9 ms·

What does memoryholing mean?

by bb123 5y ago

pcstl 5y ago
Deleting something produced in the past such that it cannot be found anymore.
kristjank 5y ago
Wiping and unacknowledging something's past existence. Think unpersons in 1984.
indy 5y ago
Some episodes are no longer available, as if Spotify wants everyone to forget that they even exist. Episodes featuring Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones etc. In other words, guests that offend the progressive attitudes of Silicon Valley
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Milolol 5y ago
  Milo Yiannopoulos is a self-proclaimed white supremacist, that offends more than "the progressive attitudes of Silicon Valley," it offends everyone that's not a white supremacist. Alex Jones testified to being a performance artist and hosts a talk show purely to hawk merchandise. Does that really fit the mold of a thought-provoking podcast like Rogan's?
  - MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
    He's not white supremacists. He openly says he prefers black men and has on several podcasts. He's just not a typical gay man so he gets villified.
  - Covzire 5y ago
    What happened? Liberalism used to have a solid footing on the essentials of the constitution. If your enemies or people you don't like don't have rights, you don't either. The ACLU used to understand this probably better than most organizations and today, like much of CA and NY, they're lost.
    - setpatchaddress 5y ago
      > The ACLU used to understand this probably better than most organizations and today, like much of CA and NY, they're lost This is a line I've read from texts dating back to at least 1973 by conservative authors, nearly verbatim. I think cultural mores change and conservatives have a hard time adapting. Alternatively, they've simply been dishonest with themselves since just after WWII -- start with the nonsense about FDR allowing Pearl Harbor to happen -- because they believe the ends justify the means.
  - I_cape_runts 5y ago
    I’m hesitant to delete something from public consumption just because it’s offensive or not liked.
  - meowface 5y ago
    >Milo Yiannopoulos is a self-proclaimed white supremacist I think Milo is a scumbag, personally, but where did he self-proclaim that he's a white supremacist? >Alex Jones testified to being a performance artist No, he didn't. His lawyer attempted to argue that he was during a lawsuit, as a defense against full culpability for his actions. Lawyers (understandably) try to pull out everything they can to help their client. There's no evidence Jones himself has ever said this or thinks this. Although most of his non-watchers seem to think he's just a con artist, after watching a cumulative dozens of hours of him on camera over the years, I'm convinced it's not an act and that he genuinely believes pretty much everything he's saying (except for cases where he's attempting to do a comedy bit). Unfortunately, a lot of people in the US believe all of the things he believes - and not necessarily because they're hearing it from him. They all drink from the same watering holes. In my opinion, this is why it's actually a lot more frightening than con artistry or performance art.
    - foldr 5y ago
      These people are too smart to literally say “yes I am [the bad thing]”, but Milo is not exactly subtle about where his sympathies lie: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/heres-how-breitbart-and-milo-smuggled-white-nationalism https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/heres-h...
      - HNPoliticalBias 5y ago
        > buzzfeednews
  - cxf12 5y ago
    To be fair, Milo was pretty thought provoking.
  - kelnos 5y ago
    I would be thrilled if both of those people simply ceased to exist, but I think it's dishonest to delete and "forget" old episodes of a show because you later decide that the guests on those episodes were terrible people. (I don't consider it material that presumably Spotify required deleting them as part of the deal. Rogan agreed to those terms, so clearly the money was more important to him.)
  - effingwewt 5y ago
    Right, so don't listen to those episodes. I, on the other hand, like hearing both sides so I can make an informed decision on why I disagree with whomever. 'So and so is bad, I heard it from X' has never been good for any human society. Pretending the episodes don't exist is rewriting history. 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' Personal point- if I saw Alex Jones personally I would not want to be him. He has, for his own enrichment, destroyed personal relationships, caused me endless arguments with friends/family and is a walking detrament to society. I hate with a passion the garbage he spews to sell some garbage fake pills. But I still believe he has a right to be heard. We need to educate people not shelter them.
    - snet0 5y ago
      Nobody has a right to be heard. He has a right to speak. People like Rogan have a megaphone and are choosing who to give it to. Would you choose Alex Jones?
      - noptd 5y ago
        Sure, Alex Jones is a crackpot but why should you, or anyone for that matter, be allowed to prevent others from speaking to an audience that has decided to listen? What do you expect to happen when the balance of power, majority opinion, etc inevitably shifts and we find ourselves on the other side?
      - effingwewt 5y ago
        I don't think we should choose who gets to speak. What happens when you end up on the wrong-thinking side? If you want to play the pedant fine, he has a right to speak. But if people like you would stop judging who gets to speak and where we wouldn't have to depend on Joe Rogan's megaphone, now would we?
  - Mountain_Skies 5y ago
    It wasn't just those two people. 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_... Also how do you know that either of those people are what others have told you they are? If you're unable to listen to them because they've been depersoned everywhere, you have no way of knowing if they're truly as represented or have been character assassinated. I'm not trying to convince you that either of them aren't who you think they are (from what I've seen, you're not far off) but rather have you see that you could be wrong about them (or others in the future) if you are not allowed to hear them first hand and only get views of them filtered through others.
  - pugets 5y ago
    On episode #1682 he talks about both figures. He was saying he does feel a responsibility to vet his guests so that he doesn’t just have crazies using his platform to spew vile, but ultimately that neither figure harms anyone just by being a guest on a podcast. He talked about how even if you hate Alex or Milo, you can still gain something from listening to them speak. Maybe you can figure out why you hate them, or maybe listening to them directly will make you understand them in a different light. Maybe this is a 1990s George Carlin thing to say, but so what if Milo offends people? Should we only be allowed to hear things that don’t offend us?
    - pstuart 5y ago
      > Should we only be allowed to hear things that don’t offend us? Absolutely not! That said, I also believe in intolerance of intolerance but don't have any good answers on how that is best played out.
      - account42 5y ago
        > I also believe in intolerance of intolerance I also like being able to justify intolerance towards anyone I want by labeling them "intolerant". Same as only caring about those I want to care about and only supporting free speech that I agree with. Makes everything much easier.
        pstuart 5y ago
        It can often be challenging to determine intent in written form, and more so in a forum context, but that reads as incredibly passive aggressive. I'd be happy to debate this further if you were willing to do so in good faith rather than intentionally twisting my words. Otherwise, you can label me as "anti-free speech" and call it a day having won the war for freedom on the internet.
  - LegitShady 5y ago
    >Milo Yiannopoulos is a self-proclaimed white supremacist Pretty sure he said that while married to a black dude, so unless you can come up with something specific I think its comedy/trolling.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jimt1234 5y ago
  Rejecting people that promote the "Sandy Hook was fake!" conspiracy theory and even harassing the parents of murdered children isn't a way to avoid offending the "progressive attitudes of Silicon Valley". It's just common decency. ... Can we at least set the bar at that level -- that we _don't_ harass the parents of murdered children for clicks?
  - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
    Interviewing influential figures is important.
    - pjc50 5y ago
      Interviewing libelous crackpots gives them influence. Without interviews, they're seldom influential.
      - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
        I'm pretty sure Alex Jones has a big platform for himself.
      - thehappypm 5y ago
        This is the exact opposite of what’s happening. Because there’s so little cross pollination today everyone lives in a bubble. If your Facebook is full of right-wing stuff, you only watch Fox News and only listen to Larry Elder, you’ve got an echo chamber, breeding ground for radicalization. Having a wide variety of guests actually fights that. You listen to Bernie Sanders, then Alex Jones, then Ben Shapiro, then Edward Snowden. Rogan breaks the echo chamber. People who might only listen to Alex Jones have a chance at listening to Bernie.
    - snet0 5y ago
      Why? Why do I suddenly need to know everyone's take about everything? Why is it important that we know what our favourite actor thinks about Trump? Everything is publicity. It's not achieving some important social need, its driving people towards new products. Interviewing Alex Jones isn't doing anything except making more people know what an Alex Jones is.
- russdpale 5y ago
  Yeh LOL sandy hook denial is for progressive silicon Valley types who aren't progressive. Maybe Spotify doesn't want to be the 'dive bar' of web platforms. If you aren't offended by Alex Jones you got deeper issues, or perhaps are just ignorant to his white nationalist messaging.
  - hashbig 5y ago
    I am offended by him and at the same time don't mind him having a platform to express his "opinions" which apparently is an unpopular opinion on this site.
- bnjms 5y ago
  Which is funny to me because JRE is the reason we are rid of Milo. The JRE also didn’t do any favors for Candace Owens or Dave Rubin. I don’t see why they would memory hole those episodes but at least they’re on YouTube.
- chansiky 5y ago
  That's straight up censorship.
blackshaw 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole

What does memoryholing mean?

by bb123 5y ago

What does memoryholing mean?

pcstl 5y ago

Deleting something produced in the past such that it cannot be found anymore.

kristjank 5y ago

Wiping and unacknowledging something's past existence. Think unpersons in 1984.

indy 5y ago

Some episodes are no longer available, as if Spotify wants everyone to forget that they even exist. Episodes featuring Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones etc. In other words, guests that offend the progressive attitudes of Silicon Valley

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Milolol 5y ago
Milo Yiannopoulos is a self-proclaimed white supremacist, that offends more than "the progressive attitudes of Silicon Valley," it offends everyone that's not a white supremacist. Alex Jones testified to being a performance artist and hosts a talk show purely to hawk merchandise. Does that really fit the mold of a thought-provoking podcast like Rogan's?
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
  He's not white supremacists. He openly says he prefers black men and has on several podcasts. He's just not a typical gay man so he gets villified.
- Covzire 5y ago
  What happened? Liberalism used to have a solid footing on the essentials of the constitution. If your enemies or people you don't like don't have rights, you don't either. The ACLU used to understand this probably better than most organizations and today, like much of CA and NY, they're lost.
  - setpatchaddress 5y ago
    > The ACLU used to understand this probably better than most organizations and today, like much of CA and NY, they're lost This is a line I've read from texts dating back to at least 1973 by conservative authors, nearly verbatim. I think cultural mores change and conservatives have a hard time adapting. Alternatively, they've simply been dishonest with themselves since just after WWII -- start with the nonsense about FDR allowing Pearl Harbor to happen -- because they believe the ends justify the means.
- I_cape_runts 5y ago
  I’m hesitant to delete something from public consumption just because it’s offensive or not liked.
- meowface 5y ago
  >Milo Yiannopoulos is a self-proclaimed white supremacist I think Milo is a scumbag, personally, but where did he self-proclaim that he's a white supremacist? >Alex Jones testified to being a performance artist No, he didn't. His lawyer attempted to argue that he was during a lawsuit, as a defense against full culpability for his actions. Lawyers (understandably) try to pull out everything they can to help their client. There's no evidence Jones himself has ever said this or thinks this. Although most of his non-watchers seem to think he's just a con artist, after watching a cumulative dozens of hours of him on camera over the years, I'm convinced it's not an act and that he genuinely believes pretty much everything he's saying (except for cases where he's attempting to do a comedy bit). Unfortunately, a lot of people in the US believe all of the things he believes - and not necessarily because they're hearing it from him. They all drink from the same watering holes. In my opinion, this is why it's actually a lot more frightening than con artistry or performance art.
  - foldr 5y ago
    These people are too smart to literally say “yes I am [the bad thing]”, but Milo is not exactly subtle about where his sympathies lie: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/heres-how-breitbart-and-milo-smuggled-white-nationalism https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/heres-h...
    - HNPoliticalBias 5y ago
      > buzzfeednews
- cxf12 5y ago
  To be fair, Milo was pretty thought provoking.
- kelnos 5y ago
  I would be thrilled if both of those people simply ceased to exist, but I think it's dishonest to delete and "forget" old episodes of a show because you later decide that the guests on those episodes were terrible people. (I don't consider it material that presumably Spotify required deleting them as part of the deal. Rogan agreed to those terms, so clearly the money was more important to him.)
- effingwewt 5y ago
  Right, so don't listen to those episodes. I, on the other hand, like hearing both sides so I can make an informed decision on why I disagree with whomever. 'So and so is bad, I heard it from X' has never been good for any human society. Pretending the episodes don't exist is rewriting history. 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' Personal point- if I saw Alex Jones personally I would not want to be him. He has, for his own enrichment, destroyed personal relationships, caused me endless arguments with friends/family and is a walking detrament to society. I hate with a passion the garbage he spews to sell some garbage fake pills. But I still believe he has a right to be heard. We need to educate people not shelter them.
  - snet0 5y ago
    Nobody has a right to be heard. He has a right to speak. People like Rogan have a megaphone and are choosing who to give it to. Would you choose Alex Jones?
    - noptd 5y ago
      Sure, Alex Jones is a crackpot but why should you, or anyone for that matter, be allowed to prevent others from speaking to an audience that has decided to listen? What do you expect to happen when the balance of power, majority opinion, etc inevitably shifts and we find ourselves on the other side?
    - effingwewt 5y ago
      I don't think we should choose who gets to speak. What happens when you end up on the wrong-thinking side? If you want to play the pedant fine, he has a right to speak. But if people like you would stop judging who gets to speak and where we wouldn't have to depend on Joe Rogan's megaphone, now would we?
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  It wasn't just those two people. 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_... Also how do you know that either of those people are what others have told you they are? If you're unable to listen to them because they've been depersoned everywhere, you have no way of knowing if they're truly as represented or have been character assassinated. I'm not trying to convince you that either of them aren't who you think they are (from what I've seen, you're not far off) but rather have you see that you could be wrong about them (or others in the future) if you are not allowed to hear them first hand and only get views of them filtered through others.
- pugets 5y ago
  On episode #1682 he talks about both figures. He was saying he does feel a responsibility to vet his guests so that he doesn’t just have crazies using his platform to spew vile, but ultimately that neither figure harms anyone just by being a guest on a podcast. He talked about how even if you hate Alex or Milo, you can still gain something from listening to them speak. Maybe you can figure out why you hate them, or maybe listening to them directly will make you understand them in a different light. Maybe this is a 1990s George Carlin thing to say, but so what if Milo offends people? Should we only be allowed to hear things that don’t offend us?
  - pstuart 5y ago
    > Should we only be allowed to hear things that don’t offend us? Absolutely not! That said, I also believe in intolerance of intolerance but don't have any good answers on how that is best played out.
    - account42 5y ago
      > I also believe in intolerance of intolerance I also like being able to justify intolerance towards anyone I want by labeling them "intolerant". Same as only caring about those I want to care about and only supporting free speech that I agree with. Makes everything much easier.
      - pstuart 5y ago
        It can often be challenging to determine intent in written form, and more so in a forum context, but that reads as incredibly passive aggressive. I'd be happy to debate this further if you were willing to do so in good faith rather than intentionally twisting my words. Otherwise, you can label me as "anti-free speech" and call it a day having won the war for freedom on the internet.
- LegitShady 5y ago
  >Milo Yiannopoulos is a self-proclaimed white supremacist Pretty sure he said that while married to a black dude, so unless you can come up with something specific I think its comedy/trolling.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jimt1234 5y ago
Rejecting people that promote the "Sandy Hook was fake!" conspiracy theory and even harassing the parents of murdered children isn't a way to avoid offending the "progressive attitudes of Silicon Valley". It's just common decency. ... Can we at least set the bar at that level -- that we _don't_ harass the parents of murdered children for clicks?
- ErikVandeWater 5y ago
  Interviewing influential figures is important.
  - pjc50 5y ago
    Interviewing libelous crackpots gives them influence. Without interviews, they're seldom influential.
    - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
      I'm pretty sure Alex Jones has a big platform for himself.
    - thehappypm 5y ago
      This is the exact opposite of what’s happening. Because there’s so little cross pollination today everyone lives in a bubble. If your Facebook is full of right-wing stuff, you only watch Fox News and only listen to Larry Elder, you’ve got an echo chamber, breeding ground for radicalization. Having a wide variety of guests actually fights that. You listen to Bernie Sanders, then Alex Jones, then Ben Shapiro, then Edward Snowden. Rogan breaks the echo chamber. People who might only listen to Alex Jones have a chance at listening to Bernie.
  - snet0 5y ago
    Why? Why do I suddenly need to know everyone's take about everything? Why is it important that we know what our favourite actor thinks about Trump? Everything is publicity. It's not achieving some important social need, its driving people towards new products. Interviewing Alex Jones isn't doing anything except making more people know what an Alex Jones is.
russdpale 5y ago
Yeh LOL sandy hook denial is for progressive silicon Valley types who aren't progressive. Maybe Spotify doesn't want to be the 'dive bar' of web platforms. If you aren't offended by Alex Jones you got deeper issues, or perhaps are just ignorant to his white nationalist messaging.
- hashbig 5y ago
  I am offended by him and at the same time don't mind him having a platform to express his "opinions" which apparently is an unpopular opinion on this site.
bnjms 5y ago
Which is funny to me because JRE is the reason we are rid of Milo. The JRE also didn’t do any favors for Candace Owens or Dave Rubin. I don’t see why they would memory hole those episodes but at least they’re on YouTube.
chansiky 5y ago
That's straight up censorship.

blackshaw 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole