12 ms·

I’m curious what his contract with them stipulates on these matters. As for the employees, they could contact Rogan and either ask to come on the show to discus

by mikece 6y ago

I’m curious what his contract with them stipulates on these matters. As for the employees, they could contact Rogan and either ask to come on the show to discuss what they find so offensive. Joe will talk to anyone, let them have their say and explain their point of view. Arguing to censor his episode history only sends the message that Spotify isn’t a platform for intellectual curiosity and free speech.

MereInterest 6y ago
> As for the employees, they could contact Rogan and either ask to come on the show to discuss what they find so offensive. If you think that somebody is spreading misinformation and is not arguing in good faith, why on earth would you discuss things on a platform where that person controls the editing? That sounds like a recipe for giving somebody the air of legitimacy while having no chance of convincing anybody.
- bdibs 6y ago
  Except Rogan’s podcast is full length and unedited, which is exactly why he chose the format.
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    They do cut things out at times. Which is also why they don't love stream it anymore. They needed to be able to cut out certain things. Though I don't know what their criteria is.
    - s__s 6y ago
      That’s not true. The reason they stopped live streaming is because sketchy channels were cutting clips mid stream and re-posting. Essentially pirating the content to make a bunch of cash before they had the opportunity to release the official clips.
      - jjeaff 6y ago
        Regardless of the reason, Rogan has told guests that they can cut out things if necessary since they don't stream live anymore.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  Why is Spotify Spectrum ERG the authority on misiformation and good faith? Maybe they are mistaken about some things. Have they even accused JR of bad faith? Presenting their case to a friendly JR on JRE is not the same as a kangaroo debate against a Ben Shapiro type.
lalos 6y ago
One thing is free speech and another is giving a platform to dubious characters for them to promote their views unchallenged. What's the risk? you might be smart enough to know better but other's will use Rogan's vouching of X personality to validate their view points "well he was invited to Rogan's show so he must be important and must be listened to! have YOU been featured in Rogan's show?". I'll remind you that a good portion of the population doesn't even think vaccines work and that they do damage, don't think wearing masks help, believe in 'staged false flag' events to the point of bullying victims. The internet has allowed anyone to become a 'soft journalist' but completely ignoring what made journalism work, ethics (depending on the org, of course). See related (specially points 4 & 5): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standard... Honestly I expect that as time goes and people wisen up, the more serious and legit a personality is the less likely they will be to accept an invite to that show until it is just bro-ey comedians and controversial personalities that need a steady flow of more supporters so they will say yes to the opportunity to expose their ideas unchallenged. Controversies sell well and Rogan is aware of that, at the end of it he only cares about growing his wealth and not freedom of speech. BTW, I believe almost no one wants to change the amendments and remove freedom of speech. Those characters will still have the means to communicate their ideas and will be protected by the law, matter fact I myself have donated to ACLU who have defended the KKK in the court of law for the higher purpose of defending freedom of speech and rightly so. See https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-em-defends-kkks-right-free-speech https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-em-defends-kkks-rig... I'm assuming fans of Rogan will be happy to read my comment since as Rogan promotes, we should give a platform to anyone or any idea and let people decide by themselves. Or that doesn't apply to his dissenters?
- fourstar 6y ago
  Why do you care what Rogan says? With the way you describe him it’s clear you don’t like him. Don’t pay attention to him, then. The problem is people today who go against the grain are vilified by these bleeding heart outraged critics who have nothing better to do than attempt to cancel people. People are fed up with it.
  - 6y ago
austhrow743 6y ago
>Arguing to censor his episode history only sends the message that Spotify isn’t a platform for intellectual curiosity and free speech Does Spotify market itself as those things?
- disposekinetics 6y ago
  They signed an exclusive deal with Joe Rogan. I don't know if they intended to send that signal, but it made me check them out for exactly that reason.
  - mef79 6y ago
    Spotify has already made the decision to exclude multiple Joe Rogan episodes from their catalog, this is just a decision of where they draw their line.
    - dkdk8283 6y ago
      This is unfortunate and unacceptable. Joe should have a free and censorship free place to discuss topics. We have lost our minds: the ability to freely and discuss literally any topic was an American staple. Now you don’t dare say something that could potentially offend someone. I could be fired if I said what I really think about some controversial issues and linked it to my identity. That’s not a world I enjoy living in.
      - xref 6y ago
        You’re conflating freedom of speech with freedom from consequences.
      - dopamean 6y ago
        > Joe should have a free and censorship free place to discuss topics. He has that. He's free to post whatever he wants on his website where many people will see it.
      - opifex 6y ago
threatofrain 6y ago
Is Spotify a platform for intellectual curiosity and free speech? On the matter of free speech, Spotify isn't a public square. Facebook isn't a public square. A masonic fraternity isn't a public square. One of the key things about public squares is that it's funded by public money and administered by public officials. How are people so keen on asking private companies to behave like public institutions... without asking for the other critically healthy pillars of public funding and public administration? It's sad, but I think it's because in some ways, people have come to actually TRUST big corps to be more morally responsive and deliberative than their own government. As in, would you rather Facebook own your messages, or would you like to see what concept of digital town square the UK or the US government would produce?
- mikece 6y ago
  > Is Spotify a platform for intellectual curiosity and free speech? Spotify wants to corner the market on popular podcasts. Of it’s very nature — anyone with anything or nothing to say can start one - podcasting might be the best modern example of free speech, and I believe podcasters know this. If they see Spotify as an entity that will require editorial modification or will refuse to post “certain episodes” then podcasters won’t make deals with them. This isn’t a political point, it’s a business point. If Spotify can’t achieve their goal of being THE SOURCE for the best podcasts which are exclusive to their platform then their shareholders will demand changes.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - qppo 6y ago
    Podcasting is in a weird spot right now where the strategy that most podcasters take is to be on as many platforms as possible and there's a cottage industry+ supporting that initiative. It's the same effect as syndication but it looks more like federation. And if you look at the most successful audio content distribution strategies over the last 100 years and ongoing, exclusivity has rarely worked. Fundamentally it requires a content creator to choose to release to a smaller market, which is different than other content that is far more expensive to finance or maintain distribution (like film/video). Basically what I'm saying is that cornering podcasting isn't going to work. But inverting the market to be cornered to the syndication/creation side and not the distribution/consumption side there might be a more effective way. I'd suspect that eschewing both publicity and censorship would be critical to cornering that market. After all, Disney+* and Pornhub have content made with the same tools and sometimes the same people, while both retain their image. + if you want to see what I mean, turn on your adblocker and go to open.spotify.com and start browsing podcasts from ESPN, APM, and others and open the developer console. There are a number of interesting failures when ads are resolved, and a lot of little companies you've never heard of writing some cool networking infrastructure to distribute podcasts. \* well maybe not Disney+. They might have a policy for this exact situation.
omosubi 6y ago
I like Rogan's podcast but he definitely won't talk to anyone - When was the last time there was someone on that didn't agree with him on the major issue or issues they were brought on the podcast to discuss? They may quibble over certain things but at the end of the day he wants to have a fun conversation and arguing with trans rights people for 2 or 3 hours isn't going to happen. Also they've already censored his history and as far as I can tell he agreed to it
- aeternum 6y ago
  Interesting, is the list of censored episodes available anywhere?
  - EnigmaCurry 6y ago
    https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/ikf9at/full_list_of_every_missing_episode_from_spotify/ https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/ikf9at/full_list_...
- ThomPete 6y ago
  he actually just bends to peoples opinions. There are plenty of people he dont agree with.
- hnzix 6y ago
  > When was the last time there was someone on that didn't agree with him on the major issue or issues they were brought on the podcast to discuss? Rogan's schtick is that he lets his guests explain their ideology without directly attacking it. Instead he has an assistant fact-check any claims they make, and Rogan is also very forthright about calling them out on logical inconsistencies - "you said x just before, now you're saying !x, can you explain how that makes sense?" The spirit of open curiosity and honest discourse is important. It also gives some ideologues enough rope with which to hang themselves, eg the Milo Yiannopoulos incident.
  - xnxn 6y ago
    Why does he then use his own voice to breathlessly repeat debunked rumors about left-wing activists in Portland? You think he'll correct the record in the next episode? https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-rogan-podcast-forest-fire-portland-left-antifa-activists-debunked-2020-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-rogan-podcast-forest-fir...
LegitShady 6y ago
I don't think there is room to discuss how much censorship you're willing to accept with people trying to censor you. At the end of the day their feelings don't matter - they're just technocrats trying to control the speech of others because they got hired by Spotify. Joe will talk to people but probably not people trying to destroy his business through their employer who he has a contract with.
jb775 6y ago
Can't see Rogan agreeing to any type of content moderation. It baffles me when people think it's acceptable to throw freedom of speech out the window just because someone is offended.
- koonsolo 6y ago
  I think it's a very small minority, but none the less very loud because the news always picks up on this. We have to keep pushing back on this. "I am offended that you don't respect someone elses opinion" ;)
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  You have the privilege of being boring. When you start getting beaten and murdered by people practicing that free speech, you might change your tune.
  - jb775 6y ago
    I don't understand what you mean. What's the issue with someone voicing an opinion you don't agree with? Diversity is good because you get many opinions from many perspectives. It fails once you start selectively picking and choosing which ones you deem worthy.
- perrygeo 6y ago
  What does "freedom of speech" have to do with any of this? The government has not intervened with any law restricting speech. Spotify is a private company and, under current US law, can de-platform anyone they chose.
  - s__s 6y ago
    Freedom of speech is a principal first and an American law second. Freedom of speech and expression is the bedrock of the civilized world, an important part of modern culture and is indeed defined as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

by mikece 6y ago

MereInterest 6y ago

> As for the employees, they could contact Rogan and either ask to come on the show to discuss what they find so offensive. If you think that somebody is spreading misinformation and is not arguing in good faith, why on earth would you discuss things on a platform where that person controls the editing? That sounds like a recipe for giving somebody the air of legitimacy while having no chance of convincing anybody.

bdibs 6y ago
Except Rogan’s podcast is full length and unedited, which is exactly why he chose the format.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  They do cut things out at times. Which is also why they don't love stream it anymore. They needed to be able to cut out certain things. Though I don't know what their criteria is.
  - s__s 6y ago
    That’s not true. The reason they stopped live streaming is because sketchy channels were cutting clips mid stream and re-posting. Essentially pirating the content to make a bunch of cash before they had the opportunity to release the official clips.
    - jjeaff 6y ago
      Regardless of the reason, Rogan has told guests that they can cut out things if necessary since they don't stream live anymore.
srtjstjsj 6y ago
Why is Spotify Spectrum ERG the authority on misiformation and good faith? Maybe they are mistaken about some things. Have they even accused JR of bad faith? Presenting their case to a friendly JR on JRE is not the same as a kangaroo debate against a Ben Shapiro type.

lalos 6y ago

One thing is free speech and another is giving a platform to dubious characters for them to promote their views unchallenged. What's the risk? you might be smart enough to know better but other's will use Rogan's vouching of X personality to validate their view points "well he was invited to Rogan's show so he must be important and must be listened to! have YOU been featured in Rogan's show?". I'll remind you that a good portion of the population doesn't even think vaccines work and that they do damage, don't think wearing masks help, believe in 'staged false flag' events to the point of bullying victims. The internet has allowed anyone to become a 'soft journalist' but completely ignoring what made journalism work, ethics (depending on the org, of course). See related (specially points 4 & 5): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standard... Honestly I expect that as time goes and people wisen up, the more serious and legit a personality is the less likely they will be to accept an invite to that show until it is just bro-ey comedians and controversial personalities that need a steady flow of more supporters so they will say yes to the opportunity to expose their ideas unchallenged. Controversies sell well and Rogan is aware of that, at the end of it he only cares about growing his wealth and not freedom of speech. BTW, I believe almost no one wants to change the amendments and remove freedom of speech. Those characters will still have the means to communicate their ideas and will be protected by the law, matter fact I myself have donated to ACLU who have defended the KKK in the court of law for the higher purpose of defending freedom of speech and rightly so. See https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-em-defends-kkks-right-free-speech https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-em-defends-kkks-rig... I'm assuming fans of Rogan will be happy to read my comment since as Rogan promotes, we should give a platform to anyone or any idea and let people decide by themselves. Or that doesn't apply to his dissenters?

fourstar 6y ago
Why do you care what Rogan says? With the way you describe him it’s clear you don’t like him. Don’t pay attention to him, then. The problem is people today who go against the grain are vilified by these bleeding heart outraged critics who have nothing better to do than attempt to cancel people. People are fed up with it.
- 6y ago

austhrow743 6y ago

>Arguing to censor his episode history only sends the message that Spotify isn’t a platform for intellectual curiosity and free speech Does Spotify market itself as those things?

disposekinetics 6y ago
They signed an exclusive deal with Joe Rogan. I don't know if they intended to send that signal, but it made me check them out for exactly that reason.
- mef79 6y ago
  Spotify has already made the decision to exclude multiple Joe Rogan episodes from their catalog, this is just a decision of where they draw their line.
  - dkdk8283 6y ago
    This is unfortunate and unacceptable. Joe should have a free and censorship free place to discuss topics. We have lost our minds: the ability to freely and discuss literally any topic was an American staple. Now you don’t dare say something that could potentially offend someone. I could be fired if I said what I really think about some controversial issues and linked it to my identity. That’s not a world I enjoy living in.
    - xref 6y ago
      You’re conflating freedom of speech with freedom from consequences.
    - dopamean 6y ago
      > Joe should have a free and censorship free place to discuss topics. He has that. He's free to post whatever he wants on his website where many people will see it.
    - opifex 6y ago

threatofrain 6y ago

Is Spotify a platform for intellectual curiosity and free speech? On the matter of free speech, Spotify isn't a public square. Facebook isn't a public square. A masonic fraternity isn't a public square. One of the key things about public squares is that it's funded by public money and administered by public officials. How are people so keen on asking private companies to behave like public institutions... without asking for the other critically healthy pillars of public funding and public administration? It's sad, but I think it's because in some ways, people have come to actually TRUST big corps to be more morally responsive and deliberative than their own government. As in, would you rather Facebook own your messages, or would you like to see what concept of digital town square the UK or the US government would produce?

mikece 6y ago
> Is Spotify a platform for intellectual curiosity and free speech? Spotify wants to corner the market on popular podcasts. Of it’s very nature — anyone with anything or nothing to say can start one - podcasting might be the best modern example of free speech, and I believe podcasters know this. If they see Spotify as an entity that will require editorial modification or will refuse to post “certain episodes” then podcasters won’t make deals with them. This isn’t a political point, it’s a business point. If Spotify can’t achieve their goal of being THE SOURCE for the best podcasts which are exclusive to their platform then their shareholders will demand changes.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- qppo 6y ago
  Podcasting is in a weird spot right now where the strategy that most podcasters take is to be on as many platforms as possible and there's a cottage industry+ supporting that initiative. It's the same effect as syndication but it looks more like federation. And if you look at the most successful audio content distribution strategies over the last 100 years and ongoing, exclusivity has rarely worked. Fundamentally it requires a content creator to choose to release to a smaller market, which is different than other content that is far more expensive to finance or maintain distribution (like film/video). Basically what I'm saying is that cornering podcasting isn't going to work. But inverting the market to be cornered to the syndication/creation side and not the distribution/consumption side there might be a more effective way. I'd suspect that eschewing both publicity and censorship would be critical to cornering that market. After all, Disney+* and Pornhub have content made with the same tools and sometimes the same people, while both retain their image. + if you want to see what I mean, turn on your adblocker and go to open.spotify.com and start browsing podcasts from ESPN, APM, and others and open the developer console. There are a number of interesting failures when ads are resolved, and a lot of little companies you've never heard of writing some cool networking infrastructure to distribute podcasts. \* well maybe not Disney+. They might have a policy for this exact situation.

omosubi 6y ago

I like Rogan's podcast but he definitely won't talk to anyone - When was the last time there was someone on that didn't agree with him on the major issue or issues they were brought on the podcast to discuss? They may quibble over certain things but at the end of the day he wants to have a fun conversation and arguing with trans rights people for 2 or 3 hours isn't going to happen. Also they've already censored his history and as far as I can tell he agreed to it

aeternum 6y ago
Interesting, is the list of censored episodes available anywhere?
- EnigmaCurry 6y ago
  https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/ikf9at/full_list_of_every_missing_episode_from_spotify/ https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/ikf9at/full_list_...
ThomPete 6y ago
he actually just bends to peoples opinions. There are plenty of people he dont agree with.
hnzix 6y ago
> When was the last time there was someone on that didn't agree with him on the major issue or issues they were brought on the podcast to discuss? Rogan's schtick is that he lets his guests explain their ideology without directly attacking it. Instead he has an assistant fact-check any claims they make, and Rogan is also very forthright about calling them out on logical inconsistencies - "you said x just before, now you're saying !x, can you explain how that makes sense?" The spirit of open curiosity and honest discourse is important. It also gives some ideologues enough rope with which to hang themselves, eg the Milo Yiannopoulos incident.
- xnxn 6y ago
  Why does he then use his own voice to breathlessly repeat debunked rumors about left-wing activists in Portland? You think he'll correct the record in the next episode? https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-rogan-podcast-forest-fire-portland-left-antifa-activists-debunked-2020-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-rogan-podcast-forest-fir...

LegitShady 6y ago

I don't think there is room to discuss how much censorship you're willing to accept with people trying to censor you. At the end of the day their feelings don't matter - they're just technocrats trying to control the speech of others because they got hired by Spotify. Joe will talk to people but probably not people trying to destroy his business through their employer who he has a contract with.

jb775 6y ago

Can't see Rogan agreeing to any type of content moderation. It baffles me when people think it's acceptable to throw freedom of speech out the window just because someone is offended.

koonsolo 6y ago
I think it's a very small minority, but none the less very loud because the news always picks up on this. We have to keep pushing back on this. "I am offended that you don't respect someone elses opinion" ;)
srtjstjsj 6y ago
You have the privilege of being boring. When you start getting beaten and murdered by people practicing that free speech, you might change your tune.
- jb775 6y ago
  I don't understand what you mean. What's the issue with someone voicing an opinion you don't agree with? Diversity is good because you get many opinions from many perspectives. It fails once you start selectively picking and choosing which ones you deem worthy.
perrygeo 6y ago
What does "freedom of speech" have to do with any of this? The government has not intervened with any law restricting speech. Spotify is a private company and, under current US law, can de-platform anyone they chose.
- s__s 6y ago
  Freedom of speech is a principal first and an American law second. Freedom of speech and expression is the bedrock of the civilized world, an important part of modern culture and is indeed defined as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.