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

801–810 of 844 posts

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

#801

Post by complianceowl »

alpaca128 wrote: post #476
complianceowl wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of us are right and wrong to varying degrees. I don't think Joe Rogan cares much for people that stop listening because he doesn't reinforce their politics. He never has. He's also spoken about the whole point of him having FU money is that he is able to say whatever he wants and not care about the blowback. I'm not anti-vax, but ultimately, my body, my choice. People who are risk averse are free to self-quaranti…

> Us, the unvaccinated, are happy to live freely and face any associated risks So I assume you agree to not come running to the hospital when you get infected, taking away beds for other patients who shouldn't have to suffer because of your ignorance?

Uhh, no -- although your politics have driven you to salivate at the sight of an unvaccinated person in a deathbead so you can scream, "I told you so!", no -- I will happily go to the hospital if I need to. Why? Because "I'm willing to take the risk" does not mean that accepting death is a requirement (unfortunately for you).

Oh, and getting COVID and needing hospitalization absolutely does not mean that I will be taking away a bed from someone who needs it. You're so desperate to spew your hate that you actually made that strawman assumption; that's laughable. If you were actually honest, you would know that after the shortage of beds and ventilators, hospitals are now much, much better prepared to handle spikes in hospitalizations.

It appears the only ignorance here is yours, buddy.

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

#802

Post by acoard »

garyrichardson wrote: post #792
altacc wrote: post #159

Hearing "Exclusively on Spotify" on any podcast ad is a sure-fire way to make sure I never listen to an episode. One of the great features of podcasts is the flexibility in listening platform and I'd really rather not switch to Spotify's substandard user experience.

I listen to a lot of podcasts and cram as much content into a small amount of time as possible. I've also been listening to podcasts since about 2006. It sounds absurd, but I have a "podcast workflow" that centers around Castro (highly recommend it). I'm a long time (since Startup) listener of Gimlet podcasts. Slowly Gimlet podcasts are moving to Spotify exclusives. When that happens, I just stop listening. I'm 100%…

Can you say more about your "podcast workflow" with Castro?

I've been using Castro for around a year now and loving it. It reminds me of my favourite Android podcast app, Podcast Addict, with the reams of customization options, but packages it up in an Apple-y design.

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

#803

Post by pas »

tejohnso wrote: post #419

I find myself listening to Lex much more, and Joe much less. Overall, I'm very glad that the format exists, and we're able to hear from experts / academics who otherwise wouldn't have a platform to really get into the details of their work.

GoogleTechTalks was this for a while.

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

#804

Post by effingwewt »

duxup wrote: post #800
effingwewt wrote: post #726

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That seems strange though. YouTube isn't a library where I expect them to host anything uploaded forever under any circumstances.

That isn't what we are speaking about here. If youtube buys the rights to a show and uploads 'their version' of it with episodes missing and re-numbered so no one will notice any are missing, they are controlling a narrative.

They should at least have a disclaimer about the missing episodes.

This isn't some new idea here.

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

#805

Post by knorker »

ymolodtsov wrote: post #770
knorker wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't doubt that there are phones out there for which airplane mode works with Spotify. It's often the case in software that the bug is just not encountered, for some. But it was also just an example of the many ways the app is broken here and there. Freezes up, crashes, etc... And this I've gotten across phones. But that's just the bugs. As others have said the whole thing is not even close to designed for podcast…

But you make it sound like it's a widespread problem. For me their app is just great and much faster than Apple Music that may randomly fail at playing some track. And it works on airplanes just fine.

I don't have a survey, but everyone I know who uses it says that it's shit, too.

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

#806

Post by kbenson »

ymolodtsov wrote: post #768
kbenson wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was given $100 million dollars up front to crash before his expiration date. Yes, that is a brilliant move.

Well, I'm sure he was making pretty good movie before and yet he was independent, people talked about him, reporters wrote stories more often – in the long-term he could have monetized that even better.

> in the long-term he could have monetized that even better.

Could being the operative word. We're talking about "blow a million dollars on random shit every year until you die and still have multiple millions left over" amounts of money. Why would anyone who doesn't already have hundreds of millions of dollars opt for that? The whole point of this tangent in the discussion is that he probably realized his time in the spotlight was limited, so any plan that assumes longevity is statistically unlikely to come to fruition.

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

#807

Post by Zelphyr »

dlivingston wrote: post #687
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.

I haven't listened in awhile because Spotify is such a terrible place for podcasts but, when I did, for about a month or two after he moved to Spotify, it seemed like all he was talking about were UFO's, other conspiracy theories, and how much he hated the COVID measures.

Frankly, I don't care that he talks about those things--some I agree with him on, some I don't--but, in the past he did a good job of balancing those things out with guests who offered a different perspective. After he made the Spotify deal, it seemed like he went all in on his beliefs and didn't seem interested in exposing himself or his audience to opposing views anymore.

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

#808

Post by chansiky »

indy wrote: post #81
bb123 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does memoryholing mean?

Some episodes are no longer available, as if Spotify wants everyone to forget that they even exist. Episodes featuring Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones etc. In other words, guests that offend the progressive attitudes of Silicon Valley

That's straight up censorship.

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

#810

Post by ineptech »

raisedbyninjas wrote: post #786
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…

>Sunlight is the best disinfectant. This quip implies two things. 1. Is that all publicity is equivalent. Rogan is no James Randi. He's much more likely to nod along with anything a guest says than debunk it. His podcast is entertainment, not a crucible for the truth. 2. Is that every time we broadcast nonsense that fewer people believe it and society as a whole becomes wiser. If this were true, then when the ex-Pres…

I think you've misunderstood which direction I imagine the sunlight going here.

1. You seem to think that Joe Rogan is not very reliable or trustworthy. How do you know that? Because of past interviews where he nodded along with a crackpot, right? Isn't that valuable information? Doesn't that help you evaluate new information you get from him?

2. The choice we are faced with is not, "Should we allow nonsense to be broadcasted"; it is "What should we do in response to it." In each of these cases, I think it's pretty important to be aware of what happened.

If you could time travel back to, say, 2000, and you had a choice of either trying to "bury" Wakefield's work to keep people from hearing about it or to promote the idea that his work was bunk, which would you choose? I think the latter would be more effective, wouldn't it?

Post reply on HN