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

721–730 of 844 posts

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

#721

Post by ErikVandeWater »

hobs wrote: post #708
ErikVandeWater wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they have a chance to explain their actions to see what influenced them and if they are justified.

Seemingly chance after chance after chance. Is that why the kardashians are so famous, because their continued media presence is our opportunity to see if they make sense? No, they are just crap and giving them more sunlight just gives them more undue fame, money, and power.

Do you think the kind of interview Rogan does is similar to the typical interview the Kardashians appear in?

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

#722

Post by effingwewt »

snet0 wrote: post #688
effingwewt wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't think we should choose who gets to speak. What happens when you end up on the wrong-thinking side?

If you want to play the pedant fine, he has a right to speak.

But if people like you would stop judging who gets to speak and where we wouldn't have to depend on Joe Rogan's megaphone, now would we?

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

#723

Post by ajkjk »

manigandham wrote: post #631
ajkjk wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim was that what made him a gateway was his literally acting as a gateway: > When you have extremists on and don't challenge what they're saying, that _is_ pushing a narrative. This is in spite of his politics.

By that logic, he's a gateway to the entire political spectrum based on thousands of episodes over a decade. There are plenty of people who are exposed to (far)left perspectives from his show - do you take issue with that?

No, that's fine, it's probably true, but that's not a bad thing that we're condemning.

You are evidently very unwilling to accept the claim, so I don't think anything said here will convince you otherwise, but perhaps it is meaningful that so many people are convinced of it.

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

#724

Post by hallway_monitor »

QuarterReptile wrote: post #717
thefourthchime wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Podcasts follow a predictable trend, almost always. Someone really interesting and very well-informed has a lot of stuff to say that they've been stewing over for a decade or more. 100-200 episodes in, they've gotten it off their chest and you have to find someone else.

Agree; it's the same with most bands and one or two albums.

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

#725

Post by ineptech »

krapp wrote: post #719
ineptech wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And keeping Jones off of Rogan would've accomplished what? Someone who thinks the gummint is out to git 'em would believe a different 'gummint is out to gitcha' conspiracy theory instead? I don't think you can win that battle. The 'Proctor & Gamble are satan worshipers' meme spread across the country before the internet existed. You can't stop people from spreading nonsense, but engaging with and ridiculing nonsense…

>You can't stop people from spreading nonsense, but engaging with and ridiculing nonsense at least makes sure the counter-memes exist, when someone is ready to hear them. You can do both. There is evidence that deplatforming works. It isn't perfectly effective, but not giving cranks access to the biggest megaphones and most virulent information-spreading engines in human history does in fact seem to inhibit their abi…

> There is evidence that deplatforming works.

'Works' in what sense? Does it make the sort of people who believe this stuff less credulous? Or does it just make them less likely to listen to the specific blowhard being deplatformed, and less likely to believe the specific conspiracy theory being peddled? It's not like there's a shortage; both conspiracy theories and con-men are fungible.

(And it goes without saying, that any deplatforming/censorship argument sounds strongest against something patently ridiculous like Sandy Hook not having happened, weaker against something controversial, and positively diabolical against something you personally believe to be true. If you assume the person in charge of the deplatforming is someone you politically disagree with, are you still as big a fan?)

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

#726

Post by effingwewt »

duxup wrote: post #415
literallyaduck wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't burn books, they just remove them. Those episodes happened, and removing them is a form of gaslighting. If they find the content objectionable then putting a disclaimer, if it is objectionable enough then removing the entire series from the platform could be an option, but it is lost history. In this case the artist doesn't care, and probably is happy to sweep those episodes under the rug. It is like how D…

Aren't they still available on YouTube / elsewhere?

The problem, as with every memory-holed episode ever, is that people watching/listening for the first time (or say they only use X platform to consume whatever) will never know they existed.

In other words, lying by omission is still lying.

Edit to add- just to show how unbelievably petty the reasoning can be- Tyler Perry threw a bitch-fit about an episode of Boondocks and had it pulled (as was an episode ripping on BET when they screamed). For something that was pure satire and a cartoon they not only had it pulled from airing, they now no longer list the episodes at all on Hulu/HBOMax, pretending they never existed at all, even re-numbering the episodes.

All because of Tyler Perry/Some BET exec's ego? GTFO.

We have Holocaust deniers while still having people alive that survived it. We have people constantly denying proven, recent history and some people think it's ok to censor shit and pretend it never happened and it'll be all roses and sunshine.

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

#727

Post by trompetenaccoun »

krapp wrote: post #719
ineptech wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And keeping Jones off of Rogan would've accomplished what? Someone who thinks the gummint is out to git 'em would believe a different 'gummint is out to gitcha' conspiracy theory instead? I don't think you can win that battle. The 'Proctor & Gamble are satan worshipers' meme spread across the country before the internet existed. You can't stop people from spreading nonsense, but engaging with and ridiculing nonsense…

>You can't stop people from spreading nonsense, but engaging with and ridiculing nonsense at least makes sure the counter-memes exist, when someone is ready to hear them. You can do both. There is evidence that deplatforming works. It isn't perfectly effective, but not giving cranks access to the biggest megaphones and most virulent information-spreading engines in human history does in fact seem to inhibit their abi…

"Deplatforming" works, because what you just did is use a nicer sounding euphemism for censorship. Obviously with censorship you can hinder the spread of information, regimes like the CCP do this very successfully. The question is at what cost, and who decides what is misinformation? Does it actually result in a net positive for society over time?

The most livable societies I know are all open societies. Once you start censoring this you might also want to censor that and the misinformation here, and this doesn't sound right either... Maybe your own comment is misinformation. Maybe saying we need more restrictions on speech is a dangerous idea. Should I lobby for your speech to be deplatformed, as you call it?

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

#728

Post by dharmab »

dalbasal wrote: post #720
dharmab wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

...and back to platforms :)

Often, yes, but with some care you can run everything yourself except actually sending the emails over the wire. And you can do so cost-efficiently.

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

#729

Post by krapp »

ineptech wrote: post #725
krapp wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can't stop people from spreading nonsense, but engaging with and ridiculing nonsense at least makes sure the counter-memes exist, when someone is ready to hear them. You can do both. There is evidence that deplatforming works. It isn't perfectly effective, but not giving cranks access to the biggest megaphones and most virulent information-spreading engines in human history does in fact seem to inhibit their abi…

> There is evidence that deplatforming works. 'Works' in what sense? Does it make the sort of people who believe this stuff less credulous? Or does it just make them less likely to listen to the specific blowhard being deplatformed, and less likely to believe the specific conspiracy theory being peddled? It's not like there's a shortage; both conspiracy theories and con-men are fungible. (And it goes without saying,…

Let me ask you this - if deplatforming doesn't work, what are all of the people concerned about it worried about?

It works in the sense that it deprives people of the power-multiplying capabilities of large platforms to spread disinformation. It doesn't stop the spread, but it does slow the spread. Yes, Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists would still exist without Alex Jones egging them on, but there would have been fewer of them, and they might not have been so invested in the meme that they decided to harass victims of the shooting.

>And it goes without saying, that any deplatforming/censorship argument sounds strongest against something patently ridiculous like Sandy Hook not having happened, weaker against something controversial, and positively diabolical against something you personally believe to be true.

Yes, that's why I'm making it against the first group, and not the second or third. I'm saying if you're spreading patently ridiculous nonsense like "Sandy Hook was a hoax," and that ridiculous nonsense is doing actual societal harm, it's perfectly legitimate for platforms to decide that you should take your big breadboard and tinfoil hat elsewhere.

>If you assume the person in charge of the deplatforming is someone you politically disagree with, are you still as big a fan?

I'm not supporting deplatforming in the case of simple political disagreement, so in that case, no.

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

#730

Post by lobocinza »

josephg wrote: post #564
dalbasal wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah, I’m a paying spotify customer and I hate this. And I also hate that the spotify client seamlessly mixes podcasts with music in its recommendations. It’s like a PM somewhere at spotify was offered a cash bonus based on how many podcast listens happen, and they decided that making the app trick people into playing podcasts was a profitable idea. It breaks trust, and makes the spotify app feel adversarial. Like I…

I went back to the good ol' TPB. I can count on one hand the artists that I really enjoy listening nowadays and there are better ways to support then.
Post reply on HN