4 ms·

Do you also consider it censorship when the New York Times fires or disciples a columnist who keeps printing incorrect information? Spotify is the publisher her

Do you also consider it censorship when the New York Times fires or disciples a columnist who keeps printing incorrect information? Spotify is the publisher here and they are responsible for making sure that their products (such as the Joe Rogan shoe since Spotify bought it) provide truthful information. The simple truth of the matter is that Joe Rogan has a tendency for stating falsehoods on his show, and this in turn can result in harm to Spotify's users. For instance, Joe Rogan literally just spread a bunch of misinformation about the wildfires (https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/18/media/joe-rogan-apologizes/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/18/media/joe-rogan-apologizes/in...) while broadcasting on Spotify. He clearly needs some help fact checking and editing his shows so that they can provide more truthful information. Why shouldn't the New York Times fire or disciple a columnist with the exact same factual track record as Joe Rogan?

bananabiscuit 6y ago
Because the New York Times’ business is journalism and Rogan’s is entertainment.
marta_morena_29 6y ago
I wonder when people will finally understand that outside of mathematics, there is no "truth" and "falsehood". There is only statements that have sufficient evidence to be considered a fact, or statements that lack evidence or even statements that go against evidence while lacking supporting evidence (Lets call these statements "Trumpian statements"). If we establish, that a statement is "really true" only if a celestial being, aware of all the facts, would consider this statement true, then pretty much all statements in the world have an unknown for their truth value. The error also can't be established. What people thought "really true" a hundred years ago, we now laugh about. Same will happen to many other things. Censorship of "falsehoods" is a very dangerous concept. It prevents innovation. Einstein was essentially a heretic. His theories were bold and completely absurd to most people back then. Should we have censored them? However, for many many statements, a lack of evidence has no impact on the truthfulness. Just because I can't prove something, doesn't make it false. Just because there is a mountain of counter-evidence, doesn't make a statement false, it just makes it less likely to be "really true". However, there could be a surprising piece of evidence, that trumps (pun intended) all existing counter-evidence. If you want to censor, then you essentially force society into coherence. That is good in the short-term, as it reduces conflict, but very very bad in the long-term, as it suppresses non-standard opinions (i.e. innovation and free expression). A much better approach than censorship is to create a channel "What Joe Rogan Got Wrong" and list all his supposedly falsehoods and explain the mountain of evidence against it. That of course takes effort. But yeah, the quick solution is rarely the best.
- lalaland1125 6y ago
  It's interesting that you mention Einstein and physics. Science is basically the most censored field out there. Every single published paper goes through rigorous peer-review and will not be published if other scientists think it's flawed. I think science would be much worse off if they threw that peer review away and journals like Nature simply published whatever article showed up on their door. Edit: Due to some confusion in the comments. I just want to clarify some of the terminology here. When I say that science is "censored" I mean it is "censored" in the same way that Spotify is "censoring" Joe Rogan. Nobody is stopping any scientist from posting their papers anywhere they want online and there is nobody stopping Joe Rogan from taking his show and broadcasting it elsewhere. They are only being "censored" in the sense that the mainstream publishers have high truth quality standards and some shows (and scientific papers) don't meet those standards and thus publishers will refuse to publish the low quality material.
  - marta_morena_29 6y ago
    But that is something very different. Nobody censors "new ideas". The censorship in science is focused on journals. I.e. if you want your idea to be published through a standard, accepted channel, it needs to be extensively peer-reviewed. And this is important, for obvious reasons. However, nothing prevents you from publishing your idea on the web, and people have done that and succeeded. There were some brilliant ideas (missing the link) that just got thrown out in the wild. But if the idea is truly brilliant, some other scientist will notice and make sure it gets reviewed anyhow. The "censorship" (I wouldn't call it that) in science doesnt happen at the publishing stage. When you have a great idea, it is bound to succeed, because nobody can afford to ignore you. The problem is getting there. How do you get the idea? Funding... Science funding is utterly broken. I.e. people research the wrong things for the wrong reasons all the time. This needs to be fixed, however it has nothing to do with censorship. This is just bias. Spotify is not a scientific journal. It's purpose is not to decide the truthfulness of its content. It should not publish content that breaks a law. If no law is broken, Spotify has neither an obligation, nor should they intervene/censor the content.
  - disown 6y ago
istorical 6y ago
The Joe Rogan Experience isn't a news program. The early days involved getting high, being sponsored by Fleshlight, and having profanity-laden arguments. In that sense Spotify doesn't need to ensure its 'product' provides truthful information. It's on society to not treat entertainment as News. Unfortunately, people going to JRE for news isn't Spotify or JRE's fault. It's a cultural problem and you need to solve it at a structural or cultural level.
- lalaland1125 6y ago
  If the Joe Rogan Experience isn't a news program, then why do Joe and his guests make so many factual claims (a number of which turn out to be incorrect). At a certain point, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's fair to call it a duck. And the JRE certainly tries to present itself as factual and not a complete parody.
  - bananabiscuit 6y ago
    When people talk, statements are made. I am having trouble imagining a conversation between two people that wouldn’t be considered a news program by your standards. I guess something completely made up like a DnD session?
  - ungamed 6y ago
    If they are not making factual or accurate claims, doesn't that by definition mean its entertainment ?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
disown 6y ago
The JRE is an entertainment show. Do you think every entertainment show should be factual? > For instance, Joe Rogan literally just spread a bunch of misinformation about the wildfires (https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/18/media/joe-rogan-apologizes/in https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/18/media/joe-rogan-apologizes/in...). Funny how you linked cnn, a major source of misinformation itself. > Why shouldn't the New York Times fire or disciple a columnist with the exact same factual track record as Joe Rogan? Is Joe Rogan an employee of Spotify? I don't think he works for spotify. So your example doesn't work. Lets play a game, between the jre, cnn and nytimes, who pushes the least amount of misinformation? If you are honest, the answer is the jre. Between the jre, cnn and the nytimes, who pushes the least amount of misinformation to start wars and kill countless innocent people. The answer is the jre once again. "Disinformation", "misinformation" and other propaganda terms are so readily adopted by fans of misinformation/disinformation.
- lalaland1125 6y ago
  The JRE is entertainment in the same sense that Last Week Tonight with John Oliver is entertainment. Yes, it is intended to be entertaining, but it also tries to sell itself as being informative. As a second point, Joe Rogan is now effectively an employee (or contractor if you prefer) of Spotify. Spotify is paying him a lot of money to run his show on the Spotify platform.
  - disown 6y ago
    > The JRE is entertainment in the same sense that Last Week Tonight is entertainment. Yes, it is intended to be entertaining, but it also tries to sell itself as being informative. Informative isn't the same thing as factual. And you have to be an absolute moron to take anything John Oliver says seriously. But I don't think HBO should ban him. Funny how nobody is demanding John Oliver to be banned and yet, he involves himself in american politics and he's from britain. But even still, I don't think he should be banned. > As a second point, Joe Rogan is now effectively an employee (or contractor if you prefer) of Spotify. Spotify is paying him a lot of money to run his show on the Spotify platform. Spotify is selling a product ( JRE ) on their platform. Doesn't make the product an employee of spotify. But maybe I'm wrong. But that makes it even worse since spotify employees are threatening a fellow employee.
tbrock 6y ago
Spotify is quite literally an entertainment provider. They can provide any content they want. They are not a newspaper and have no obligation to only promote and host content that matches some folks views and honestly I’m thankful for it. How boring the world would be if all entertainment was just someone dictating facts about things in a monotone voice that appealed to everyone.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- failuser 6y ago
  Did this work in court when Alex Jones tried to claim that his show is pure comedy and stage persona should not be liable because it’s just a fictional character only played by Jones? Will Joe Rohan start to claim that no reasonable person would trust information on his podcast? [1] https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/alex-joness-attorneys-defamation-suit-argue-no-reasonable-person-believe-says/ https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/alex-joness-attorneys-... [2] https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/court-upholds-alex-jones-sanctions-in-sandy-hook-case/2306831/ https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/court-upholds-alex...
collegecamp293 6y ago
Do you support censoring music with lyrics that are factually incorrect too?
brailsafe 6y ago
Didn't Spotify license the podcast exclusively for a number of years rather than buy it?

bananabiscuit 6y ago

Because the New York Times’ business is journalism and Rogan’s is entertainment.

marta_morena_29 6y ago

I wonder when people will finally understand that outside of mathematics, there is no "truth" and "falsehood". There is only statements that have sufficient evidence to be considered a fact, or statements that lack evidence or even statements that go against evidence while lacking supporting evidence (Lets call these statements "Trumpian statements"). If we establish, that a statement is "really true" only if a celestial being, aware of all the facts, would consider this statement true, then pretty much all statements in the world have an unknown for their truth value. The error also can't be established. What people thought "really true" a hundred years ago, we now laugh about. Same will happen to many other things. Censorship of "falsehoods" is a very dangerous concept. It prevents innovation. Einstein was essentially a heretic. His theories were bold and completely absurd to most people back then. Should we have censored them? However, for many many statements, a lack of evidence has no impact on the truthfulness. Just because I can't prove something, doesn't make it false. Just because there is a mountain of counter-evidence, doesn't make a statement false, it just makes it less likely to be "really true". However, there could be a surprising piece of evidence, that trumps (pun intended) all existing counter-evidence. If you want to censor, then you essentially force society into coherence. That is good in the short-term, as it reduces conflict, but very very bad in the long-term, as it suppresses non-standard opinions (i.e. innovation and free expression). A much better approach than censorship is to create a channel "What Joe Rogan Got Wrong" and list all his supposedly falsehoods and explain the mountain of evidence against it. That of course takes effort. But yeah, the quick solution is rarely the best.

lalaland1125 6y ago
It's interesting that you mention Einstein and physics. Science is basically the most censored field out there. Every single published paper goes through rigorous peer-review and will not be published if other scientists think it's flawed. I think science would be much worse off if they threw that peer review away and journals like Nature simply published whatever article showed up on their door. Edit: Due to some confusion in the comments. I just want to clarify some of the terminology here. When I say that science is "censored" I mean it is "censored" in the same way that Spotify is "censoring" Joe Rogan. Nobody is stopping any scientist from posting their papers anywhere they want online and there is nobody stopping Joe Rogan from taking his show and broadcasting it elsewhere. They are only being "censored" in the sense that the mainstream publishers have high truth quality standards and some shows (and scientific papers) don't meet those standards and thus publishers will refuse to publish the low quality material.
- marta_morena_29 6y ago
  But that is something very different. Nobody censors "new ideas". The censorship in science is focused on journals. I.e. if you want your idea to be published through a standard, accepted channel, it needs to be extensively peer-reviewed. And this is important, for obvious reasons. However, nothing prevents you from publishing your idea on the web, and people have done that and succeeded. There were some brilliant ideas (missing the link) that just got thrown out in the wild. But if the idea is truly brilliant, some other scientist will notice and make sure it gets reviewed anyhow. The "censorship" (I wouldn't call it that) in science doesnt happen at the publishing stage. When you have a great idea, it is bound to succeed, because nobody can afford to ignore you. The problem is getting there. How do you get the idea? Funding... Science funding is utterly broken. I.e. people research the wrong things for the wrong reasons all the time. This needs to be fixed, however it has nothing to do with censorship. This is just bias. Spotify is not a scientific journal. It's purpose is not to decide the truthfulness of its content. It should not publish content that breaks a law. If no law is broken, Spotify has neither an obligation, nor should they intervene/censor the content.
- disown 6y ago

istorical 6y ago

The Joe Rogan Experience isn't a news program. The early days involved getting high, being sponsored by Fleshlight, and having profanity-laden arguments. In that sense Spotify doesn't need to ensure its 'product' provides truthful information. It's on society to not treat entertainment as News. Unfortunately, people going to JRE for news isn't Spotify or JRE's fault. It's a cultural problem and you need to solve it at a structural or cultural level.

lalaland1125 6y ago
If the Joe Rogan Experience isn't a news program, then why do Joe and his guests make so many factual claims (a number of which turn out to be incorrect). At a certain point, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's fair to call it a duck. And the JRE certainly tries to present itself as factual and not a complete parody.
- bananabiscuit 6y ago
  When people talk, statements are made. I am having trouble imagining a conversation between two people that wouldn’t be considered a news program by your standards. I guess something completely made up like a DnD session?
- ungamed 6y ago
  If they are not making factual or accurate claims, doesn't that by definition mean its entertainment ?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

disown 6y ago

The JRE is an entertainment show. Do you think every entertainment show should be factual? > For instance, Joe Rogan literally just spread a bunch of misinformation about the wildfires (https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/18/media/joe-rogan-apologizes/in https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/18/media/joe-rogan-apologizes/in...). Funny how you linked cnn, a major source of misinformation itself. > Why shouldn't the New York Times fire or disciple a columnist with the exact same factual track record as Joe Rogan? Is Joe Rogan an employee of Spotify? I don't think he works for spotify. So your example doesn't work. Lets play a game, between the jre, cnn and nytimes, who pushes the least amount of misinformation? If you are honest, the answer is the jre. Between the jre, cnn and the nytimes, who pushes the least amount of misinformation to start wars and kill countless innocent people. The answer is the jre once again. "Disinformation", "misinformation" and other propaganda terms are so readily adopted by fans of misinformation/disinformation.

lalaland1125 6y ago
The JRE is entertainment in the same sense that Last Week Tonight with John Oliver is entertainment. Yes, it is intended to be entertaining, but it also tries to sell itself as being informative. As a second point, Joe Rogan is now effectively an employee (or contractor if you prefer) of Spotify. Spotify is paying him a lot of money to run his show on the Spotify platform.
- disown 6y ago
  > The JRE is entertainment in the same sense that Last Week Tonight is entertainment. Yes, it is intended to be entertaining, but it also tries to sell itself as being informative. Informative isn't the same thing as factual. And you have to be an absolute moron to take anything John Oliver says seriously. But I don't think HBO should ban him. Funny how nobody is demanding John Oliver to be banned and yet, he involves himself in american politics and he's from britain. But even still, I don't think he should be banned. > As a second point, Joe Rogan is now effectively an employee (or contractor if you prefer) of Spotify. Spotify is paying him a lot of money to run his show on the Spotify platform. Spotify is selling a product ( JRE ) on their platform. Doesn't make the product an employee of spotify. But maybe I'm wrong. But that makes it even worse since spotify employees are threatening a fellow employee.

tbrock 6y ago

Spotify is quite literally an entertainment provider. They can provide any content they want. They are not a newspaper and have no obligation to only promote and host content that matches some folks views and honestly I’m thankful for it. How boring the world would be if all entertainment was just someone dictating facts about things in a monotone voice that appealed to everyone.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
failuser 6y ago
Did this work in court when Alex Jones tried to claim that his show is pure comedy and stage persona should not be liable because it’s just a fictional character only played by Jones? Will Joe Rohan start to claim that no reasonable person would trust information on his podcast? [1] https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/alex-joness-attorneys-defamation-suit-argue-no-reasonable-person-believe-says/ https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/alex-joness-attorneys-... [2] https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/court-upholds-alex-jones-sanctions-in-sandy-hook-case/2306831/ https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/court-upholds-alex...

collegecamp293 6y ago

Do you support censoring music with lyrics that are factually incorrect too?

brailsafe 6y ago

Didn't Spotify license the podcast exclusively for a number of years rather than buy it?