Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes • Hacker News Board

Re: Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes

#831

Post by vanusa » Sat, Feb 05, 2022, 5:52 PM UTC

branon wrote: post #796

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 disagree with you, but legally purchasing the intellectual property rights to a work, and the proceeding to hide it from the public is still censorship in my book. It might not be quite as wrong or bad as, say, state-sponsored blanket censorship, but I think we should call it what it is. A work was available and now it's not. The only reason being that an entity decided that it should be removed from view. Ce…

I don't disagree with you,

Uh, plainly you do. The commenter's main point was that what the broadcaster did was not censorship (and whoever calls it that "need a reality check"). You're saying it "still is in my book". What much more different can the two of you be on this issue?

Part of the reason for the disconnect here probably lies in the fact that the definition given in the WP is overly broad and vague. The way the term is usually used, it strongly suggests some outside party, typically an authoritative body like a government, intervening to say "you cannot publish this". Basically, there needs to be some element of outside coercion for the term "censorship", or even "self-censorship" to apply.

And no -- the weight of public opinion does not constitute "coercion" in this context.

That's why when a company wakes up and realizes "gee, it turns out publishing endless amounts inflammatory crap that does not contribute to discourse and with essentially no artistic value is actually not so good for our overall image and business model" -- that's not what the term "censorship" was is really meant for.

Re: Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes

#832

Post by kolbe » Sat, Feb 05, 2022, 5:52 PM UTC

spac wrote: post #814

branon wrote: post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with you, but legally purchasing the intellectual property rights to a work, and the proceeding to hide it from the public is still censorship in my book. It might not be quite as wrong or bad as, say, state-sponsored blanket censorship, but I think we should call it what it is. A work was available and now it's not. The only reason being that an entity decided that it should be removed from view. Ce…

How do you call the opposite phenomenon in which a company is forced to continue engaging in money-losing activities because of interests external to the company (in this case, the interest in not making Joe Rogan episodes unavailable)?

I find it hard to believe this is a net gain to Spotify in the long run. It may well have been legal, but Rogan signed on as exclusive to Spotify with the understanding that they would be a platform for him and allow him to further extend his brand and reach his followers. Spotify is still in the early stages of their plan to curate and improve advertising in the podcast space, and their plan is to sign exclusives, forcing listeners onto their platform where the free tier can now have targeted ads as opposed to traditional podcasting with traditional media style ads.

Now anyone who receives an offer like this from Spotify will have to consider the possibility of having their brand censored. This will either drive up the cost to Spotify or simply make content providers refuse all together. So, unless Spotify has decided to quit this business plan, I don’t think this is a good long-term solution.

I do think what happened is Spotify saw its DAUs and subscribers dipping, and after the bloodbath in $FB stock last week, got freaked out and abandoned a long-term business plan to prevent a dip in users this quarter.

Re: Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes

#833

Post by burnished » Sat, Feb 05, 2022, 5:53 PM UTC

Mikhail_Edoshin wrote: post #604

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…

There were a few Argentine tango orchestras in 1930-40s that were tricked into signing a deal with record companies only, as it turned out, to prevent them from going to a competitor. As a result we don't have any records of these orchestras for the period of the contract, which may be like two years lacunas in their recorded history. There is something deeply wrong with destroying things that haven't yet reached the…

Well, maybe the big difference here is that you have this example where you feel the participants were tricked. I'm inclined to believe you from what little I know of music history. There is zero reason to believe Joe Rogan was in any way tricked or coerced. The situations are materially different.

Re: Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes

#834

Post by choward » Sat, Feb 05, 2022, 5:53 PM UTC

Arcuru wrote: post #756

rez9x wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking through the deleted episodes, most of them aren't even the scientists and pundits in opposition to globalist narratives. They're comedians, actors, and musicians. I am clearly out of the loop. Why would Spotify remove episodes with Kevin Smith and Brian Posehn? I love both of these comedians/writers, but they're largely in-line with Spotify's neoliberal viewpoints, are they not?

Just going off the list, it seems pretty likely that at least some of the guests requested Spotify to remove the episodes.

That's pretty pathetic if you ask me. Did they not express viewpoints on Joe Rogan they wanted the world to hear? Pulling down their own episodes also makes it appear that they were spreading misinformation.

Re: Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes

#835

Post by christophilus » Sat, Feb 05, 2022, 5:54 PM UTC

spac wrote: post #814

branon wrote: post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with you, but legally purchasing the intellectual property rights to a work, and the proceeding to hide it from the public is still censorship in my book. It might not be quite as wrong or bad as, say, state-sponsored blanket censorship, but I think we should call it what it is. A work was available and now it's not. The only reason being that an entity decided that it should be removed from view. Ce…

How do you call the opposite phenomenon in which a company is forced to continue engaging in money-losing activities because of interests external to the company (in this case, the interest in not making Joe Rogan episodes unavailable)?

I’m not sure what you’d call that. But standing up to an angry mob is called “spine”— something Spotify seems to lack. The only JR podcast I listened to was the Bernie Sanders one; I have no dog in this fight. But I do dislike it when a bunch of angry folks silence someone. I saw it all the time as a kid when Newt and the evangelical right were in power. Today, the same abhorrent behavior is coming from the other side of the aisle. It’s all the same to me; moralizing do-gooders who can’t just leave other folks alone.

Re: Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes

#836

Post by choward » Sat, Feb 05, 2022, 5:56 PM UTC

YEwSdObPQT wrote: post #478

snotrockets wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is not how you do “open research”. He’s a shock jock ffs. A good one, maybe, but not Woodward or Bernstein.

A shock jock? Howard Stern was a shock jock. Have you ever watched Joe Rogan? He has a 3 hour conversation with a guest where he talks at lengths about pretty much anything he wants to ask them about. That isn't a shock jock!

> Have you ever watched Joe Rogan?

I'm guessing not. Most of these people calling to censor him have never listened to a second of his show besides the sound bites the corporate media (who see him as competition even though he's never claimed to be a journalist) has played. Or they are articles out headlines. You can tell someone who's never watched him because they claim he's a right winger when really he's further left than they are.

Re: Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes

#837

Post by canoebuilder » Sat, Feb 05, 2022, 5:57 PM UTC

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…

When you make a comment like this without even acknowledging the social dynamic at play, which is like the whole story, you come across as very disingenuous and very pro censorship.

This is not something Spotify woke up one day and decided to do of their own volition, with their own free market defined property. There was much more to it than that.

The White House(!) was calling for this type of censorship! Do you think that might be relevant to the discussion?

Re: Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes

#838

Post by slibhb » Sat, Feb 05, 2022, 5:59 PM UTC

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.

Being a proponent of free markets doesn't prevent me from criticizing how that freedom is exercised.

> What Spotify chooses to do with it is completely up to them, even if they bought it with the express intention of "burning" it all, i.e. never broadcasting it, that would still not be censorship

It is censorship by any reasonable definition. It's just not illegal censorship.

Re: Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes

#839

Post by computerfriend » Sat, Feb 05, 2022, 6:01 PM UTC

spac wrote: post #814

branon wrote: post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with you, but legally purchasing the intellectual property rights to a work, and the proceeding to hide it from the public is still censorship in my book. It might not be quite as wrong or bad as, say, state-sponsored blanket censorship, but I think we should call it what it is. A work was available and now it's not. The only reason being that an entity decided that it should be removed from view. Ce…

How do you call the opposite phenomenon in which a company is forced to continue engaging in money-losing activities because of interests external to the company (in this case, the interest in not making Joe Rogan episodes unavailable)?

Its called "compelled speech".

Re: Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes

#840

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Sat, Feb 05, 2022, 6:02 PM UTC

spac wrote: post #814

branon wrote: post #796

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with you, but legally purchasing the intellectual property rights to a work, and the proceeding to hide it from the public is still censorship in my book. It might not be quite as wrong or bad as, say, state-sponsored blanket censorship, but I think we should call it what it is. A work was available and now it's not. The only reason being that an entity decided that it should be removed from view. Ce…

How do you call the opposite phenomenon in which a company is forced to continue engaging in money-losing activities because of interests external to the company (in this case, the interest in not making Joe Rogan episodes unavailable)?

I don’t think anyone here is arguing they should be forced to keep these episodes up. I just think that they should voluntarily want to do so, and that it’s bad we have a cultural climate where letting people hear contrarian political views is a financial risk in the first place.