551–560 of 1001 posts
I fail to see how anyone can seriously listen to Joe Rogan. He has a circus of quacks and conspiracy theorists on the show and when he does occasionally have a legitimate scientist he can barely muster any response beyond “wow that blows my mind”
Watch his interviews with Elon Musk, Billy Corgan, Bob Saget, Edward Snowden, Bob Lazar, Bernie Sanders, etc. That is why we are listening to him.
I fail to see how anyone can seriously listen to Joe Rogan. He has a circus of quacks and conspiracy theorists on the show and when he does occasionally have a legitimate scientist he can barely muster any response beyond “wow that blows my mind”
I don't really understand why anyone who claims to be a proponent of a free market economy has an issue with a private corporation deciding what type of content they want to broadcast. JR sold his catalog of intellectual property (podcast episodes) of his own free will and was paid very well for it: about $100M from what I can gather. What Spotify chooses to do with it is completely up to them, even if they bought it…
C'mon, you know these claimants only mean "I want a free market for me".
I fail to see how anyone can seriously listen to Joe Rogan. He has a circus of quacks and conspiracy theorists on the show and when he does occasionally have a legitimate scientist he can barely muster any response beyond “wow that blows my mind”
Indeed. As I saw someone say a while back Joe Rogan is Gwenyth Paltrow for men and that is spot on. The biggest problem, for me, with Rogan’s podcast is he brings on people that know nothing about a subject but let’s them talk as if they are some kind of expert. They have long conversations where Rogan as little if anything of value and just let’s a lot of weirdos that will get views ramble on endlessly for 2 hours.…
Personally, I thought that it was hilarious that Peterson criticized climate scientists for building models without the full information, because that is exactly what his field of clinical psychologists do.
Your argument is that because some people choose to get their information about the vax and climate change from people that are not experts in those fields none of us should have access to that media.
If that is how you feel you should also be in favor of shutting down fast food restaurants and liquor stores because some people don't take responsibility in those areas and become obese and alcoholics.
I don't really understand why anyone who claims to be a proponent of a free market economy has an issue with a private corporation deciding what type of content they want to broadcast. JR sold his catalog of intellectual property (podcast episodes) of his own free will and was paid very well for it: about $100M from what I can gather. What Spotify chooses to do with it is completely up to them, even if they bought it…
It was Joe's content to do with as he pleased, and his decision was to sell it and allow someone else to do with it as they pleased. That's simple enough, but it's also simplistic because it assumes that property rights are the only thing we should care about. Which value is more important - property rights (which depend on socialized services like justice and enforcement) or free speech (which thrive by removing reg…
Don't ask us, ask J.R.. He remains free to return the 100 million to Spotify and broadcast his stupid crap elsewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The open web is dead. It's likely Rogan would have been banned from YouTube and Apple Podcasts had he not moved to Spotify. He could have moved to tiny platforms like Odysee or Rokfin that would likely have poor retention rates, or just relied on people adding his URL manually to Apple Podcasts, but come on. Nobody would do that. The "death of the open web" problem isn't creators somehow consistently choosing to empo…
> The open web is dead. Spotify is NOT the open web. Rogan can host the audio files on his own site. That’s the open web. Spotify is under no obligation to offer him or anyone any sort of service if they don’t want to.
Of course it is not.
It is bait and switch process.
First you get a company create a large platform that makes it very difficult to for individual people to thrive in the space around it.
Then the large company starts deciding what can or cannot be published, effectively making it impossible for some people to even be present in that space.
Now, imagine the same happens for every possible space you could use to contact other people. Videos, podcasts, have a web page searchable on search engines, tweet, instant messaging, and so on and on. You are effectively excluded because your views do not match mainstream or touch controversial or taboo subjects.
I may not agree with Rogan or other people that are being excluded but that does not necessarily give me right to decide whether they shouldn't be heard by other people.
I strongly believe this is where judicial system is supposed to represent us to follow laws to judge which instances of speech are and which are not lawful.
What we have now is effectively mob rule.
Imagine some people win and decide that talking about racism should quieted down. Is it that hard to imagine?
I love Joe. I use Spotify exclusively to listen to his podcast. I listen to every episode… I wish there was a way to tell them if it wasn’t for his show I’d never use their app but I suspect they already know that. Unfortunately I think attacks on his having been prescribed ivermectin and his guests like the highly published cardiologist and the guy that contracts with the defense department and has patents related t…
maybe civil war II will be fought with information and not guns
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The open web is dead. It's likely Rogan would have been banned from YouTube and Apple Podcasts had he not moved to Spotify. He could have moved to tiny platforms like Odysee or Rokfin that would likely have poor retention rates, or just relied on people adding his URL manually to Apple Podcasts, but come on. Nobody would do that. The "death of the open web" problem isn't creators somehow consistently choosing to empo…
> or just relied on people adding his URL manually to Apple Podcasts, but come on. Nobody would do that But why would nobody do that? How hard is it? Maybe it's too much trouble for something you don't care about, but for a content you enjoy, doing one copy-paste isn't very difficult? Personally I resent Spotify for the whole move to podcasts. There is still so much to do with music (streaming quality, music videos,…
Correct, but:
1. Everyone wants to be the Netflix of podcasts. 2. It's premium advertising real estate. The ad formats you can chuck into a podcast have higher CPM.
Caveat re 2.: I'm not sure how much advertising contributes to Spotify revenue, so take this one with a grain of salt. It used to be the next hot thing in adtech when I worked in the industry before 2021.
Remember: why charge the user directly, when you can charge them indirectly using a bunch of random middlemen (DAAST, VAST, potato, potahtoh)!
> Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Example of a slightly less stupid* game: The Apple Podcasts app. The UX is mediocre, but the ability to pay for series/bundles is something I'd like to see more. Just let me pay for the content. As much as podcast content can be decoupled from the user agent, I'd like to see the same done with payments.
* or differently stupid
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The open web is dead. It's likely Rogan would have been banned from YouTube and Apple Podcasts had he not moved to Spotify. He could have moved to tiny platforms like Odysee or Rokfin that would likely have poor retention rates, or just relied on people adding his URL manually to Apple Podcasts, but come on. Nobody would do that. The "death of the open web" problem isn't creators somehow consistently choosing to empo…
> The open web is dead. Spotify is NOT the open web. Rogan can host the audio files on his own site. That’s the open web. Spotify is under no obligation to offer him or anyone any sort of service if they don’t want to.
I know. My point is that he can do that, and he'd lose most of his reach. Or he can keep his reach, by staying on the big (closed web) platforms, and be at these corporations' mercy. Users have been trained: they want to watch videos, they open youtube.com, maybe TikTok, and start clicking and scrolling. Most people won't expand the effort to keep up with you if you're not on the big (closed web) platforms, who have effectively taken over the web and discoverability of content.
It's like Cloudflare's free speech argument: if you're big and controversial, you essentially need DDoS protection, meaning you're dependent on the goodwill of a few big corporations. From their corporate blog[0]:
> Increasing Dependence On A Few Giant Networks
> In a not-so-distant future, if we're not there already, it may be that if you're going to put content on the Internet you'll need to use a company with a giant network like Cloudflare, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, or Alibaba [to prevent being taken down].
> For context, Cloudflare currently handles around 10% of Internet requests.
> Without a clear framework as a guide for content regulation, a small number of companies will largely determine what can and cannot be online.
[0]: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The open web is dead. It's likely Rogan would have been banned from YouTube and Apple Podcasts had he not moved to Spotify. He could have moved to tiny platforms like Odysee or Rokfin that would likely have poor retention rates, or just relied on people adding his URL manually to Apple Podcasts, but come on. Nobody would do that. The "death of the open web" problem isn't creators somehow consistently choosing to empo…
“Nobody would do that“ Back in the day people did exactly that.
A podcast with 10,000 listeners? Wow! Who'd have ever thought our little Joey would attract so much interest? Two years later, Joseph Productions is struggling to keep the doors open with only 500,000 listeners.
Back in the day, people found a website by word of mouth and bookmarked it. 100 page views a week was awesome. 1000 a month was maybe even better than all that money spent stuffing mailboxes with flyers. This internet thing has a lot of potential.
Today? If you can't break into the front page of a Google search, what's the point?
An automaker that sells $1 billion of product is in deep trouble because growth is flat. A city that hosts 2 million convention visitors a year is "struggling" and needs a new Chief of Tourism. A town with a population of 10,000 with clean streets and no crime is at a dead end because they don't have a Walmart and can't attract new businesses.
Human discontent is fascinating.