821–830 of 1001 posts
This is bigger than Spotify. Rogan was a proactive person conducting open research into the world around him. When proactive people investigate things and share their findings, it now only takes a few to dislike the findings, fuss, and have the findings removed. To those that support this, I have 4 questions: 1. Is disincentivising sharing knowledge really good for the world? 2. Is it reasonable to expect 100% of inq…
This is bigger than Spotify. Rogan was a proactive person conducting open research into the world around him. When proactive people investigate things and share their findings, it now only takes a few to dislike the findings, fuss, and have the findings removed. To those that support this, I have 4 questions: 1. Is disincentivising sharing knowledge really good for the world? 2. Is it reasonable to expect 100% of inq…
No, this is not how you do “open research”. He’s a shock jock ffs. A good one, maybe, but not Woodward or Bernstein.
That's quite a shocking low effort attack that means absolutely nothing. Why should anyone believe your claims.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
>...Likewise if the free market is used as a way to reduce the availability of content, That's literally the whole premise of things like copyright and patents. You can't just run out and start distributing NFL streams, copies of movies, or Disney labeled memorabilia without the expressed permission of the people who own that content.
Which are arguably a government-imposed regulatory capture whose disfunction causes the market to be less free. So, it sounds like the two of you kind of agree?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is censorship by definition. Whether you think it's justified is a separate question.
That is debatable. Many would argue that censorship "by definition" involves the government (not the case here), and not merely the removal of content by someone, but prohibition for everyone to distribute it (not the case here as far as I can tell).
This does involve the government though. They literally called on Spotify to censor Rogan.
This is bigger than Spotify. Rogan was a proactive person conducting open research into the world around him. When proactive people investigate things and share their findings, it now only takes a few to dislike the findings, fuss, and have the findings removed. To those that support this, I have 4 questions: 1. Is disincentivising sharing knowledge really good for the world? 2. Is it reasonable to expect 100% of inq…
He has fringe people on his show to drive engagement. Fauci is not going to pay the bills.
I wouldn't call the guests on his show "fringe". In fact blanket calling all the hundreds if not thousands of people he had on his podcast fringe would require whomever said that to be someone who thinks through a groupthink/xenophobic mentality of believing the other side is evil.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
>...Likewise if the free market is used as a way to reduce the availability of content, That's literally the whole premise of things like copyright and patents. You can't just run out and start distributing NFL streams, copies of movies, or Disney labeled memorabilia without the expressed permission of the people who own that content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> But if they do something unethical, like removing content for political reasons How is this unethical?
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…
Pay $100 million dollars for a creator and his content just so you can delete large portions of it after putting it on your service. Smart....