16 ms·
Joe Rogan Apologizes, Spotify Publishes Content Policy in Response to Neil Young
- ahevia 5y agoVery nice to see the Joe Rogan I listened to back in 2015-2018 era. One who wasn’t afraid to apologize. Probably won’t bring me back to listening, but hoping new listeners get that golden era of JRE back
- oregano 5y agoI’m not very familiar with JRE but your comment makes me curious about his influence and following. What made you stop listening after 2018? Did he adopt some new ideas? Would be interesting to know if his audience has changed much in the past couple years.
- ahevia 5y agoI just grew tired of listening. Nothing specific. I was at a time in my life where I needed less distractions & it was easy to cut him out. I did find him kind of repetitive at that point. He always made the same arguments, same stories, etc. Not much growth on his part.
- BitwiseFool 5y agoThis event served to reinforce my belief that while streaming services and subscription-based platforms are nice, you should endeavor to download local DRM-free copies of the media you consume (wherever possible).
- iancmceachern 5y agoWe are slowly loosing ownership of our things. Cars don't work without cloud updates and roadside service when we get a flat, we can't play music that we've bought 3 times over on 3 different media's in our car without paying for it yet again, we can't even repair our own tractors.
- rabuse 5y ago"You'll own nothing, and you'll be HAPPY!"
- dv_dt 5y agoThat's the model of https://resonate.is/ https://resonate.is/ but I don't think they have the clout to license most of the major label music that the masses are interested in.
- CharlesW 5y agoSpotify has actively been embracing/extending/extinguishing podcasting for years, even calling their DRM-encumbered shows "podcasts" to confuse the technically illiterate. If you care about this, don't listen to DRM-encumbered shows. Cracking their DRM or transcoding the audio into a non-encumbered format does nothing because they still get their engagement data.
- jayspell 5y agoI don't subscribe to Spotify for Neil Young or Jodi Mitchell, but I do for Joe Rogan. If he pulls back we will have no voice bringing alternative views. I really hate the media landscape today with its monochrome set of carefully curated information which is incomplete.
- AnEro 5y agotheres a difference in a difference in opinion and putting on the 3-5% of people that disagree and can't bring facts and evidence to the table constantly.
- lowkey 5y agoI challenge your assertion that between 3-5% of people disagree. Would you stake your life on that claim or is that simply more fake news you are spreading without verifiable sources? As for Joe Rogan and his controversial guests, one was Dr. Peter McCullough, the most widely published cardiologist in the world. He brought many claims to the podcast - all included citations and verifiable sources - from his grand rounds slides. Did you watch the podcast so you could criticize it intelligently or are you purely spewing hate based on what you read/heard in MSM? Seems the latter.
- bandyaboot 5y agoAre we to assume you would be willing to stake your life on anything you've ever said?
- lowkey 5y agoHey if I start spewing misinformation about my opponents while accusing them of not providing sources, all while failing to provide sources for my baseless claims like OP, then you can hold me to account. I never made such statements. Perhaps you or OP would like to share details of the misinformation you claim was shared on Joe Rogan’s show? I watched both episodes and found lots of controversial claims - all backed by citations. I would challenge that most of Joe Rogan’s critics have never watched the episodes in question. I wouldn’t be willing to stake my life on it however.
- rogual 5y agoIf you want to hear what Joe said in his own words and you don't really care about the WSJ's paywalled opinion on it, his statement is here: https://open.spotify.com/episode/2uxCSxYfyXvERU7cQcoxJb?si=N9jgNwzjSiOGIdSXRNM72A&nd=1 https://open.spotify.com/episode/2uxCSxYfyXvERU7cQcoxJb?si=N...
- bandyaboot 5y agoRequires signing up for a spotify account.
- arprocter 5y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSqLWrSVWaY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSqLWrSVWaY
- dekhn 5y agoIs there a way to get the textual transcript? I don't want to a video of somebody holding a mobile phone to their face while apologizing for being obtuse.
- drcongo 5y agoAnd killing a lot of brain cells.
- tanseydavid 5y agoThat's a curious statement. It is not at all clear to me what you mean by this.
- dekhn 5y agoThey mean that the process of listening to Joe Rogan causes brain cells to die and therefore you get more stupid. It's hyperbole and has the causation backwards, but it's quite clear in terms of being an english idiom.
- 5y ago
- __s 5y agohttps://archive.fo/4WdUH https://archive.fo/4WdUH
- fred_is_fred 5y agoWhatever your opinion of Rogan's ideas - I find this to be misleading. Joe is 100% trying to be controversial, it's why he brings these guests on. It gets listeners. Howard Stern followed the same formula. "I'm not trying to promote misinformation, I'm not trying to be controversial," Rogan added.
- sjg007 5y agoIt's pretty interesting to see the same approach on a new format. Stern did well by promoting sex and pushing the FCC limits which gave him huge notoriety. Rogan obviously capitalized on the new podcast format. That begs the obvious question of what older enterprises would translate to Internet distribution. Stern -> radio.. Rogan -> podcasts.. Trump -> Twitter..
- r00fus 5y agoThe line is crossed when, during a global pandemic, you promote a viewpoint (by only selecting vax-questioning guests). Joe isn't unbiased here, he claimed Ivermectin cured him (doubtful) when he had COVID and remains unvaccinated. I don't think it's just the Howard Stern formula.
- j3schmidt 5y ago
- mizzack 5y ago> The line is crossed when, during a global pandemic, you promote a viewpoint (by only selecting vax-questioning guests). Do Sanjay Gupta and Michael Osterholm fall into that group?
- throwaway946513 5y agoI remember the research being done on Ivermectin and found that the reasons a de-wormer helps fighting against Covid was due in part that many of the places that the study was performed, were in non-Western Europe countries. Places where worms and parasitic diseases are common, where getting one of two fights removed from your body will incredibly help the other fight. So I either have to picture Joe as someone who's been infected with worms to the point that he needed a dewormer to help him, or he's giving a poor amount of anecdotal evidence. While the first is certainly able to exist, it's highly unlikely given his chances of having the parasitic infections are incredibly reduced in the United States.
- adamrezich 5y agowhat happened in the past few years where we suddenly care about misinformation to the point of demanding censorship, but only for certain classes of content (individual podcasters) as opposed to, for example, corporate media networks? it's interesting because the implicit assertion is that corporate media networks only ever 100% dispense the absolute truth, because if they didn't, they would get the same treatment as Rogan, right? from my perspective, the best way to counter "misinformation" on Rogan's show would be to push for people with opposite viewpoints to go on his show and refute claims made previously. even better, try to get a show going where people with opposite viewpoints hash them out live for all to see, with Rogan acting as the average guy neutral moderator! weird how that's never an option, instead the only possible solution to "misinformation" is to push for outright censorship.
- rabuse 5y agoWhoa, calm down there with arriving at a perfectly reasonable solution to challenging ideas. /s Honestly though, if you have an argument that is so concrete and based on facts and verifiable statistics, there should be no need to silence dissent. Challenge them, and let the audience form their own conclusions, and question how they arrived at sed conclusion. People have been so conditioned to just believing news links and talking heads to arrive at the conclusions for them; they don't even want to think.
- adamrezich 5y agoI've been getting the vibe (which is being reinforced by the downvotes) that there's a sort idea going around that we've reached some kind of critical juncture in online discourse where mere dissent doesn't work, or somehow is not good enough, when it comes to combatting mis/disinformation, and thus the only solution is silencing anyone who says anything outside of the accepted orthodoxy of "truth." I find this general mindset more broadly harmful than any specific ideas that are touted or espoused by any content creator. when did we start implicitly believing in the societal necessity of Truth Police?
- rabuse 5y ago
- drcongo 5y ago
- peteradio 5y agoIs there a summary of what exactly was the misinformation in the Robert Malone episode? I tried to watch it all but its like 3 hrs long. I want to weigh the misinformation with the truth contained in the episode and compare with the response from the last few weeks. Are other sources of information being held to the same standards here?
- didibus 5y agoThose are good summaries: https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/robert-malone-misleading-unsubstantiated-claims-covid-19-safety-efficacy-vaccines-joe-rogan-experience-spotify-podcast/ https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/robert-malone-mislead... https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/joe-rogan-interview-with-peter-mccullough-contains-multiple-false-and-unsubstantiated-claims-about-the-covid-19-pandemic-and-vaccines/ https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/joe-rogan-interview-w...
- peteradio 5y agoWhat did you think of the Robert Malone report from your link?
- calyth2018 5y agoToo little, too late. Looking at Parliament Hill where this "trucker" protest is happening, where some literally cite the crackpot on Rogan's podcast as gospel that the mRNA vaccines are bad. That and Rogan basically put more fuel to the fire by saying 50,000 trucks are heading here, when it's mostly yahoos in coal-rolling pickups or RVs. These people are pissing on the National War Memorial; berate and assault hotel staff for enforcing a Provincial mask mandate; barged into a homeless shelter to demand food, and assaulted the homeless and security guard; and a literal Nazi flag was flown. Rogan knows he's courting controversy without regard of what it may do. Spotify is choosing money and views above all else. I've deleted Spotify and closed my account. I know others who have cancelled their subscription. Their words are not going to reign in what was unleashed.
- didibus 5y agoThe big issue here is that the audience struggles with risk assessment and various levels of confidence. The idea of limiting the spread of ideas and hypothesis and research that is most controversial is that most people implicitly attach a confidence level to information based on how often and loudly it is repeated to them, or based on their existing bias, like a distrust for institutions or authority or a political party affiliation, etc. This is true of most everyone, our subconscious does this assessment, and it takes a lot of effort to re-calibrate our confidence levels and assessments in ways that don't match 1:1 with "how hot of a topic it is, and how often we came in contact with it". What happens then is that a lead such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine get attached in people's mind an innacurate confidence interval. The level of public discourse around them is outsized to the real raw factual data and the experimentation and theory that has been accrued and tallied till now. When I then try to talk about it to someone who say succumbs to this bias, they'll say, what if it works? Why not explore it further? Why are "imaginary evil group" trying to silence and stop this? And you want to say, yes off course, it is being explored further, but there are also other opportunities being explored with already existing higher confidence in their success such as vaccines and masking. And if in the future the exploration of those lower confidence leads also proves to be fruitful then the current consensus will change and the current recommendations will update. But this risk assessment process seems to confuse a lot of people. If any of those leads does turn up good later and consensus change, they then make people believe that those more controversial initially low confidence and more outlandish claims are therefore true and so now they will again be biased to have higher confidence on anything controversial, even though the reason for it being controversial at that time is the lack of raw data, experiment and theory behind it. That creates a weird mismatch, and it's not following the scientific process. This is dangerous bias to have, and I believe it is important for all media when they share information to reflect more precise confidence intervals. This starts by hearing and talking about things in proportion closer to the current confidence interval. So we should hear about one thing every day when it is high confidence, and only hear about something else once a month if it is lower confidence. But because media is driven by money, you get a skewed ratio, where low confidence leads that are sexy, dreamy, have a lot of hope attached to them, or seem to have a good conspiracy story around them get published and promoted a lot more. The second thing is media should be explicit about confidence intervals, Joe Rogan should mention how sure of these things are we? What amount of due diligence has happened? What is left unknown? How likely is the possibility this if a false lead? Etc. So what some people can see as censorship, in my opinion is about having a responsability towards factual information, which includes current confidence and assessments. Now I don't know about Joe Rogan, but if he for example had 10 podcasts all done with other scientists about vaccines, and then the one about ivermectin, that would already be a better representation of the factual confidence interval known at the time. And then if in each one of them, he'd clearly articulate or ask about how sure each statement is, which one is a potential lead waiting to be explored, and which are leads that have begun being explored and been reinforced, to what extent, what is left to be more certain, and how likely are they to be dead ends? Well I would say he's being responsible with the power he yields. Anything short of that he'd be less and less responsible and more and more a simple for profit willing to spread whatever information gives him the most power and wealth. And this goes for all media personality or business. The ad revenue model has corrupted a lot of media in dropping this responsability, since driving views, clicks, retweets and debates drives up ad revenue as well. I'm sure media companies struggle to balance this responsibility against their profit margins. This is even happening to scientists and researchers, where access to Twitter followers, political financing and support, and grant money also benefits from lowering that personal responsibility. Which I think is what happens to some of the scientists Joe interviews.