591–600 of 1001 posts
I grew up around evangelical Christians. The negative reaction to Rogan *feels* exactly like the clucking and tutting about 'dangerous ideas' that I've heard from the more cellophane elements of that crew.
This comment seems grossly overgeneralized and patently offensive about a huge group of people. What does Joe Rogan have to do at all with evangelical Christians?
I get some of the names are problematic (from Spotify point of view) but Ferriss? There was a time when he was promoted all over the world.
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…
And they did. They published those episodes.
Consistently with a free market, customers of Spotify should also be able to do with them as they pleased - listen to them or not, or even leave Spotify in protest.
Instead, some pressure groups, the media, and a couple of unrelated musicians forced Spotify to unpublish those.
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…
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…
For example, if too many episodes are deleted, he will maybe not at all feel the fulfillment and happiness of doing the job he previously enjoyed. That factor ultimately decides if keeping the contract or breaking it is the better solution in the long run.
Fans of JR want him to be able to publish what he wants, since it's a proxy for having fulfilling job and successful podcast. Getting paid a lot is a forgettable factor - once that money is already safely streaming in :)
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…
What is the issue here? It sounds like you only like half the coin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You should ask Joe that. If Joe decided to sell he 100% had to have known that they will get to choose which parts of his content from the past to distribute until the end of their contract. This is a non-issue.
There's also another issue: the customer wanting to listen to those podcasts and who valued them as part of their Spotify subscription.
And that's not due to free market "those didn't were listened to enough, so we took them off" (that wasn't the case, and even if it was storage and distribution costs are negligible anyway, they could still keep them in perpetuity).
Instead that customer got shafted because "some" forced Spotify's hand.
Jesus. A lot of indiscriminate nuking of content with the Feb 4 date. Tim Ferriss, Comedian Russell Peters, Dan Savage, Giorgio Tsoulakis (the "It's Aliens" guy), Kyle Kulinski. What a shit show. I'd love for someone to get Neil Young's take on this now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
imagine if someone could tell you what you can't not publish on your own website this is the new "freedom of speech" sentiment
> what you can't not publish Is this double negative intentional? Freedom of speech has never meant the right to force platforms to broadcast your message. Nobody is violating JR’s free speech, Spotify is just acting within the framework of the agreement they made with JR. Whether that involves only the podcast itself or limits on what he can say regarding their interactions, we don’t know because the deal is not pub…
Open Web is truly dead. It's such a shame too. Learning other people's view, even if you don't agree with them is an important part growing. I have to say, I am quite resentful of people now. Because there was such amazing tool that you could learn other people's view and thoughts and a handful of loud mouths killed it.