8 ms·
Spotify employees threaten to strike if Joe Rogan podcasts aren’t edited/removed
- aphroz 6y agoI have tried to listen to his podcasts and I dont understand the hype, but I think employees of Spotify should act according to their ethics. And I also believe that of more tech employees had ethics and empathy internet would not have turned that way. Money isn't everything.
- jmpman 6y agoBecause he can have a 3 hour conversation about politics, and not immediately force the conversation to one view point? That wasn’t revolutionary as recently as 10 years ago, but now?
- foxdev 6y agoHe lets people run their mouths for hours. That means they run out of talking points, realize they're going in loops, and sometimes say something worthwhile. He has on some people who really are just awful, but even they succumb to the banality of their own nonsense. Some of them turn out to have no substance after that, but sometimes they surprise you. I listened to a few episodes, but don't find that his guests surprise me enough to sit through it.
- ilaksh 6y agoRogan has had Elon Musk, Lex Fridman, Sam Harris, Brian Cox, Neil Tyson, and a ton of other celebrities and geniuses on his show. A lot of fascinating people.
- ksk 6y agoIt's ironic to see this news as social media companies fight against online echo chambers, and social media bubbles.
- smt88 6y agoOr to put it another way: employees of digital publisher demand that the publisher exercise editorial power. It's not very different from a newspaper editing its writers, and Rogan could go back to indepdently operating if the editorial isn't worth the massive exclusivity deal that Spotify pays him.
- bra-ket 6y agoor to put it another way: exercise editorial power to suppress political views they don't like.
- smt88 6y agoSure. News orgs do it, too. Why should Spotify have fewer rights than MSNBC or Fox News?
- wolco2 6y agoIt's more like newspaper delivery boys want editoral control over the sport pages. So far removed from the chain of responsibility.
- oyra 6y agoif they go, terminate the contracts. these neo-marxists of all kinds should answer to their actions. Who the hell they think they are to decide what other to say/listen?!
- 60secz 6y agoI wish them well in the unemployment line. Should be easy to find a new job in this economy.
- jseliger 6y agoThe drive towards censorship that seems to have revved up in the last few years is an astonishing change. I'm old enough to remember the utopian thinking about the web's planned positive effects on free speech and free discourse: now it seems that a new and, to my mind, strange censoriousness seems to have settled in. When I read Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, I don't think I understood how broadly applicable it would be. His follow-up, with Greg Lukianoff, The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure, is also applicable to the censorship movements afoot in many companies (including publishing companies).
- aphroz 6y agoI agree for the web im general, but I don't think it applies in this case, because he was free to say whatever he wanted, but when he agreed on the deal he also agreed to represent Spotify, and therefore all its employees. It's like a sponsorship.
- throwawayinfo 6y agoDon't make excuses for employees demanding their megacorp do censorship. This should be unacceptable behaviour contract or no.
- krapp 6y ago>Don't make excuses for employees demanding their megacorp do censorship. That's within their right of free speech, and Joe Rogan has equal free speech rights to make counter-demands. You believe in free speech don't you?
- toomuchtodo 6y agoUnless you have a union and a contract with your employer, you’re an at will employee with no recourse (at least in the US). You’re free to your opinion, but also to find employment elsewhere if you take issue with your organization’s partnerships. Freedom of speech doesn’t translate to guaranteed employment while demanding editorial control of your employer’s platform. It should be noted that union organizing activities are protected in the US from employer retaliation.
- jgowdy 6y agoHow is this not more left wing technologists trying to use their technology roles to de-platform right wing perspectives they don’t agree with? Literally threatening to quit if they can’t impose editorial content policing on the other side. And you wonder why politicians are about to yank the Section 230 rug out from under these technology companies? Don’t cry when your federally granted indemnity disappears my friends.
- throwawayinfo 6y agoJoe Rogan isn't even right wing - he's clearly a progressive (literally a Bernie Bro) - it's just that he's usually willing to talk to conservatives on his show.
- jgowdy 6y agoYeah, I’m not right wing either, I just actually believe in free speech for everyone. Even people I don’t agree with. This new movement to censor and silence opposing perspectives is disgusting and should frighten people. Win with the merits of your ideas and perspectives, not by silencing the people who oppose you by claiming moral superiority.
- throwawayinfo 6y agoI've been saying this is coming for years now, and honestly, it seems like people are really starting to speak up. I'm happy to see more comments like yours.
- jgowdy 6y agoThanks, but here comes the anti-free speech downvote brigade. :/
- rangoon626 6y agoI just upvoted all of you. With love, rangoon
- tolbish 6y agoThere are days and days worth of "problematic" content on Spotify. I'm confused as to why they care about Joe Rogan in particular.
- yostrovs 6y agoThere are some things he said that might be construed as supporting incorrect political opinions. The stuff you refer to is just smut and garbage. Spotify employees are ok with that.
- casefields 6y ago>While Rogan is politically liberal, he is — argues former Obama 2008 campaign strategist and Rogan listener Shant Mesrobian — culturally conservative, by which he does not mean that Rogan holds conservative views on social issues (again, he is pro-choice and pro-LGBT rights). He means that Rogan exudes culturally conservative signals: He likes MMA fighting, makes crude jokes, hunts, and just generally fails to speak in the lingo of the professional managerial class and coastal elites. And it is those cultural standards, rather than political ones, that make Rogan anathema to elite liberal culture because, Mesrobian argued in a viral Twitter thread, liberals care far more about proper culture signaling than they do about the much harder and more consequential work of actual politics. https://theintercept.com/2020/09/22/as-joe-rogans-platform-grows-so-does-the-media-and-liberal-backlash-why/ https://theintercept.com/2020/09/22/as-joe-rogans-platform-g... There's a certain cohort inside all these tech companies that despises what Rogan represents.
- retrocat 6y agoI can somewhat understand the point of the employees here, but ultimately, I think it's a symptom of a larger problem - of easy propagation misinformation, with very little oversight. When someone makes a veritably false claim, like "they've arrested left-wing people for lighting those forest fires," it is incredibly difficult to retract that statement; and even now, retracting such statements doesn't change the impact the original statement had. People are still going to believe the original statement, regardless of its truth, or they won't see the correction - especially when, in this case, the original audio was not corrected, and the apology issued separately. The original could remain unchallenged in the original audio, and someone who doesn't know the context or follow the content creator may not know that the claim was false - assuming good faith. Or, the clip could be pulled out of context, with no apology or correction, to tout that statement, to push an agenda. So now, even with a veritably false claim, you can potentially demonize the "left-wing people" intentionally or not - and I would argue that the original intention does not matter. Joe Rogan has been given a platform, and he needs to use it responsibly. I'm still on the fence over whether or not Spotify should enforce that he uses the platform responsibly. When do you draw the line? At what point does his right to use Spotify as a platform outweigh the consequences of using the platform irresponsibly, potentially - or indirectly - causing harm? Inviting guests that promote transphobic onto his platform seems innocent enough, but transphobia is a major issue contesting the country, even ignoring veritably false claims being made about transpeople, and people have died over this conflict. If the platform is used irresponsibly, and veritably false information is propagated by the guest on his platform, is Joe Rogan responsible for that? What if that misinformation is what causes someone to commit a crime against transpeople? At what point should Joe Rogan, the one who promoted misinformation on a platform he controls, and that many people listen to, be held responsible for the consequences of what (and how) he disseminates to the people? Does his right to say false things outweigh the right of others to live without fear or persecution? I have yet to come up with an answer, because I don't know what the best solution is yet.
- SllX 6y ago“Given” a platform? Spotify is a downgrade from the reach he had before; Spotify paid for The Joe Rogan Experience, with terms, in order to expand their audience and you don’t think they might want to preserve what they paid for? The solution is probably to not tell other people how to live their lives and what to do with their businesses. A controversial proposition these days, I know.
- wpdev_63 6y agoI hope Joe Rogan sticks to his guns and refuse to change anything. Obviously he said some controversial things in the past(I am personally more annoyed how he drones about elk meat and health supplements) but it's how he is. He doesn't censor himself and he says what's on his mind for better or worst. Fuck cancel culture! Fuck this type of politics! Believing everything that may offend you or is outside your thinking should be censor is absolute garbage... That being said, he can be a meat-head dbag at times. So I listen to his opinions with a grain of salt.
- RachelF 6y agoListen to most people's opinions with a grain of salt, but don't censor them or try to shut them up.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y agoI think what’s dumb is that cancel culture reeks of class conflict and elitism. None of these people would survive on a construction crew. If they can’t handle the talk on Rogan’s podcast, they’d perish sitting around a lunch truck. It’s a freaking conversation. This isn’t dissolving society. If you don’t like what they’re saying, stop listening! What a joyless existence if you feel the need to protest a podcast.
- Slow_Hand 6y agoAs a frequent reader of 'Digital Music News' their articles rarely get more than 2-4 comments per article for the lifespan of the article. IF ANY. I'm starting to suspect that there may be something funny going on with their comments section: This Joe Rogan article currently has 258 comments. They almost all conform to cliches of puerile, immature bickering that one would associate with the worst of online discourse. In short, the antithesis of something like Hacker News, which I love for it's mature, focused discussions. An online catfight of this magnitude for this website seems VERY out of the ordinary. I wouldn't say that this site has any kind of cohesive or reoccurring members who frequent the comments (As far as I can see, and with no hard data). My suspicion is that there may be some funny business involving bots for a lot of these posters. It don't even see repeats between the comment names, which you would expect to see if 1 or two people were going back and forth with one another. Though I do see slight variations in names like 'Micro Penus' and 'Tiny Pen15'. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to test for or detect malicious actors/bots/etc in an instance like this? Or is it likely that 258 bickering people all came out of the woodwork for this single article?
- wolco2 6y agoIt might be from a twitter share which may or may not be bots.
- musicbizsucks 6y agoThey are mostly fake. The owner of the blog uses tons of fake accounts to promote his clickbait, and any real community that has formed around it is super toxic. I’d encourage you to find another blog to read that covers these issues.
- Slow_Hand 6y agoYeah. It’s pretty garbage. I do check in because of occassional nuggets that can pop up. Any recommendations for alternative sites?
- musicbizsucks 6y agoAs someone who works in the actual music business, I can confidently say that Digital Music News is not taken seriously as a news source and has an awful reputation for clickbait, fake comments, and outright lies. As I don’t see any actual evidence or new information in this article, I’m surprised it’s passing the HN community filters. Since HN moderators may not be aware of this blog’s reputation, I would encourage them to consider bypassing links from here and instead linking to direct sources as they do with other dubious blogs. Notice how there are no real sources for the actual new claims in this article? Posting from a throwaway account as the owner of this blog has a nasty reputation for attacking naysayers.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Waterluvian 6y agoThis is all a wonderful show of free speech. Employees have a voice. Spotify can make decisions. JRE can have a podcast and if Spotify doesn’t want to publish it, he can go elsewhere or start his own pirate ship. The content really just doesn’t matter. There needs to be the ability for this entire debate and protest to go down and it seems like there is.
- yallhypocrites 6y agoIt's always amazing the people here crying about censorship while keeping their mouths shut about the rampant censorship on this website. In fact many of the users here actively defending Big Brother. Shadow banning, removal of comments - this website displays the absolute worst tendencies when it comes to stamping out anything critical and somehow that's fine. Meanwhile employees standing up to reactionary assholes is some cultural revolution. The hypocrisy is laughable.
- funviolence 6y agoI genuinely blame transexuals for this ridiculous type of behaviour.
- peapicker 6y agoIt is interesting to me that the same group isn’t up in arms about the many other works Spotify provides containing demeaning and abusive lyric content toward women and many others. I’ve never seen or heard Rogan, but it is hard to believe his stuff is as bad as many song lyrics already on Spotify for years. In my opinion this makes these employees extremely hypocritical.
- ilaksh 6y agoI actually suspect that this could work out as an excellent promotion for Rogan if the employees strike. He will lose a small amount of more far-left people, but some people who were not into YouTube for whatever reason will probably decide to tune in. Just from all of the hype.
- hexbinencoded 6y agoThere ought to be a non-profit, user & creator funded podcast/video/publishing platform that allows anything not terrorism, kiddie porn, unsafe medical panaceas, universally criminal, spam, or obviously inciting violence/genocide. Corporate inverted totalitarianism (Youtube cancelling channels by AI) and illiberal, PC bikeshedding employees picking-and-choosing creators are the death of free expression and debate. Furthermore, corporations are replacing public commons with walled-gardens governed by arbitrary, sometimes secret, rules.
- smt88 6y agoThis comment section seems to have been brigaded in a way that I've almost never seen on HN. Something about platforms removing white supremacist views really fires these "free speech" people up, yet I never see them raging about Trump's censorship of the CDC (not being allowed to mention climate change, for example).
- throwawayinfo 6y agoAh, yes, Joe Rogan, noted white supremacist... You speak of free speech with disdain when it's our most important right.
- smt88 6y agoThe article is about editing out his guests, not him.