8 ms·

Spotify Employees Demanding Direct Editorial Oversight over Joe Rogan Podcasts

38 points by pleemin 6y ago

coldtea 6y ago
Sorry, what? Fire their censoring ass, now! I hope total control is hardcoded explicitly in his contract...
carriganisms 6y ago
The lack of corporate oversight is key to why the podcast is so popular. Spotify should be careful not to mess up what they just spent $100m on.
rcarrigan87 6y ago
The lack of corporate oversight is key to why the podcast is so popular. Spotify should be careful not to mess up what they just spent $100m on.
- brodouevencode 6y ago
  If this happens I will terminate my spotify account with extreme prejudice.
  - pleemin 6y ago
    I mean, it's already begun. They've removed episodes that are too edgy for them.
  - kneckebrot 6y ago
    Already happened, if this list of missing episodes is correct: 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_... Not all missing episodes feature particularly controversial guests, depending on one’s personal sensitivities.
nomorenyt 6y ago
Fire them now.
rvz 6y ago
Again, this is only creating the Streisand effect for Joe Rogan and more people will try to see the 'banned' videos or podcasts even more. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
- ffpip 6y ago
  Exactly. I've never heard any of his podcasts and now I went to watch his video with Snowden.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tt433 6y ago
I don't get how people watch him huckstering snake oil and continue watching, it's just Goop for men
- graphitepromise 6y ago
  I'm not personally a fan of his but this comparison is nonsense.
- devtul 6y ago
  It's possible to listen to someone without believing everything that comes out of his/her mouth and doing whatever that person says.
  - ebg13 6y ago
    It's possible, but history's repeated proof that behavioral modification by repetition works (we call it brainwashing in more extreme contexts) and that fan worship is real suggests that yours is not a meaningfully valuable rebuttal. We have facts on the ground showing that people absorb what they hear in tragically large numbers, so saying "but technically they don't have to" is both not useful and probably also just flat out wrong.
    - aeternum 6y ago
      If a tragically large numbers of people are really unable to consider two sides of an issue it implies that democracy itself is not viable. Even Spotify's execs answer to the board, which is elected by shareholders, are they somehow immune from this fan worship?
      - ebg13 6y ago
        > If a tragically large numbers of people are really unable to consider two sides of an issue it implies that democracy itself is not viable Your use of "viable" here is imprecise. Democracy isn't doing the right thing or the best thing or the good thing or the thing that helps the most people. Democracy is just asking people to pick. It says nothing about the influences that drive them to their choices or ascribe a moral quotient to the outcome of those influences. It is perfectly viable for doing what it does. Many people would indeed argue that it's not very good at doing the other things. > Even Spotify's execs answer to the board, which is elected by shareholders, are they somehow immune from this fan worship? Nobody is immune. Not one of us. That's why it upsets us when people we admire fall from grace. But board members are far more likely to be people the stockholders have never heard of before than identifiable personalities. Hypothetical side question: Do you own stock and participate in shareholder votes? I do, and I have zero clue who any of the people are when those questions come up. They may as well be asking me to pick a hand.
devtul 6y ago
It's baffling how a group of random people can assert so much pressure. Millions consume Joe's podcast, but somehow a dozen(?) of anonymous people inside Spotify believe they know what is good for everybody.
- chungus_khan 6y ago
  These aren't just random people, so the number involved is irrelevant. The fact that Spotify has an exclusivity deal with him means that they inherently hold a powerful position over him. And they certainly don't care about what's good for everybody, that's not their prerogative. They care about what's good for Spotify, or moreso, what Spotify thinks is good for Spotify. This is not the first time nor will it be the last time that a large corporation acquires some degree of power over something and wants to smooth it out for PR reasons. It has been going on since the dawn of corporate media.
  - Mountain_Skies 6y ago
    Not sure you're correct that these employees have Spotify's best interest in mind. It's just as likely that they have their own political and social agenda which they are able to leverage by working at Spotify.
    - chungus_khan 6y ago
      That's a really strange assertion to make. A corporation the size of Spotify giving that much leeway to individual employees on a major business relationship like this is basically unheard of and fairly implausible, and these sorts of things have been going on in a calculated, intentional manner for over a century in various forms of publishing.
- bszupnick 6y ago
  This relates to the thread about the movie The Social Dilemma.
- ignoramceisblis 6y ago
  This is the same kind of behavior that arises in those who scream "Fascist!", as they put their boot on your face and punish you for not doing exactly what they want you to do. It's all for power.
LGNUITLZCJ 6y ago
Spotify CEO should issue an apology to Joe Rogan.
InitialLastName 6y ago
This is what happens when you spend millions of dollars on the new, edgy thing, but forget that you might one day be held liable when that edge cuts someone.
- lipstone 6y ago
  Joe Rogan is not new, and is only "edgy" to the type of people that can be cut by a pillow.
  - InitialLastName 6y ago
    I meant "new" in the "Spotify just figured out they should get into the podcast game, so they swallowed a bunch of podcast networks" sense and "edgy" in the "some of the guests on his show are promoting snake oil and bad decisions" sense.
lipstone 6y ago
Why do so many tech employees feel that they're entitled to be arbiters of morality? Tech companies should have the backbone to fire every annoying internal activist group that tries to sabotage their efforts.
- teclordphrack2 6y ago
  Why should my work give you a voice?
  - k12sosse 6y ago
    .. because you sold it to us to use?
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      ... under certain terms and conditions which nobody who's commented here is privy to.
  - lipstone 6y ago
    Because your work is owned by Spotify and they can do what they want with it. Yes, it's well within your rights to form one of these internal activist groups that attempts to sway company policy by loud-mouthing your employer, but it's also well within the company's right to fire you. I simply wish tech companies had the courage to do so.
    - teclordphrack2 6y ago
      It is owned by spotify when I do the work. Don't listen to your workers and watch as everything goes to heck at the extreme or at the least you don't do as well and competition eats away at you. When you are a 100% tech company then you better listen to your tech workers.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  First off this isn't a tech issue, if you sign a 100 million deal with someone that usually comes with strings attached. The political side of it aside, Rogan can't seriously believe he can say whatever he wants and damage Spotify's brand in the process. If he wanted full autonomy, pretty easy, don't sign that deal. Secondly on the political issues, at the very least his enabling of Alex Jones is irresponsible. He's giving a complete lunatic who does nothing but spread conspiracy theories an uncritical platform. This isn't even a matter of ordinary politics any more, platforming someone who calls the victims of a school shooting crisis actors is reprehensible. Not really sure how anyone who has some sense of morality wants to enable that. I fully understand tech workers who want to put a stop to it rather than enabling it for financial gain. This is honestly the first time in my life where basic decency, honesty and factuality are politicised.
swiley 6y ago
This is why you should only use podcast clients that are just rss feed consumers. Any aggrigate, algorithm curated feed will just try to manipulate you. I'm not a fan of these podcasts, just remember who you're listening to (and that it's a group of people, not just the person who's voice you hear.)
saffronique 6y ago
Clowns.
- dang 6y ago
  Could you please not post unsubstantive comments to HN? We're trying for something a bit different from internet default here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
whoknew1122 6y ago
Sure to get downvoted into oblivion for this, but Spotify has a responsibility to provide direct editorial oversight over Rogan's podcast. This isn't just him flirting with the alt-right and intellectual darkweb anymore. He's out here repeating lies about left-wing activists starting fires at the same time there are actual right-wing militias setting up paramilitary checkpoints. This has gone from Joe saying stupid stuff to Joe spewing dangerous rhetoric that may get people killed. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/16/oregon-fires-armed-civilian-roadblocks-police https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/16/oregon-fires... https://www.newsweek.com/half-million-people-evacuated-oregon-militia-checkpoints-patrol-1531267 https://www.newsweek.com/half-million-people-evacuated-orego...
catapim 6y ago
we're living an emocracy! https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2019/01/28/opinion-niall-ferguson-our-emocracy-emotions-rule/RsgnMKr8zMC0ZSmWzss9FL/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2019/01/28/opinion-niall...
ycombonator 6y ago
If doesn’t fit my mindset I need to get rid of it at whatever cost.

38 points by pleemin 6y ago

Sorry, what? Fire their censoring ass, now! I hope total control is hardcoded explicitly in his contract...

The lack of corporate oversight is key to why the podcast is so popular. Spotify should be careful not to mess up what they just spent $100m on.

rcarrigan87 6y ago

The lack of corporate oversight is key to why the podcast is so popular. Spotify should be careful not to mess up what they just spent $100m on.

brodouevencode 6y ago
If this happens I will terminate my spotify account with extreme prejudice.
- pleemin 6y ago
  I mean, it's already begun. They've removed episodes that are too edgy for them.
- kneckebrot 6y ago
  Already happened, if this list of missing episodes is correct: 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_... Not all missing episodes feature particularly controversial guests, depending on one’s personal sensitivities.

nomorenyt 6y ago

Fire them now.

rvz 6y ago

Again, this is only creating the Streisand effect for Joe Rogan and more people will try to see the 'banned' videos or podcasts even more. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

ffpip 6y ago
Exactly. I've never heard any of his podcasts and now I went to watch his video with Snowden.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

tt433 6y ago

I don't get how people watch him huckstering snake oil and continue watching, it's just Goop for men

graphitepromise 6y ago
I'm not personally a fan of his but this comparison is nonsense.
devtul 6y ago
It's possible to listen to someone without believing everything that comes out of his/her mouth and doing whatever that person says.
- ebg13 6y ago
  It's possible, but history's repeated proof that behavioral modification by repetition works (we call it brainwashing in more extreme contexts) and that fan worship is real suggests that yours is not a meaningfully valuable rebuttal. We have facts on the ground showing that people absorb what they hear in tragically large numbers, so saying "but technically they don't have to" is both not useful and probably also just flat out wrong.
  - aeternum 6y ago
    If a tragically large numbers of people are really unable to consider two sides of an issue it implies that democracy itself is not viable. Even Spotify's execs answer to the board, which is elected by shareholders, are they somehow immune from this fan worship?
    - ebg13 6y ago
      > If a tragically large numbers of people are really unable to consider two sides of an issue it implies that democracy itself is not viable Your use of "viable" here is imprecise. Democracy isn't doing the right thing or the best thing or the good thing or the thing that helps the most people. Democracy is just asking people to pick. It says nothing about the influences that drive them to their choices or ascribe a moral quotient to the outcome of those influences. It is perfectly viable for doing what it does. Many people would indeed argue that it's not very good at doing the other things. > Even Spotify's execs answer to the board, which is elected by shareholders, are they somehow immune from this fan worship? Nobody is immune. Not one of us. That's why it upsets us when people we admire fall from grace. But board members are far more likely to be people the stockholders have never heard of before than identifiable personalities. Hypothetical side question: Do you own stock and participate in shareholder votes? I do, and I have zero clue who any of the people are when those questions come up. They may as well be asking me to pick a hand.

devtul 6y ago

It's baffling how a group of random people can assert so much pressure. Millions consume Joe's podcast, but somehow a dozen(?) of anonymous people inside Spotify believe they know what is good for everybody.

chungus_khan 6y ago
These aren't just random people, so the number involved is irrelevant. The fact that Spotify has an exclusivity deal with him means that they inherently hold a powerful position over him. And they certainly don't care about what's good for everybody, that's not their prerogative. They care about what's good for Spotify, or moreso, what Spotify thinks is good for Spotify. This is not the first time nor will it be the last time that a large corporation acquires some degree of power over something and wants to smooth it out for PR reasons. It has been going on since the dawn of corporate media.
- Mountain_Skies 6y ago
  Not sure you're correct that these employees have Spotify's best interest in mind. It's just as likely that they have their own political and social agenda which they are able to leverage by working at Spotify.
  - chungus_khan 6y ago
    That's a really strange assertion to make. A corporation the size of Spotify giving that much leeway to individual employees on a major business relationship like this is basically unheard of and fairly implausible, and these sorts of things have been going on in a calculated, intentional manner for over a century in various forms of publishing.
bszupnick 6y ago
This relates to the thread about the movie The Social Dilemma.
ignoramceisblis 6y ago
This is the same kind of behavior that arises in those who scream "Fascist!", as they put their boot on your face and punish you for not doing exactly what they want you to do. It's all for power.

LGNUITLZCJ 6y ago

Spotify CEO should issue an apology to Joe Rogan.

InitialLastName 6y ago

This is what happens when you spend millions of dollars on the new, edgy thing, but forget that you might one day be held liable when that edge cuts someone.

lipstone 6y ago
Joe Rogan is not new, and is only "edgy" to the type of people that can be cut by a pillow.
- InitialLastName 6y ago
  I meant "new" in the "Spotify just figured out they should get into the podcast game, so they swallowed a bunch of podcast networks" sense and "edgy" in the "some of the guests on his show are promoting snake oil and bad decisions" sense.

lipstone 6y ago

Why do so many tech employees feel that they're entitled to be arbiters of morality? Tech companies should have the backbone to fire every annoying internal activist group that tries to sabotage their efforts.

teclordphrack2 6y ago
Why should my work give you a voice?
- k12sosse 6y ago
  .. because you sold it to us to use?
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    ... under certain terms and conditions which nobody who's commented here is privy to.
- lipstone 6y ago
  Because your work is owned by Spotify and they can do what they want with it. Yes, it's well within your rights to form one of these internal activist groups that attempts to sway company policy by loud-mouthing your employer, but it's also well within the company's right to fire you. I simply wish tech companies had the courage to do so.
  - teclordphrack2 6y ago
    It is owned by spotify when I do the work. Don't listen to your workers and watch as everything goes to heck at the extreme or at the least you don't do as well and competition eats away at you. When you are a 100% tech company then you better listen to your tech workers.
Barrin92 6y ago
First off this isn't a tech issue, if you sign a 100 million deal with someone that usually comes with strings attached. The political side of it aside, Rogan can't seriously believe he can say whatever he wants and damage Spotify's brand in the process. If he wanted full autonomy, pretty easy, don't sign that deal. Secondly on the political issues, at the very least his enabling of Alex Jones is irresponsible. He's giving a complete lunatic who does nothing but spread conspiracy theories an uncritical platform. This isn't even a matter of ordinary politics any more, platforming someone who calls the victims of a school shooting crisis actors is reprehensible. Not really sure how anyone who has some sense of morality wants to enable that. I fully understand tech workers who want to put a stop to it rather than enabling it for financial gain. This is honestly the first time in my life where basic decency, honesty and factuality are politicised.

swiley 6y ago

This is why you should only use podcast clients that are just rss feed consumers. Any aggrigate, algorithm curated feed will just try to manipulate you. I'm not a fan of these podcasts, just remember who you're listening to (and that it's a group of people, not just the person who's voice you hear.)

saffronique 6y ago

Clowns.

dang 6y ago
Could you please not post unsubstantive comments to HN? We're trying for something a bit different from internet default here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

whoknew1122 6y ago

Sure to get downvoted into oblivion for this, but Spotify has a responsibility to provide direct editorial oversight over Rogan's podcast. This isn't just him flirting with the alt-right and intellectual darkweb anymore. He's out here repeating lies about left-wing activists starting fires at the same time there are actual right-wing militias setting up paramilitary checkpoints. This has gone from Joe saying stupid stuff to Joe spewing dangerous rhetoric that may get people killed. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/16/oregon-fires-armed-civilian-roadblocks-police https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/16/oregon-fires... https://www.newsweek.com/half-million-people-evacuated-oregon-militia-checkpoints-patrol-1531267 https://www.newsweek.com/half-million-people-evacuated-orego...

catapim 6y ago

we're living an emocracy! https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2019/01/28/opinion-niall-ferguson-our-emocracy-emotions-rule/RsgnMKr8zMC0ZSmWzss9FL/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2019/01/28/opinion-niall...

ycombonator 6y ago

If doesn’t fit my mindset I need to get rid of it at whatever cost.