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

Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes

jremissing.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

771–780 of 1001 posts

Re: Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes

#771

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

istinetz wrote: post #522
hnarn wrote: post #466

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'll try to explain why I have an issue with what is happening here. Yes, I agree with almost everything you said. However, the issue is that platforms are consolidated. Depending on your chosen format of content, there are only 2-3 viable platforms to reach people - and for some types of content, only one. And if those very small number of platforms decide to, or are pressured to, delist content or a content creator…

> Yes, I agree with almost everything you said. However, the issue is that platforms are consolidated

There is no shortage of broadcast platforms. They are not consolidated. In the podcast space alone there are apple, Spotify, YouTube music, stitcher, and self-hosting. And then there are all the non-podcast broadcast modalities.

Re: Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes

#773

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

xyst wrote: post #698
MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #684

In Russia they used to justify their brand of censorship with the argument that "that's what they are doing in the US too"; often these claims are exaggerated and not strictly true, but now you have given them yet another argument for strengthening their Russian brand of authoritarianism. Sad story that there seems to be some kind of convergence between the east and the west; it seems like the shit is flowing both wa…

huh? The government didn’t censure anything. Spotify did due to the PR disaster (musicians pulling out, scientific community speaking out, …). How does a private corporation action equate to government level censorship in the US?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDjkXjSVWIw "Jen Psaki urges Spotify to take further action on Joe Rogan: ‘More can be done’" the white house press secretary called for more action, well, and she got it.

And guess who, Russian government mouthpeace RT jumped right onto it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqx2BzSfdkI My guess is that they will be using this as a showcase and justification for their own shit at home.

Re: Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes

#774

Post by eej71 »

hnarn wrote: post #466

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 do agree with your underlying defense of private property. Spotify has a legal right to do this. There is no contractural issue here. And this is not censorship.

But there is a cultural question that I think this defense sidesteps a bit. I'd frame it as a question.

What level of heterodox opinion would you encourage Spotify (and the like) to tolerate? What opinion would be heterodox to you or your peers that you'd want to see Spotify to defend as the realm of reasonable on a platform of broad interest to the general public?

Re: Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes

#775

Post by Proven »

klagermkii wrote: post #581
hnarn wrote: post #466

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. I don't think this is some irreconcilable gotcha. I support the free market as a tool when it delivers on the benefits that it can provide. Those are increasing choice and decreasing costs through increased competition and commoditiz…

No post body was provided.

Re: Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes

#776

Post by kyrra »

hnarn wrote: post #466

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 recommend reading Glenn Greenwalds piece on censorship: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-pressure-campaign-on-sp...

I believe the core issue here is: while the first amendment applies to government, it is something that businesses should try to make a core part of their ethos. The censorship that tech companies have been doing are really against free speech and freedom of association.

Yes, companies are within their legal right to do the censorship we are seeing. That doesn't mean it's right.

Re: Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes

#777

Post by smus »

Hermel wrote: post #609
hnarn wrote: post #466

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…

Of course they are free to do what they want. But if they do something unethical, like removing content for political reasons, I'm also free to criticize them and for example demand a refund if they lured me into a subscription by claiming I would be able to listen to Joe Rogan. Also, you are making wild assumptions about the contract between Joe Rogan and Spotify. Maybe there's a clause in there that they will not o…

It's unethical to publish content that promotes white supremacists, even indirectly. Don't see how it's unethical to censor it though

Re: Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes

#778

Post by LudwigNagasena »

cosmotic wrote: post #323
voisin wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you do speak for the majority. I am a fairly heavy Podcast consumer (I run a lot and like to listen to them), and JRE is consistently among my top two (always a battle with the ever great Rich Roll) because of the sheer diversity of guests he has on. I don’t care for MMA or most of the comedians so I skip those but that’s fine because Rogan is so prolific that there will be something interesting in the next f…

Over-sexualization is a bit different than legitimizing COVID denial and quack medicine and so are the consequences of each.

If the listeners are adults of voting age, I see absolutely no problem with that. If you think that people are too stupid, I think we should talk about stripping their voting rights. If people are too stupid to consume misinformation aren't they too stupid to vote?

Re: Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes

#779

Post by klyrs »

throwaway73838 wrote: post #721
hnarn wrote: post #466

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…

Yeah, it’s their free will to censor the content that they deliver. It’s also the consumers free will to have a problem with it. I don’t think anyone here is advocating for a legislative solution to this dispute. Spotify is making a financial/business decision, and the consumers are concerned with the product they are paying for.

> I don’t think anyone here is advocating for a legislative solution to this dispute.

Not this dispute, per se, but I do advocate for a legislative solution to this whole situation: break them up. Recently posted to HN: https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/mergers-ruin-everything

Re: Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes

#780

Post by throwawaysea »

hnarn wrote: post #466

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 can be a proponent of free markets and against constructs that are anti competitive. When products are bundled (like with Microsoft’s Office subscriptions or Spotify), or when products have network effects (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter), or when they have a large number of users, or a large market cap, the free market already no longer exists. Choice becomes limited and barriers to entry become higher. These companies’ products start to become as important and influential as any public space or service. That’s where regulation is needed. And with all of the big tech platforms, they need to be regulated to not allow users to be denied or discriminated against due to their political views. The alternative is they are split up. But the free market definitely doesn’t exist right now.

Take a look at what happened with Parler. It was a rare successful challenger, although small by comparison, to big social media. Then AOC pressured a few companies to ban Parler and they all complied - whether to build favor with legislators that might regulate them or because it aligned with their politics. The claim that people can just build their own platform doesn’t work in a market this distorted.

As for your redefinition of censorship - I disagree. Legal or contractual allowance doesn’t change what it is. This is censorship.

Post reply on HN