Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Joe Rogan, confined to Spotify, is losing influence

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

681–690 of 844 posts

Re: Joe Rogan, confined to Spotify, is losing influence

#681

Post by snet0 »

ineptech wrote: post #673
jimt1234 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rejecting people that promote the "Sandy Hook was fake!" conspiracy theory and even harassing the parents of murdered children isn't a way to avoid offending the "progressive attitudes of Silicon Valley". It's just common decency. ... Can we at least set the bar at that level -- that we _don't_ harass the parents of murdered children for clicks?

"We must remove that stuff because those ideas are dangerous/offensive, and if you disagree with removing it then you must agree with that filth!" is extremely helpful to the sorts of people who do edgy stuff to attract attention and then try to memoryhole it once they get a big audience. I think the truth is the opposite: there are no dangerous ideas. "Sandy Hook was fake!" is stupid and wrong, but the way to defeat…

I think this is naïve. Taking Sandy Hook as the example, do you think Alex Jones' discussion on Rogan increased or decreased its spread?

It's very easy to pick up new conspiracies for a conspiracy-minded person. It's very hard to drop them.

Re: Joe Rogan, confined to Spotify, is losing influence

#682

Post by dharmab »

dalbasal wrote: post #629
dharmab wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another free medium is email newsletters, which are seeing a resurgence. Yes, you need to manage CAN-SPAM compliance and the actual protocols are a mess, but you can cobble something together with on-prem campaign software and AWS SNS for not too much money.

True fact. I'd call the medium "email" though.

The infrastructure and compliance requirements of running a newsletter is very different from personal email (mostly to stay on the good side of antispam)

Re: Joe Rogan, confined to Spotify, is losing influence

#683

Post by 8bitsrule »

gsich wrote: post #408
jdprgm wrote: post #175

It's been frustrating watching the Spotify (and general movement) with podcasts fragmenting and going exclusive. Spotify won with music because it improved upon the existing state of listening to music and offered a free or cheap solution that was even a compelling alternative to piracy. Podcasts for the most part were in the ideal state for consumers, almost always free and mostly client independent distributed w/ R…

Podcasts without RSS are not podcasts. Sure you can have several distribution methods, but if not one of them is RSS ...

Resisting having everything pulled back into the advertising maelstrom that consumed Cable TV, even dented NPR, means ignoring their never-ending moves to drag everything into their gutter. Sorry, f*kers, calling something a podcast doesn't make it so.

I quit Cable because of the ads. Great films chopped into mincemeat! Never going back. No RSS, no subscription. Requests for Patreon donations, no problemo.

Re: Joe Rogan, confined to Spotify, is losing influence

#684

Post by snet0 »

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #301
jimt1234 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rejecting people that promote the "Sandy Hook was fake!" conspiracy theory and even harassing the parents of murdered children isn't a way to avoid offending the "progressive attitudes of Silicon Valley". It's just common decency. ... Can we at least set the bar at that level -- that we _don't_ harass the parents of murdered children for clicks?

Interviewing influential figures is important.

Why? Why do I suddenly need to know everyone's take about everything? Why is it important that we know what our favourite actor thinks about Trump?

Everything is publicity. It's not achieving some important social need, its driving people towards new products. Interviewing Alex Jones isn't doing anything except making more people know what an Alex Jones is.

Re: Joe Rogan, confined to Spotify, is losing influence

#685

Post by thefourthchime »

dalbasal wrote: post #482
jdprgm wrote: post #175

It's been frustrating watching the Spotify (and general movement) with podcasts fragmenting and going exclusive. Spotify won with music because it improved upon the existing state of listening to music and offered a free or cheap solution that was even a compelling alternative to piracy. Podcasts for the most part were in the ideal state for consumers, almost always free and mostly client independent distributed w/ R…

It's all competition for monopoly. No one "owned" podcasting, like itunes own streaming music and youtube own free-to-air TV. Spotify is trying to be the one that owns it. They bought exclusivity to as many top podcasts as they could in order to start centralizing podcasting on their platform. Eventually enough momentum shifts, and all the other podcasters have to go where users go, spotify. They may or may not succe…

Yep. They were suckers for putting their podcasts on "RSS Feeds". All media is becoming the Netflix model. Spotify saw that as the new goldrush and was first to act. Now they all are.

It's not great for the customer... Yet. Maybe podcasting will continue to explode and we'll see a jump in quality, like we did with podcasts like Serial.

Re: Joe Rogan, confined to Spotify, is losing influence

#686

Post by diebir »

Whatevs. Joe Rogan, as far as I could tell is some sort of loud macho redneck type that does not have anything interesting to say.

On another note, Spotify is so buggy an application I am surprised how/why anybody is using it. The most common thing is that it crashes on my iPhone. I was considering buying it, but not after discovering how bad/buggy it was.

Re: Joe Rogan, confined to Spotify, is losing influence

#687

Post by dlivingston »

Zelphyr wrote: post #167

Money aside, I personally feel the Spotify deal was terrible for Rogan. He does more for Spotify than they do for him. Not least of which because Spotify, while pretty great for music, is terrible as a podcast player. And, yeah, he has gone off the deep end since the Spotify deal. Somebody dumping a giant basket of cash on your doorstep probably does the ego no favors.

> he has gone off the deep end since the Spotify deal.

Can you explain? I’m genuinely curious by what you mean.

Re: Joe Rogan, confined to Spotify, is losing influence

#688

Post by snet0 »

effingwewt wrote: post #204
Milolol wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Milo Yiannopoulos is a self-proclaimed white supremacist, that offends more than "the progressive attitudes of Silicon Valley," it offends everyone that's not a white supremacist. Alex Jones testified to being a performance artist and hosts a talk show purely to hawk merchandise. Does that really fit the mold of a thought-provoking podcast like Rogan's?

Right, so don't listen to those episodes. I, on the other hand, like hearing both sides so I can make an informed decision on why I disagree with whomever. 'So and so is bad, I heard it from X' has never been good for any human society. Pretending the episodes don't exist is rewriting history. 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' Personal point- if I saw Alex Jones personally I would not w…

Nobody has a right to be heard. He has a right to speak. People like Rogan have a megaphone and are choosing who to give it to. Would you choose Alex Jones?

Re: Joe Rogan, confined to Spotify, is losing influence

#689

Post by Dove »

snet0 wrote: post #681
ineptech wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We must remove that stuff because those ideas are dangerous/offensive, and if you disagree with removing it then you must agree with that filth!" is extremely helpful to the sorts of people who do edgy stuff to attract attention and then try to memoryhole it once they get a big audience. I think the truth is the opposite: there are no dangerous ideas. "Sandy Hook was fake!" is stupid and wrong, but the way to defeat…

I think this is naïve. Taking Sandy Hook as the example, do you think Alex Jones' discussion on Rogan increased or decreased its spread? It's very easy to pick up new conspiracies for a conspiracy-minded person. It's very hard to drop them.

Looking at things through a consequentialist soda straw like that is a terrible way to make decisions -- it is like trying to decide if I will drive or walk solely based on the number of birds I might kill. Decisions are much larger than this single aspect.

Some people hearing a crazy idea might adopt it. Some might criticize it. Some might learn how crazy ideas work. Some might adopt it for a little while, then reject it, and be wiser through the experience. Someone who goes on a crusade to fix this one falsehood might be exposed to it. You cannot know what all effects the sum of a discussion has.

But I can certainly tell you this: censorship doesn't work. It didn't work in ancient Rome. It didn't work in the Holy Roman Empire. It didn't work in Soviet Russia. It doesn't work in Communist China. It's not working right now for vaccine disinformation. Driving crazy ideas underground does not make them disappear, and it does not make them unpopular -- it makes them spread without criticism. And in fact, telling people they can't do something generally makes them want to do it. It appears to work for a little while, but I cannot think of a single historical case in which this actually worked out. Somehow the banned ideas always seem to survive beyond the death of the regime that banned them.

We will always have crazy ideas. We will always have crazy people that buy them. Depriving them of respectability is perhaps a little helpful, but opens up a different danger: just who gets to decide what and who is crazy? I didn't vote for you, and I didn't vote for Spotify either.

Re: Joe Rogan, confined to Spotify, is losing influence

#690

Post by cbozeman »

snet0 wrote: post #681
ineptech wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We must remove that stuff because those ideas are dangerous/offensive, and if you disagree with removing it then you must agree with that filth!" is extremely helpful to the sorts of people who do edgy stuff to attract attention and then try to memoryhole it once they get a big audience. I think the truth is the opposite: there are no dangerous ideas. "Sandy Hook was fake!" is stupid and wrong, but the way to defeat…

I think this is naïve. Taking Sandy Hook as the example, do you think Alex Jones' discussion on Rogan increased or decreased its spread? It's very easy to pick up new conspiracies for a conspiracy-minded person. It's very hard to drop them.

What's "naïve" is you or anyone else thinking they have the power to "nudge people into better patterns", which is exactly what the kind of behavior you're promoting attempts to accomplish.

You can't, and you never will. Culture evolves slowly, and humans even slower.

Post reply on HN