fightin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I worked for a tech company until recently that had allowed a relatively small group of activist employees to trigger HR policies that have been extremely detrimental to the morale and bottom line of the company. Cowardly HR departments who don't recognize that, by and large, the activist employees are mediocre at best, rather than remotely productive employees, has made things worse. Also, companies like Spotify see…
> Cowardly HR departments who don't recognize that, by and large, the activist employees are mediocre at best, rather than remotely productive employees, has made things worse. This feels like you're projecting your opinion of these people and their political beliefs (which it appears you disagree with) onto their entire character and acting as if your opinion of them is the reality of the situation. Are there activi…
I don't actually disagree with a lot of the goals of the activist employees at my former Boulder-based tech company. I simply disagree with them using the HR department to impose their views and beliefs onto the majority of employees who don't want it, in a way that becomes disruptive and distracting from making money. At the end of the quarter, the assholes in charge who wouldn't shut up about equity are still making hundreds of times what the average employee makes, and will fire anyone if the numbers aren't what they promised in the earnings forecast. The social justice initiatives seem to be designed to turn the rank and file against each other, instead of having them ask if their CEO is really worth 300 software engineers in value to the company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do listen to Rogan and I'm aware of the trans controversy. What he actually took issue with was a trans woman who fought in women's MMA without telling her competitors that she was trans . This creates a serious safety risk in what is already a dangerous sport, and it was irresponsible of her to lie. Rogan didn't even say trans women shouldn't compete, just that they should disclose it so the people they're fightin…
You are not being honest about Rogan's opinions on trans athletes. He does not want trans women competing against cisgender women.[1] [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e0qwXgjjDA&t=120s
The clip you posted was about weightlifting. If a biological man can call himself a woman and compete in women's weightlifting, why don't we just get rid of the gender categories altogether and have men and women compete together? If we did that, do you think any woman, trans or cis, would ever win a title again?
Regardless, reasonable people can disagree about these things. Back to the original question: in what conceivable way does any of this constitute promoting hatred or violence? Rogan said that people who are biologically male should compete with other people who are also biologically male, I don't see where he said we should beat them up or kill them or anything like that? So we are not allowed to have differences of opinion about which competitions people should compete in?