8 ms·

>> Rogan, on the other hand, has confirmed that Spotify removed certain shows as a condition of their $100 million agreement with him. “There were a few episode

by kjakm 6y ago

>> Rogan, on the other hand, has confirmed that Spotify removed certain shows as a condition of their $100 million agreement with him. “There were a few episodes they didn’t want on their platform, and I was like ‘okay, I don’t care’,” Rogan shared in a recent interview with guest Fahim Anwar. It's part of their deal. Nothing to see here.

chrisco255 6y ago
The fans care.
- insickness 6y ago
  More loyal than the king.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
mpfundstein 6y ago
in the end, everyone sells out for money...
- shoulderfake 6y ago
  you'd be stupid not to
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
CyberRabbi 6y ago
Well put. He even passively admitted to allowing the censorship in a recent episode https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3to9t3r9ZQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3to9t3r9ZQ
- minimuffins 6y ago
  I am totally baffled as to why that makes you feel better.
  - CyberRabbi 6y ago
    It doesn’t make me feel any specific way. I’m just referencing information. What do you mean exactly?
    - minimuffins 6y ago
      > It doesn’t make me feel any specific way. I think it should! It's disconcerting to see the expansion of platform censorship even if the censored party is aware of it, "doesn't care," and was in on the deal. That "it's just business" doesn't make it a neutral development. Spotify gets to decide what ideologies are acceptable for Spotify listeners. This is just one point on the graph. The overall picture is more and more of this stuff, with little or no resistance. You like that? You feel nothing either way? There is a moral and political valence to this stuff.
      - CyberRabbi 6y ago
        I don’t use Spotify and frankly >= 80% of the content on Spotify is for morons. In any case I do respect your commitment to freedom of speech and liberalism.
      - Pfhreak 6y ago
        I think a lot of folks, myself included, see what you are pointing at and think, "That's not novel. That's the way media works, and has worked, for generations." What makes Spotify different from, for example, radio stations deciding which music I should listen to in the 50s? Or TV stations deciding which shows I should see in the 80s? Media companies have always cared and deliberately curated the ideologies they present -- whether that's a political ideology or a marketing one. (I know that a whole lot of the TV shows of my childhood were aimed at selling me toys, for instance.)
      - 6y ago
minimuffins 6y ago
Are you being ironic? Of course there's something to see: the latest glacial shift in the accretion of content control by tech platforms.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- BryantD 6y ago
  Do you maybe have a graph of what the overall picture of content control by a handful of companies looks like over, say, the last 50 years?
  - minimuffins 6y ago
    No, do you? If there's an implicit argument in that question I'm not able to discern it.
    - neolog 6y ago
      It's probably that Spotify has less control than the big record labels did.
- akiselev 6y ago
  > Of course there's something to see: the latest glacial shift in the accretion of content control by tech platforms. The other side of the coin is that everyone is selling out. We're just returning to the patronage (clientela) model where everyone parrots the patrons for a cut of the profit, legal contract and everything - except Joe Rogan isn't at risk of dying destitute if he doesn't comply and his patrons are faceless corporations.
- SllX 6y ago
  As opposed to content control by publishers, network television, the FCC, and studios? Spotify is not above criticism, I think it is entirely legitimate and called for to criticize Spotify without overstating your case.
paul_f 6y ago
Joe is not building "art". His podcasts are ephemeral, they are for now. Creating a large back catalog is not the goal, it aint a sitcom
- nitrogen 6y ago
  One year's ephemera is the rest of time's history.
CivBase 6y ago
If people are worried about Spotify mistreating Joe than, no, there's nothing to see here. But there is absolutely something to see here for those who are worried about preserving content and the precedent for censorship in future episodes of Joe's podcast.
toshk 6y ago
He often stated that nothing will change and no censorship would take place because of the move to spotify. For many he was one of the last credible places that would give a place to more extreme voices, even if he might not agree. For years he actively advocated free speech and integrity. Commercially it might be part of the deal, but it's understandable many of his listeners feel like he sold out.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- paxys 6y ago
  Sounds pretty hypocritical to sign a massive deal with a censorship clause included and tell users "don't worry nothing will change".
- HaggardFinical 6y ago
  You don't get 100M$ for hosting a podcast without selling out at least a little bit. Still, Joe openly being an absolute COVID Karen should give people some idea about how much influence Spotify has on what he says.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  Well most adults at a certain age start to realize that not everyone needs to get heard especially if they incite hate like Alex Jones and quackery like some of the medical guests. The agreement with spotify allows that and JR is $100 million richer and has already stated he doesn't care. I'm sure there's a limit but a rate of far less than 5% is probably just fine with him.
patorjk 6y ago
Wait, you left off the next sentence, which is very important: > Whether Rogan understood that several dozen shows were being removed — and may still be getting removed — is also unclear. 42 of his shows have been removed. Even out of 1631 shows, that seems like more than a few. For $100 million he may not care, but for general listeners its a little unnerving that Spotify would be doing this. I'm a grown adult, I can decide what I want to listen to - why are they getting in the way? One of the main of appeals of his program is that he's having interesting conversations with interesting people. He's willing to talk to people with wildly different view points. When Spotify's editors start removing shows they don't like, they also remove part of the appeal of the show. If they find so much of the show unpalatable, why did they make the deal in the first place?
- ta20210405 6y ago
  >I'm a grown adult, I can decide what I want to listen to - why are they getting in the way? Just wait, someone will come around and inform you how deciding what you want to listen to is "whiteness", and you're "white supremacy adjacent" for not supporting the removal of this racist, transphobic hate speech that's violence against BIPOCs and minorities.
  - dang 6y ago
    We've banned this account for using HN for ideological flamewar. Would you please not create accounts to do that with? It's off topic, regardless of which ideology you're flaming. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- jonas21 6y ago
  It's unclear... to the author of the article who seems not to have actually talked to Joe Rogan or Spotify.
- paxys 6y ago
  He signed a $100M contract. It's pretty clear that he understood.
- 6y ago
knorker 6y ago
It's embrace and extinguish. From the articles linked it's almost as if half of Spotify went "yes! Finally we'll have the power to reign that monster in, and silence him. We'll make him our PC puppet! Muhahahaha" I think it's new. It was intended as a business deal, but the activist-firsts are seeing their chance to silence an enemy.
hoka-one-one 6y ago
It's understandable. He's routinely allowed right-wing radicals such as Abby Martin and Gavin McInnes and Dave Rubin on his show. I personally would stop using Spotify if they started promoting such hateful content. Paradox of tolerance, etc.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > right-wing radicals such as Abby Martin > In September 2015, Martin launched The Empire Files, an interview and documentary series. She has hosted guests including Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Richard D. Wolff, Ralph Nader and Jill Stein. I can't tell whether you're running a satire account.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- HKH2 6y ago
  If they're what you consider 'right-wing radicals', I have some bad news for you.
- zthrowaway 6y ago
  Different opinions! The horror!
- Method-X 6y ago
  I don’t know who the other two are but Dave Rubin, a right wing radical? He’s a classical liberal for crying out loud!
hkt 6y ago
$100m? Is there a source for this? I'm amazed.
- aksss 6y ago
  http://www.just-fucking-google.it?s=rogan%20100m&e=finger http://www.just-fucking-google.it?s=rogan%20100m&e=finger
sn_master 6y ago
> It's part of their deal. Nothing to see here. Nothing to see here from a legal viewpoint, yes. Ethically it's very much looking into how a big platform is using its power to hide certain kinds of content from its viewers.
aksss 6y ago
The thing to see here (literally, or listen to), is how Joe, despite his assertion that there are no limits from Spotify, makes decisions on guests and talking points while someone at spotify holds a hammer over his hand vis a vis killing old episodes. He knows the hosting party doesn't like certain content, and will eliminate episodes that violate some murky line of political correctness - it's impossible that such a dynamic doesn't affect his decisions going forward.
- quickthrowman 6y ago
  Was Joe Rogan forced to sign the $100M contract with Spotify? If the answer is “no”, then he willingly accepted this contractual arrangement, and all the benefits and consequences of it.
  - HKH2 6y ago
    Right. The GP is talking about how Joe has been pretending that nothing has changed.
bunfunton 6y ago
When the deal first happened he came out and insisted that they had no power over him whatsoever.
themolecularman 6y ago
> It's part of their deal. Nothing to see here. That's not true. When Joe moved to Spotify his entire catalog didn't move, that's what he "didn't care about". This is a new wave of canceled episodes. And there's no telling if these "activist" employees will find future episodes or more past episodes "problematic", in which case they may also be removed.

by kjakm 6y ago

chrisco255 6y ago

The fans care.

insickness 6y ago
More loyal than the king.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

mpfundstein 6y ago

in the end, everyone sells out for money...

shoulderfake 6y ago
you'd be stupid not to
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

CyberRabbi 6y ago

Well put. He even passively admitted to allowing the censorship in a recent episode https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3to9t3r9ZQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3to9t3r9ZQ

minimuffins 6y ago
I am totally baffled as to why that makes you feel better.
- CyberRabbi 6y ago
  It doesn’t make me feel any specific way. I’m just referencing information. What do you mean exactly?
  - minimuffins 6y ago
    > It doesn’t make me feel any specific way. I think it should! It's disconcerting to see the expansion of platform censorship even if the censored party is aware of it, "doesn't care," and was in on the deal. That "it's just business" doesn't make it a neutral development. Spotify gets to decide what ideologies are acceptable for Spotify listeners. This is just one point on the graph. The overall picture is more and more of this stuff, with little or no resistance. You like that? You feel nothing either way? There is a moral and political valence to this stuff.
    - CyberRabbi 6y ago
      I don’t use Spotify and frankly >= 80% of the content on Spotify is for morons. In any case I do respect your commitment to freedom of speech and liberalism.
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      I think a lot of folks, myself included, see what you are pointing at and think, "That's not novel. That's the way media works, and has worked, for generations." What makes Spotify different from, for example, radio stations deciding which music I should listen to in the 50s? Or TV stations deciding which shows I should see in the 80s? Media companies have always cared and deliberately curated the ideologies they present -- whether that's a political ideology or a marketing one. (I know that a whole lot of the TV shows of my childhood were aimed at selling me toys, for instance.)
    - 6y ago

minimuffins 6y ago

Are you being ironic? Of course there's something to see: the latest glacial shift in the accretion of content control by tech platforms.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
BryantD 6y ago
Do you maybe have a graph of what the overall picture of content control by a handful of companies looks like over, say, the last 50 years?
- minimuffins 6y ago
  No, do you? If there's an implicit argument in that question I'm not able to discern it.
  - neolog 6y ago
    It's probably that Spotify has less control than the big record labels did.
akiselev 6y ago
> Of course there's something to see: the latest glacial shift in the accretion of content control by tech platforms. The other side of the coin is that everyone is selling out. We're just returning to the patronage (clientela) model where everyone parrots the patrons for a cut of the profit, legal contract and everything - except Joe Rogan isn't at risk of dying destitute if he doesn't comply and his patrons are faceless corporations.
SllX 6y ago
As opposed to content control by publishers, network television, the FCC, and studios? Spotify is not above criticism, I think it is entirely legitimate and called for to criticize Spotify without overstating your case.

paul_f 6y ago

Joe is not building "art". His podcasts are ephemeral, they are for now. Creating a large back catalog is not the goal, it aint a sitcom

nitrogen 6y ago
One year's ephemera is the rest of time's history.

CivBase 6y ago

If people are worried about Spotify mistreating Joe than, no, there's nothing to see here. But there is absolutely something to see here for those who are worried about preserving content and the precedent for censorship in future episodes of Joe's podcast.

toshk 6y ago

He often stated that nothing will change and no censorship would take place because of the move to spotify. For many he was one of the last credible places that would give a place to more extreme voices, even if he might not agree. For years he actively advocated free speech and integrity. Commercially it might be part of the deal, but it's understandable many of his listeners feel like he sold out.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
paxys 6y ago
Sounds pretty hypocritical to sign a massive deal with a censorship clause included and tell users "don't worry nothing will change".
HaggardFinical 6y ago
You don't get 100M$ for hosting a podcast without selling out at least a little bit. Still, Joe openly being an absolute COVID Karen should give people some idea about how much influence Spotify has on what he says.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
Well most adults at a certain age start to realize that not everyone needs to get heard especially if they incite hate like Alex Jones and quackery like some of the medical guests. The agreement with spotify allows that and JR is $100 million richer and has already stated he doesn't care. I'm sure there's a limit but a rate of far less than 5% is probably just fine with him.

patorjk 6y ago

Wait, you left off the next sentence, which is very important: > Whether Rogan understood that several dozen shows were being removed — and may still be getting removed — is also unclear. 42 of his shows have been removed. Even out of 1631 shows, that seems like more than a few. For $100 million he may not care, but for general listeners its a little unnerving that Spotify would be doing this. I'm a grown adult, I can decide what I want to listen to - why are they getting in the way? One of the main of appeals of his program is that he's having interesting conversations with interesting people. He's willing to talk to people with wildly different view points. When Spotify's editors start removing shows they don't like, they also remove part of the appeal of the show. If they find so much of the show unpalatable, why did they make the deal in the first place?

ta20210405 6y ago
>I'm a grown adult, I can decide what I want to listen to - why are they getting in the way? Just wait, someone will come around and inform you how deciding what you want to listen to is "whiteness", and you're "white supremacy adjacent" for not supporting the removal of this racist, transphobic hate speech that's violence against BIPOCs and minorities.
- dang 6y ago
  We've banned this account for using HN for ideological flamewar. Would you please not create accounts to do that with? It's off topic, regardless of which ideology you're flaming. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
jonas21 6y ago
It's unclear... to the author of the article who seems not to have actually talked to Joe Rogan or Spotify.
paxys 6y ago
He signed a $100M contract. It's pretty clear that he understood.
6y ago

knorker 6y ago

It's embrace and extinguish. From the articles linked it's almost as if half of Spotify went "yes! Finally we'll have the power to reign that monster in, and silence him. We'll make him our PC puppet! Muhahahaha" I think it's new. It was intended as a business deal, but the activist-firsts are seeing their chance to silence an enemy.

hoka-one-one 6y ago

It's understandable. He's routinely allowed right-wing radicals such as Abby Martin and Gavin McInnes and Dave Rubin on his show. I personally would stop using Spotify if they started promoting such hateful content. Paradox of tolerance, etc.

luckylion 6y ago
> right-wing radicals such as Abby Martin > In September 2015, Martin launched The Empire Files, an interview and documentary series. She has hosted guests including Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Richard D. Wolff, Ralph Nader and Jill Stein. I can't tell whether you're running a satire account.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
HKH2 6y ago
If they're what you consider 'right-wing radicals', I have some bad news for you.
zthrowaway 6y ago
Different opinions! The horror!
Method-X 6y ago
I don’t know who the other two are but Dave Rubin, a right wing radical? He’s a classical liberal for crying out loud!

hkt 6y ago

$100m? Is there a source for this? I'm amazed.

aksss 6y ago
http://www.just-fucking-google.it?s=rogan%20100m&e=finger http://www.just-fucking-google.it?s=rogan%20100m&e=finger

sn_master 6y ago

> It's part of their deal. Nothing to see here. Nothing to see here from a legal viewpoint, yes. Ethically it's very much looking into how a big platform is using its power to hide certain kinds of content from its viewers.

aksss 6y ago

The thing to see here (literally, or listen to), is how Joe, despite his assertion that there are no limits from Spotify, makes decisions on guests and talking points while someone at spotify holds a hammer over his hand vis a vis killing old episodes. He knows the hosting party doesn't like certain content, and will eliminate episodes that violate some murky line of political correctness - it's impossible that such a dynamic doesn't affect his decisions going forward.

quickthrowman 6y ago
Was Joe Rogan forced to sign the $100M contract with Spotify? If the answer is “no”, then he willingly accepted this contractual arrangement, and all the benefits and consequences of it.
- HKH2 6y ago
  Right. The GP is talking about how Joe has been pretending that nothing has changed.

bunfunton 6y ago

When the deal first happened he came out and insisted that they had no power over him whatsoever.

themolecularman 6y ago

> It's part of their deal. Nothing to see here. That's not true. When Joe moved to Spotify his entire catalog didn't move, that's what he "didn't care about". This is a new wave of canceled episodes. And there's no telling if these "activist" employees will find future episodes or more past episodes "problematic", in which case they may also be removed.