Live data from Hacker News

Joe Rogan, confined to Spotify, is losing influence

theverge.com

731–740 of 844 posts

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

#731
post #723

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The point is that he exposes the entire spectrum and even leans left himself, however the original commenter only mentioned the alt-right. Clearly they're implying one side is worse and somehow going to unleash terrible things, however these claims are vague, misleading, and usually made by those who just happen to be on the other extreme.

Very few people have such trouble with his massive variety of guests, topics and politics; otherwise it wouldn't be the most popular podcast in the world.

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

#733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the model of giving away Joe Rogan to all users of Spotify (even if not paying subscribers) is worst of all worlds from a business POV. Think how many people still subscribe and pay over ten dollars a month to listen to Howard Stern. I subscribe to a few podcasts on patreon at $5 just for the few bonus episodes. And I have trouble believing the ad revenue Spotify gets for this is anywhere close to what paying…

In Joe Rogan's case, I doubt people would pay. Then again, I haven't been able to understand his success. I cringe when he calls himself a Comedian. I cringe when he talks science. (Always felt someone should sit down with him and explain The Placebo Effect, and The Scientific Method, and what goes into a good Clinical study. I would be shocked if he ever even took Psy 101.) Is it the upfront pot use that garners so…

They are not selling, they are building a monopoly.

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

#734

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Specifically "the unvaccinated are screwing over the rest of us who are doing the right thing"." They're disproportionately taking up resources in hospitals for example, which do not have unlimited resources. We could be having a much better response right now [here in the U.S.] with less load on hospitals, but we're not, because of selfish and/or gullible people. They're also making the pandemic & related economic…

Interesting. I'm not pro/anti vax or anything else, but I imagined unhealthy people were taking up hospital beds disproportionally. I was interested in why you felt the way you do; thanks for sharing your opinion.

The entire raison d'être of hospitals is to treat unhealthy people when they get sick and lessen or prevent healthy individuals from getting sick. So that statement is tautological.

Unvaccinated/maskless people [by choice] who then get sick with COVID and go to the hospital anyways are unnecessarily draining hospitals of their limited resources. Hospitals were already understaffed before COVID, and now unvaccinated/maskless people want the workers at hospitals to risk their lives and work around the clock to benefit people who basically flipped them (and science) off until they got sick and changed their tune. It's so hypocritical.

The highly infectious aspect of the disease makes it different from e.g. poor lifestyle habits or one off decisions. Every single COVID patient is taking up a bed/resources that could have gone to people who are unhealthy for reasons outside of their control, and there are hospitals completely at capacity due to COVID.

And not making a choice to be pro or anti-vax is a choice in itself. Choosing to not have an opinion means implicitly supporting the status quo, which where I am would mean implicitly supporting a bunch of unvaccinated, maskless people by choice draining our resources and having a flagrant disregard for their fellow citizens. That statement makes about as much sense as saying "I'm not pro or anti -science-".

There needs to be a very good reason(s) why one would be "neutral" about vaccines or science. Internet conspiracies don't count as good reasons, and the other side has has actual research and facts backing it up. Saying that one is just "neutral" about science or vaccines is semantically exactly the same as saying that one is anti-science or vaccines.

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

#735
post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually like Spotify. For music , though. Listening to podcasts in a music app – makes no sense to me. I have Overcast for that purpose and I see no reason to switch. I can understand that it was a good deal for Rogan personally if he got 100 million USD for exclusivity but for the average podcast host I believe that an open platform is much better.

As an artist I do not like getting $50 per 1m plays.

I can understand that! For the record I also buy music on Bandcamp. Lots of good stuff there that’s not available on Spotify.

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

#736
post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The main purpose of getting the vaccine isn't just to protect yourself -- it's to reduce the chances of you transmitting it to others. It's about herd immunity, not personal immunity. Not about personal immunity? Why did we roll it out by age group then?

Older people as a group require more care when they get sick. Additionally, elderly group living was being hit the hardest by the pandemic, especially early on. It wasn't about saving the most lives per se. It was about reducing the load on the medical system. I suspect those outcomes are strongly correlated.

> It wasn't about saving the most lives

How can you think it was about anything but saving lives? The cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics in this thread is incredible. The vaccine offers personal immunity thats why we gave it to the most at risk groups first.

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

#737
ironically think his popularity exploded right before switching to spotify as articles got spread about his big payday. as well as the election. so it’s a bit unfair to compare that time period. wonder how it compares to 2018z

also wonder if podcast listening could be down if people aren’t commuting

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

#738
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…

I think the model of giving away Joe Rogan to all users of Spotify (even if not paying subscribers) is worst of all worlds from a business POV. Think how many people still subscribe and pay over ten dollars a month to listen to Howard Stern. I subscribe to a few podcasts on patreon at $5 just for the few bonus episodes. And I have trouble believing the ad revenue Spotify gets for this is anywhere close to what paying…

If they want to get in, they need the big names. If they bring the Michael Jordan, then it guarantees millions listening to podcasts on SPY and then other podcasters all haul over as well to make the critical mass.

Spotify is not powerful enough otherwise.

Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't aka Microsoft with their Twitch challenger and ninja, but every circumstance is different.

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

#739
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…

"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 sta…

>The most livable societies I know are all open societies.

If by "open" societies you mean societies in which no form of "censorship" is practiced by any entity, at any level, then no, you do not, because such societies do not exist. Even the United States has limits placed on speech at the Federal level (the level limited by the First Amendment) and elsewhere. Even public squares are regulated. And on top of everything else, society itself imposes "censorship" through cultural and social norms.

Certainly speech on private property can be regulated. You can't go into a restaurant and start campaigning or venting about the government. Platforms on the web, which are also private property, have always been likewise regulated by their owners. I guarantee this is the case in whatever livable societies you're referring to.

>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.

Yes, the slippery slope argument, all forms of censorship must inevitably lead to arbitrary censorship something something Orwell something Stalinist purges. At this point it's been invoked so often that it's become something of a thought-terminating cliche. All I can say is I don't believe that the ability of site owners and moderators to police and control content - an ability they've had forever mind you - will somehow inevitably lead to the boot stomping on our heads forever. If you disagree we'll have to agree to disagree.

After all, as stated earlier, there are no societies in which no form of censorship occurs. If the slippery slope argument were valid, all societies would currently be dictatorships. That societies exist which you consider "open" suggests that

>Should I lobby for your speech to be deplatformed, as you call it?

Lobby whom? We're talking about the policies of specific private entities, you're the one who predictably brought up CCP style authoritarianism despite no one actually arguing for governments to "deplatform" anyone from society. But sure - if you think my speech is doing real world harm in the same way as Alex Jones or anti-vaxxers, feel free to "lobby" the mods about it. That would, after all, be your free speech right would it not?

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

#740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I came across a very thorough analysis of the Paul Saladino episode [0] the other day when I was researching him after a friend recommended his book. Seemed like he was cherry picking evidence pretty hard and that the majority of the evidence doesn't agree with his stance at all [0] https://www.biolayne.com/articles/research/paul-saladino-on-...

Was going to link this exact article, but you beat me to it. :) My biggest problem with Saladino's episode was that early in it became clear that he is a zealot, and almost by definition zealots are rarely generally "right" or "not pseudoscience" as GP claims in this specific case. Especially when their object of zealotry is an extremely complex field that we're only just beginning to understand. It's difficult to tr…

I’ve reviewed that link as well as the debate that they had on YouTube and I think you should apologize for wasting so much of my time. The guy hit his vape pen in the middle of the debate — I think that pretty much sums it up. He doesn’t know chemistry or biochemistry, but Paul clearly is very well educated medically. There isn’t a single argument this guy makes that stands up. And Paul isn’t a zealot by any stretch of the imagination. Not yielding to arguments that are demonstrably false is not zealotry… zealotry is what you are doing: not yielding to inconvenient yet incontrovertible facts. And by the way, nature agrees with me, not you.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01455-4

Post reply on HN