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

811–820 of 844 posts

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

#811

Post by kadoban »

WalterBright wrote: post #701
kadoban wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can use whatever frame of reference you want, sure. Does there exist one in which the Sun orbits the Earth though? I don't think so. Those examples sound either metaphorical or about angular position/velocity, not orbit.

> Does there exist one in which the Sun orbits the Earth though? Yes. It's what I've been talking about in this thread. You could always, of course, demand that the local TV station change the word "sunrise" to "when the Earth rotates until the Sun shines on the TV station", but I suspect that won't be successful.

That seems a lot like it's relative in the same way as the universe's existence is when I put my hand over my eyes.

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

#812

Post by ineptech »

krapp wrote: post #729
ineptech wrote: post #725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fewe…

I think the main thing we disagree on is: I don't think Alex Jones has any power, or changes anyone's mind. He doesn't have a silver tongue, a deft wit, or evidence on his side. He's just a schmuck who tosses out bullshit to see what sticks.

What you're dancing around, though, is that you can't talk about why this particular piece of bullshit sticks if you're pretending it's apolitical. The Sandy Hook hoax idea, as I understand it, is the theory that there are forces within the US government plotting to restrict gun rights, and they staged a fake school shooting to gain support. Right?

Well, you can pin the second bit on Alex Jones, at least partly, but the other part, the "there are forces within the US government plotting to restrict gun rights" part, that's a meme that the mainstream right has been pushing relentlessly for something like two generations. And it is not a conspiracy theory; it's literally true (albeit often exaggerated).

So my point, the reason I think deplatforming Jones would be ineffectual, is that the damage is already done. A generation has been convinced that the anti-gun brigade is so powerful and pernicious that faking a school shooting is something they might realistically do. That is the problem. I don't know if that problem is solveable, but I don't think deplatforming people like Alex Jones really affects it.

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

#813

Post by sureglymop »

INTPenis wrote: post #764
sureglymop wrote: post #751

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are those discussions silly? He has an incredible amount of influence but he at times has for example insane conspiracy theorists on with absolutely zero considerations about how him "appearing" like a good friend to them will influence his audience. He always ponders to his guests, which makes sure that they trust him and open up. That might appear to be a good thing but it becomes a problem when you have people…

Hey if you don't agree with him, just don't listen. But don't deny him his self expression when clearly he represents a lot of people who can relate. Enforcing some sort of social responsibility on him is indirectly denying him his self expression.

Let's not get into a debate here. I'm just criticizing him, which I'm allowed to do. I'm not enforcing anything on anyone, I guess me criticizing him is my self expression. :)

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

#814

Post by krastanov »

complianceowl wrote: post #799
krastanov wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of situations in which we as a society have decided that freedoms are curbed to protect the masses. Drunk driving laws for instance. If you are putting people around you at risk, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to require you to stay home, not all the other people who have taken the easy trivial precautions (vaccines and masks) necessary to protect those around them.

Thankfully your idea of "perfectly reasonable" is not, and most likely will not, be law. And if it is, I will happily move to a state where it is not. It is scary what some societies throughout history have defined as "perfectly reasonable".

You are not wrong, you are just incredibly selfish. If it was not for selfish people, we would not have to worry about deciding things at the society-level.

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

#815

Post by arcticfox »

complianceowl wrote: post #793
arcticfox wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Us, the unvaccinated, are happy to live freely and face any associated risks - just like people who decide to ride motorcycles, play combat sports, or eat homegrown food. I think you've got the wrong analogies going there. You, the unvaccinated, are principally putting yourselves at risk but you are also , and more importantly, putting others at increased risk of transmission from yourself. Adjusting your content f…

Fully vaccinated people are both spreading COVID and becoming COVID positive. Following the news can be a good thing, too.

> increased risk of transmission from yourself.

I know. We, the vaccinated, are also not free to do whatever we want. If the chance of transmission between vaccinated & unvaccinated ever equalizes, there would obviously be no reason for different treatment. But just because vaccinated people can transmit doesn't mean they are as likely to.

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

#816

Post by samstave »

chimen wrote: post #345

He left a void which is now being filled by Lex Friedman and others. Rogan doesn't even bother placing something about the podcast in title - he just names the guest which doesn't say anything to me so I dropped his show long time ago. Even went that far and send him an email regarding how frustrating it is to just listen to show after show until you find a subject that you like. What he lost with YouTube is their al…

While I love Lex Friedman -- jeasus christ does that guy talk so slow - I have to watch his podcasts on like 1.5x just to get his speech upto the speed which I can listen.

But other than that he is great.

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

#817

Post by dexterdog »

lghh wrote: post #606
dexterdog wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Number 1 is not very good because you're only taking to people who had successful exits so you're already skewing the conversation.

Skewing it how? To people who probably have good perspective on the issue?

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Survivorship_bias

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

#818

Post by thehappypm »

p_j_w wrote: post #798
thehappypm wrote: post #784

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I, for one, prefer free speech to deplatforming. Who gets to say what’s right or wrong — you?

Surely a company choosing not to publish certain material falls under the umbrella of their free speech rights? Or are we all for compelled speech now? If someone has a podcast that Spotify carries and then say they think the Holocaust was a good thing, is Spotify committing a sin by removing that episode or kicking that person off their platform?

Pro tip: needing to make up a scenario of Nazis usually means you're creating a straw man.

Spotify is well within their rights to pick and choose who to platform. I, personally, think de-platforming is counterproductive. Conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones may be trash human beings, but I don't think Spotify having Rogan's interview with him -- which by the way is a lot of Jones looking insane, and Joe challenging him every step of the way -- is in any way equivalent to "Spotify supports Alex Jones." Censoring people just pushes them to echo chambers.

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

#819

Post by beerandt »

titzer wrote: post #797
beerandt wrote: post #781

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>antivax talking point (and for the most part a load of nonsense >>polio vaccine administered from 1955–1963 was contaminated with simian virus 40 (SV40). The virus came from the monkey kidney cell cultures used to produce the vaccine. Most, but not all, of the contamination was in the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). Once the contamination was recognized, steps were taken to eliminate it from future vaccines. There…

You posted a lot of evidence that SV40, a virus, causes cancer. You are using that to argue against a vaccine that targets a virus (the COVID-19 vaccine), because that vaccine might be contaminated with a virus ? This is absolutely ridiculous. Viruses cause cancer, not vaccines.

And vaccines have a greater than zero risk of being contaminated with live virus, as has already happened with multiple covid vaccines.

My point isn't "don't get vaccinated",

but that claiming "a vaccine altering human DNA is conspiracy theory nonsense" is a bad take, because it's factually wrong and has actually happened.

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

#820

Post by beerandt »

foldr wrote: post #782
beerandt wrote: post #781

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>antivax talking point (and for the most part a load of nonsense >>polio vaccine administered from 1955–1963 was contaminated with simian virus 40 (SV40). The virus came from the monkey kidney cell cultures used to produce the vaccine. Most, but not all, of the contamination was in the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). Once the contamination was recognized, steps were taken to eliminate it from future vaccines. There…

> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221112/ > That sounds like a load of nonsense? "Based on these limitations, the committee concludes that the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between SV40-containing polio vaccines and cancer." There is literally no reason to bring this up in relation to COVID vaccines. First, this was a contamination issue with polio vaccines between 1955 and 19…

You left out the ultimate conclusion:

>In light of the biological evidence supporting the theory that SV40-contamination of polio vaccines could contribute to human cancers, the committee recommends continued public health attention in the form of policy analysis, communication, and targeted biological research.

>long since fixed (and unlikely to happen again, as it is now much easier to detect this kind of contamination)

Multiple vaccines have already been recalled due to contamination, after they passed initial qaqc.

How does that make it unlikely that contaminated products don't go undetected?

My point isn't that vaccine's shouldn't be taken.

It's that the same people that constantly complain about pharmaceutical companies taking shortcuts and behaving unethically, suddenly decide the same companies are infallible when it comes to a rushed development of a product, from which they are fully shielded from liability.

>There is literally no reason to bring this up in relation to COVID vaccines

When someone suggests a concern is scifi conspiracy theory nonsense, and that concern has actually historically happened, then it's absolutely relevant.

The scare tactics are bad enough, but don't try to trick people with lies and outright manipulation, and there won't be anything to call out.

Post reply on HN