And nothing of value was lost.
Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes
841–850 of 1001 posts
Re: Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes
#842I 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 agree that Spotify has the legal right to stop distributing any content they find objectionable. Anyone arguing that Spotify’s action is a first amendment violation is simply wrong. A private entity, like Spotify, can decide what content to distribute at their own discretion. I don’t think many people are making this argument. Instead, I think many of us are arguing that Spotify shouldn’t exercise that option just…
Do you mean 'distributing' rather than 'disrupting'? [first line & paragraph].
I'm sure Spotify are under colossal pressure to delete historical perceived heretical 'content' on their platform in order to keep their paying customers calm during an unprecedented era of US anti free A1 speech and hysterical media driven witch hunts.
I also think their long term prospects, as societal fashions change and (I hope) reason prevails, will not be good as they will be associated with a very dark period in history. IBM survived this after WWII but it took a lot of PR and having the media on their side.
Re: Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes
#843hot take: if people do not like the actions that private corporations take on their platforms to protect their bottom lines. Then send your money to people that are working to build decentralized systems that do not have a corporate owner or answer to shareholders.
Is there a decentralized attempt at Spotify? That would be mind blowing
Audius?
Re: Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes
#844Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part of a free market economy is criticizing, and not patronizing, products you don’t like. I’m welcome to say Spotify shouldn’t “censor” (in the corporate media sense) certain speakers. And I can cancel/encourage others to cancel their Spotify subscriptions. And I can keep on using Spotify, but let them know I don’t like their conduct, even though it doesn’t (YET!) make me unsubscribe. All free market.
Similarly, Spotify can choose to censor speakers if they think people will come back to Spotify/won't leave Spotify as a result of that action. Spotify should definitely censor whatever they need to in the pursuit of maximum profits.
While I agree in principle with this line of thinking, I do worry that this will just lead to platform fragmentation. My thinking is that if Spotify (or any other platform) gives in to one online mob then that will only encourage more future mobs. I imagine that there are numerous podcasts and artists that some group finds objectionable. E.g., I imagine many cultural conservative prudes find music with a lot of profanity to offend their sensibilities. Should Spotify start removing artists if such a mob forms and demands such an action?
The end result is that a content distribution platform will have to curate a specific brand that targets specific consumers and only distributes conforming content. Whereas we currently have a half dozen or so music streaming services that all have roughly the same content, we’ll soon find content fragmented across 20 different platforms; each corresponding to a specific slice of consumer preferences. Many of us will have to subscribe to multiple services to get the content we seek and will not be able to mix content. E.g., many of my current playlists on Spotify would be split across several disjoint streaming platforms.
Instead, I think platforms should never be reactive in calls for dropping content. Instead they should have a general principle of broadly distributing all but the most extreme fringe content. They can regularly update their principles used in determining what content they distribute, but that should never be done as a quick reaction to some mob. Otherwise they’ll constantly be facing a series of outraged customers that want the platform to stop distributing some content that those outraged user’s don’t even consume. And I believe that will only result in platform fragmentation as distributors curate a brand around specific segments of consumers.
Re: Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes
#845Earlier 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…
> I support the free market as a tool when it delivers on the benefits that it can provide... If problems show up I'm happy to have legislation introduced to tackle those Then that's not the "free market" that you support, just "markets."
That's a silly statement and likely purposely obtuse. Practically any reasonable person talking about a free market does not typically mean a market with precisely zero laws governing it.
Re: Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes
#846this looks alarmingly like a destruction of wrongthink. comedians, musicians, joes friends. this isnt just the rambling conspiracies of alex jones or covid skepticism with non-consensus doctors. rather than debate the meaning of IP, free markets, or the first amendment, we should he focusing on us - the people. our communites. why is it that companies think its advantageous to silence people like this? it must be fol…
I see the de-platforming and censoring of comedians specifically as being extremely concerning. Comedians in theory should not be a threat to anyone. To me this is the canary in the coalmine. What this tells me is that we as a society can't handle criticisms any longer.
The comedians are extremely important to our society, because they have a way of saying things that need to be said that others are often afraid to. In fact when something is funny, its because our minds weren't able to predict the outcome. This is what worries me most, because we are seeing the comedians get silenced for laughing and joking around about political issues. Sure they're just having fun, but they are pointing things out and creating memes that spread through society that need to be heard. If they can't criticize certain ideologies and look at topics from a different perspective, we lose our ability as a society to realign ourselves to improve upon the situation that caused hilarity.
Once the comedians go, then we know people can't just joke around about certain topics. And then we know other forms of silencing are on its way.
Re: Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes
#847Earlier 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…
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 wa…
My disagreement is purely semantic in nature. I disagree that we can't or shouldn't use the word "censorship" to describe Spotify's actions. The other parts of the parent comment; free market, free will, all parties within their rights, etc, that I'm all fine with.
I just think we need to be able to say hey, this is censorship, and it's not necessarily wrong because of XYZ reasons and it's fine and above-board. Spotify's got the rights to the show and nobody can or should be able to compel them to broadcast something they don't want to.
However, pointing to a nebulous category of "proper censorship" (which sounds like pretty much exactly the same thing, just perpetrated by a state actor instead of a private corp) as a way to invalidate the use of the word "censorship" in this context seems dishonest. Not to mention that it strikes me as odd to refer to some instances of censorship as "proper" compared to others.
Let's go along with the "proper censorship" narrative and put on the tinfoil hat for a moment. It would be easy for a sufficiently motivated state actor to create or compel a private company to acquire the rights to works that they want censored, and then simply use the private entity as a front to carry out the censorship on the government's behalf.
I'm not implying that's happening here, but we need to recognize that mostly anything is possible.
If I'm entirely unable to access a work today that was freely available yesterday, it has been censored. The devil's in the details, but the semantics and results here are very clear.
Re: Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes
#848Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that Spotify has the legal right to stop distributing any content they find objectionable. Anyone arguing that Spotify’s action is a first amendment violation is simply wrong. A private entity, like Spotify, can decide what content to distribute at their own discretion. I don’t think many people are making this argument. Instead, I think many of us are arguing that Spotify shouldn’t exercise that option just…
Do you mean 'distributing' rather than 'disrupting'? [first line & paragraph]. I'm sure Spotify are under colossal pressure to delete historical perceived heretical 'content' on their platform in order to keep their paying customers calm during an unprecedented era of US anti free A1 speech and hysterical media driven witch hunts. I also think their long term prospects, as societal fashions change and (I hope) reason…
Good catch. Will correct the mistake. Thanks!
Agree that hopefully Spotify can resist calls to stop distributing content that other users find objectionable. As you point out, fashion will change and hopefully it does so in a way that shuns calls for censorship.
Re: Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes
#849Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand as a male in my 30s spotify recommends Joe Rogan and Jorden Peterson to me approximately every 5 minutes.
I can't watch a YouTube video without getting a JP recommendation.
You might enjoy the extension SponsorBlock, which will auto-skip the sponsored segments within the video itself.
Re: Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes
#850Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Spotify is getting onto thin ice. I subscribed to Spotify because I want to stream music, and I like that the bands I listen to get a bit of money. But when I hear that they are paying $100M to some controversial US podcaster (before Neil Young left Spotify I have never heard of Joe Rogan), I'm thinking, this isn't what I signed up for. I want my money to go towards German indie bands, not rich American celeb…
I don't think they're on thin ice. Remember when people were boycotting Netflix over Cuties? Their stock prices recovered and everyone forgot. People have also boycotted YouTube or pulled their ads. These things just blow over.
or dave chappelle. i mean, both dave and netflix are doing quite fine.