331–340 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.
I'm not that worried about Spotify and 40 odd episodes from the Joe Rogan catalog, but it does fit into a larger narrative. I am somewhat concerned that a hand-full of companies can effectively remove someone from the public discourse. Nobody was too upset when Alex Jones got deplatformed, but there is something a little unnerving about the fact that Twitter was allowed to basically kill certain news stories leading…
> I am somewhat concerned that a hand-full of companies can effectively remove someone from the public discourse. Large companies are least able to remove someone from public discourse today than at any other time in the past. The internet is wide open for people to shout into, although it requires work and money to host content. But it’s still far cheaper and easier than its ever been to reach basically anyone aroun…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not that worried about Spotify and 40 odd episodes from the Joe Rogan catalog, but it does fit into a larger narrative. I am somewhat concerned that a hand-full of companies can effectively remove someone from the public discourse. Nobody was too upset when Alex Jones got deplatformed, but there is something a little unnerving about the fact that Twitter was allowed to basically kill certain news stories leading…
If Twitter was actually killing stories effectively, why do you know about it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would rather move towards less discrimination based on person's nationality not because it’s impossible but because it’s not great morally.
Hey, I hope you're doing okay in Ukraine! Usually it's business - not discrimination. Content is licensed by country, so the content owners (at least think) they can get more value elsewhere. In a way we should welcome this. We don't really want spotify to determine what content to distribute globally. Global platforms like Steam are aggressively discounted for Ukraine, so unfortunately Ukrainian audience members * U…
I think you are wrong with regards to “more value somewhere else”. I think the decision was made because they didn’t want to show the “podcasts” section until they can ensure the experience will be great and they have content moderation and such. So they did the simplest thing. But my point is that it does more harm than they realize, since their view of the world is too simplistic and non-globalised.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would rather move towards less discrimination based on person's nationality not because it’s impossible but because it’s not great morally.
Isn't most of the discrimination a result of advertising deals with content owners? How can that be fixed? I don't think the discrimination is related to racism in any way.
The answer is simple: think a bit more about modern world, which is more globalised than one thinks and the trend is to only globalise further. YouTube didn’t have any problem letting me watch JRE, so at least in that respect I’m sure the solution is possible.
Off-topic but still makes me sad: Spotify removed all episodes of Joe Rogan for me by removing podcasts feature from Ukrainian (and not only) users. I’m a paid user btw. Worst part is that since JRE is free for such large part of internet users, it’s impossible to find on torrents unless it’s Elon Musk or similar. Sigh.
https://pastebin.com/s9JupqqD
EDIT: Nope, this only has up to #1476, while YouTube hosts up to #1558 and Spotify goes beyond that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> hand-full of companies can effectively remove someone from the public discourse. How do you today compares to historical American freedom of discourse? For example, I look at things like the House Committee on Un-American Activities, where stating pro-socialist/pro-communist views might get someone fired or imprisoned in the 40s-50s. [1] Or the 'Comics Code' of the 60s-00s, where comics publishers agreed to self-ce…
This is a much better, less snarky version of my point elsewhere in the thread. I do think that tech control of discourse is an important thing to watch. I don't yet believe that it's impossible for people with extreme views to find a host; I am right now looking at a Google Podcasts page hosting an unquestionably white supremacist, Holocaust-denying podcast. When I was younger, you had to go find yourself a dingy mi…
I think a huge factor that separates the current state of media from the pre-web-2.0 era is the rise in algorithmic content feeds. It's not just the fact that Google and Facebook allow extremist content on their platforms, it's the fact that they actively promote it to millions of consumers. Those looking to radicalize can find ways to game the algorithms and get their content put in front of massive numbers of users, often with the endorsement of a friend or family member.
I think this is a problem, but I think the current solution is also not a good one. These same organizations which in some ways created the problem have proposed that the solution should be enforcing unilateral control over which speech should and should not exist on their platforms. And as I have said in other threads, this is especially relevant now because the ability to exist on these 4-5 platforms essentially does amount to existing in public life during the pandemic.
I am not attributing malice to these organizations, but I do think we should work towards defining some rules of the road for online discourse, and that these rules should be defined by the public rather than by unaccountable teams inside corporations.
Since we're talking about the past, in the past centuries we defined a legal framework around libel and slander. We also had laws in the 20th century (which have been substantially weakened) which prevented one entity from owning too high a percentage of the media outlets in a single market. I think it's time for us as a society to think long and hard about what rules should be put in place to make online discourse safer and healthier. I am not saying I know what those rules should be, but I don't think it's a responsibility we should just hand to the organizations which have had the most success in the market.
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…
Anyone who actually listens to his podcast knows that it's not true that he promotes hate. I love how you resort to the "many people feel" standard with a hand wave. Many people where I live feel that cell phone towers give them cancer so we need to get rid of the cell phone towers on that burden of proof. Many people feel like the moon landing was faked. Many people think educating women is heretical. Shall we surre…
Isn't Joe Rogan one of those people? Hasn't he had at least three moon landing deniers on his podcast and agreed with them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That may be true, but we're also witnessing one of those periods of consolidation of control right now . We could resign ourselves to history, or we could try to do something about it
Eh? Rogan is a podcaster. He is one of very few with a publisher/distributor; the vast majority are independent. 30 years ago (apart from pirate radio, I suppose) there was nothing like podcasts at all. Media has never been less centralised than today.
To make an analogy, the average life expectancy has increased massively since the iron age. That does not mean we should not be worried if we observe a decrease in average life expectancy year over year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
always pay attention who you hire, especially in HR. Woke and activist HR hires woke and activist people, woke and activist people will cause you trouble and can wreck your whole ship. This is true for every industry but especially for media, just look what happened to the once so prestigious news outlets, all taken hostage.
The problem with notion this is that 'woke' or 'activist' values are actually pretty reflective of mainstream values in 21st century society. I would worry more about the legal exposure of people who express opposition to diversity/equity/inclusiveness, as these are very likely to be the people who would end up behaving inappropriately and getting the company mired in harassment and discrimination suits.