7 ms·

I 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 rea

I 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 ago
theres 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    Are we to assume you would be willing to stake your life on anything you've ever said?
    - lowkey 5y ago
      Hey 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.
      - bandyaboot 5y ago
        Ahh, so it's this specific scenario that requires the staking of ones's life. Got it.
        lowkey 5y ago
        It’s more about challenging hipocricy. The OP boldly claimed that Joe and his guests were spewing misinformation. OP provided no evidence for their claims, nor did they provide specific criticisms. Instead they spread FUD and misinformation of their own. Really? exactly 3-5% disagree with the majority? OP made bold and uncited claims amounting to disinformation and I called them out asking for them to back their claims or back down.
        bandyaboot 5y ago
        I get all of that. None of it changes the fact that asking them if they’d stake their life on it is just downright bizarre.
        lowkey 5y ago
        The idiom of ‘betting’ or ‘staking’ one’s life on a claim is common where I’m from. To clarify, my intent was to call into question a claim by OP and asking OP to back up their claim or stand down.
      - dekhn 5y ago
        Instead of watching his episodes, I read descriptions of them on both the NY Times and Fox. By comparing how the two sites pull quotes and interpret them it's pretty clear what rogan does and says on his show. In fact I read a wide range of content. If I watched his show I imagine I'd last about 5 minutes before having to turn it off (I don't like the tone, the attitude, etc. What little I have seen seems to turn my brain off or into some sort of nonthinking being). I think he once said his show is the intersection of meatheads and potheads, but I think it's really just WWE.
        5y ago
  - AnEro 5y ago
    > I 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? I'm refrencing over all also, I should have specificed scientists. I'm pulling those numbers from having climate skeptics on... >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. I'm sorry I upset you... However I do listen and I had to stop cause I fact check if I have a question so naturally I started hating it. The podcast cause instead of having interesting scientists on that are controversal cause they speak on risky new research and techniques, he brings people that spew fake info on covid a life or death severity repeatedly.
shepardrtc 5y ago
> alternative views I think you mean crackpot views. > carefully curated information which is incomplete Its curated because people attempt to confirm and verify the information. Nonsense like Joe Rogan has no verification - instead it has him Googling the subject for a few hours while doing a lot of drugs. To wit, here is a call of his where he discusses the now-debunked bondo ape: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__CvmS6uw7E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__CvmS6uw7E. During the call, an expert phones in and he ridicules her without even listening to anything she has to say.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  People might not have the appetite to watch Christopher Hitchens, but I submit to you this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcJxN1VlcuA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcJxN1VlcuA It's okay to interview "crackpots". There is this pervasive notion that merely letting such people voice their views to a wide audience is a moral hazard. That these people are so obviously wrong that they need to be silenced because the public at-large is so simpleminded they cannot reason for themselves and will ultimately believe whatever is presented to them.
  - sfteus 5y ago
    I keep seeing the same general sentiment through these types of threads, something in the nature of "if the scientists are so sure they're right, they shouldn't be afraid of mis-information because only their data will stand up to scrutiny." The fact that Rogan has these types of people on his show is not the issue, and just as you say it's fine to interview them. The issue is that he tends to take a backseat and let the interviewee make whatever claims without any push-back[1]. Simply having an episode with a pro-vaccine person and another episode with an anti-vaccine person is implying that both viewpoints are equal, which in my opinion they are not. HN is sort of unique in that likely a large portion of the user base is interested in researching claims more in depth after hearing them; I would wager that your average person does not do this and will likely take what they hear at face value. If they did that due diligence for any claim, it's unlikely we would have such a large list of "common knowledge" that is actually false.[2] W/R/T Rogan specifically, his show reminds me of a decade-old Youtube comedy video, "Both Sides" by SMBC Theater[3]. In it, the show host organizes a debate between a Caltech Biologist, and a "Scientator" from the "Christ Rode a Dinosaur and I Have Pictures Institute," another debate between an MD and a man who believes all ailments can be cured by sticking steak knives in your eyes, and a final debate between an actual journalist and the host's intern, who is described as "anti-rape, bedwetting, and dreaming about their own mother naked," implying the journalist is of the opposite viewpoint. This is obviously farcical, but is meant to prompt the question: at what point does someone with a large viewer base have a responsibility to curate themselves and their guests? Circling back, again, I don't think hosting people with fringe-views is an issue. I do believe a host has a responsibility to critique all viewpoints on their show, or to bring in someone who can do so if they are not able to. In my opinion, re-establishing the Fairness Doctrine[4] is a necessity and would satisfy both sides of the free-speech / censorship debate. Non-mainstream views would be able to be explored as long as there is an opposing viewpoint there to critique it at the source (as opposed to the "mis-information" warnings now that show up after the majority of exposure has already passed). I also believe that it should be expanded to apply to web-based media, though I don't have any good ideas on what exactly the criteria should be for it to apply (ie, a Youtuber with 100 subscribers probably shouldn't be, but Joe Rogan and other large podcasters probably should be). Advertising in large web services (ie, Google, Facebook, Youtube, etc) should probably also be subjected to this rule. --- [1]: From what I've heard from discussions of Rogan (I'm not a fan of podcasts in general), he tends to go even further by pushing back against science based interviewees while letting anti-science interviewees basically have an open platform. However, I'm trying to make this comment assuming I'm mis-informed about that and he simply lets all guests say their peace. [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGArqoF0TpQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGArqoF0TpQ (NSFW) [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
yesdocs 5y ago
We are in a pandemic, which is roughly akin to being in a crowded burning building. When authorities are directing you to an exit, this idiot Joe Rogan stands up and yells on his megaphone that there is an exit in the opposite direction. People are dying because of it. This is not a matter of free speech, or incomplete information, he is killing people. Public streaming services owe it to the public to not endanger them or kill them with misinformation. Rogan podcasts are pure garbage, interviewing fringe and long discredited crackpots in obviously weak attempts to offer ‘alternative’ views in a bid for more viewers. The general public is clearly not equipped to ascertain the difference, and as such he is clearly a danger to the public. It is erroneous to consider Rogan’s podcast as a ‘source’ of information, it’s an entertainment show that wants to believe it’s truthful. It’s not, and your reply proves he’s a danger to society in general. I stand with all artists that are doing what the government should have done months ago, cancel misinformation so we may exit this burning building safely.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
r00fus 5y ago
Are you ignoring the fact that Joe was well-known before Spotify picked him up as exclusive? It's not like he wasn't the biggest name in podcasting pre-Spotify. What changes is him and Spotify making $$$, not whether his voice being heard or not.
- verdverm 5y ago
  Do you think JRE would have remained on YouTube over the pandemic if he hadn't jumped to Spotify?
- peteradio 5y ago
  Did he have censor proof assurances from these other platforms? I wonder would the interviews in question have seen the light of day?
  - r00fus 5y ago
    Free speech doesn't mean free from consequences.
    - peteradio 5y ago
      What does this even address? Your original implication was that JRE is doing this for the bux, but my comment is saying he may well have done this deal to protect his platform. Now you say this? What exactly is your point?

AnEro 5y ago

theres 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Are we to assume you would be willing to stake your life on anything you've ever said?
  - lowkey 5y ago
    Hey 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.
    - bandyaboot 5y ago
      Ahh, so it's this specific scenario that requires the staking of ones's life. Got it.
      - lowkey 5y ago
        It’s more about challenging hipocricy. The OP boldly claimed that Joe and his guests were spewing misinformation. OP provided no evidence for their claims, nor did they provide specific criticisms. Instead they spread FUD and misinformation of their own. Really? exactly 3-5% disagree with the majority? OP made bold and uncited claims amounting to disinformation and I called them out asking for them to back their claims or back down.
        bandyaboot 5y ago
        I get all of that. None of it changes the fact that asking them if they’d stake their life on it is just downright bizarre.
        lowkey 5y ago
        The idiom of ‘betting’ or ‘staking’ one’s life on a claim is common where I’m from. To clarify, my intent was to call into question a claim by OP and asking OP to back up their claim or stand down.
    - dekhn 5y ago
      Instead of watching his episodes, I read descriptions of them on both the NY Times and Fox. By comparing how the two sites pull quotes and interpret them it's pretty clear what rogan does and says on his show. In fact I read a wide range of content. If I watched his show I imagine I'd last about 5 minutes before having to turn it off (I don't like the tone, the attitude, etc. What little I have seen seems to turn my brain off or into some sort of nonthinking being). I think he once said his show is the intersection of meatheads and potheads, but I think it's really just WWE.
      - 5y ago
- AnEro 5y ago
  > I 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? I'm refrencing over all also, I should have specificed scientists. I'm pulling those numbers from having climate skeptics on... >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. I'm sorry I upset you... However I do listen and I had to stop cause I fact check if I have a question so naturally I started hating it. The podcast cause instead of having interesting scientists on that are controversal cause they speak on risky new research and techniques, he brings people that spew fake info on covid a life or death severity repeatedly.

shepardrtc 5y ago

> alternative views I think you mean crackpot views. > carefully curated information which is incomplete Its curated because people attempt to confirm and verify the information. Nonsense like Joe Rogan has no verification - instead it has him Googling the subject for a few hours while doing a lot of drugs. To wit, here is a call of his where he discusses the now-debunked bondo ape: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__CvmS6uw7E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__CvmS6uw7E. During the call, an expert phones in and he ridicules her without even listening to anything she has to say.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
People might not have the appetite to watch Christopher Hitchens, but I submit to you this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcJxN1VlcuA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcJxN1VlcuA It's okay to interview "crackpots". There is this pervasive notion that merely letting such people voice their views to a wide audience is a moral hazard. That these people are so obviously wrong that they need to be silenced because the public at-large is so simpleminded they cannot reason for themselves and will ultimately believe whatever is presented to them.
- sfteus 5y ago
  I keep seeing the same general sentiment through these types of threads, something in the nature of "if the scientists are so sure they're right, they shouldn't be afraid of mis-information because only their data will stand up to scrutiny." The fact that Rogan has these types of people on his show is not the issue, and just as you say it's fine to interview them. The issue is that he tends to take a backseat and let the interviewee make whatever claims without any push-back[1]. Simply having an episode with a pro-vaccine person and another episode with an anti-vaccine person is implying that both viewpoints are equal, which in my opinion they are not. HN is sort of unique in that likely a large portion of the user base is interested in researching claims more in depth after hearing them; I would wager that your average person does not do this and will likely take what they hear at face value. If they did that due diligence for any claim, it's unlikely we would have such a large list of "common knowledge" that is actually false.[2] W/R/T Rogan specifically, his show reminds me of a decade-old Youtube comedy video, "Both Sides" by SMBC Theater[3]. In it, the show host organizes a debate between a Caltech Biologist, and a "Scientator" from the "Christ Rode a Dinosaur and I Have Pictures Institute," another debate between an MD and a man who believes all ailments can be cured by sticking steak knives in your eyes, and a final debate between an actual journalist and the host's intern, who is described as "anti-rape, bedwetting, and dreaming about their own mother naked," implying the journalist is of the opposite viewpoint. This is obviously farcical, but is meant to prompt the question: at what point does someone with a large viewer base have a responsibility to curate themselves and their guests? Circling back, again, I don't think hosting people with fringe-views is an issue. I do believe a host has a responsibility to critique all viewpoints on their show, or to bring in someone who can do so if they are not able to. In my opinion, re-establishing the Fairness Doctrine[4] is a necessity and would satisfy both sides of the free-speech / censorship debate. Non-mainstream views would be able to be explored as long as there is an opposing viewpoint there to critique it at the source (as opposed to the "mis-information" warnings now that show up after the majority of exposure has already passed). I also believe that it should be expanded to apply to web-based media, though I don't have any good ideas on what exactly the criteria should be for it to apply (ie, a Youtuber with 100 subscribers probably shouldn't be, but Joe Rogan and other large podcasters probably should be). Advertising in large web services (ie, Google, Facebook, Youtube, etc) should probably also be subjected to this rule. --- [1]: From what I've heard from discussions of Rogan (I'm not a fan of podcasts in general), he tends to go even further by pushing back against science based interviewees while letting anti-science interviewees basically have an open platform. However, I'm trying to make this comment assuming I'm mis-informed about that and he simply lets all guests say their peace. [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions [3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGArqoF0TpQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGArqoF0TpQ (NSFW) [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

yesdocs 5y ago

We are in a pandemic, which is roughly akin to being in a crowded burning building. When authorities are directing you to an exit, this idiot Joe Rogan stands up and yells on his megaphone that there is an exit in the opposite direction. People are dying because of it. This is not a matter of free speech, or incomplete information, he is killing people. Public streaming services owe it to the public to not endanger them or kill them with misinformation. Rogan podcasts are pure garbage, interviewing fringe and long discredited crackpots in obviously weak attempts to offer ‘alternative’ views in a bid for more viewers. The general public is clearly not equipped to ascertain the difference, and as such he is clearly a danger to the public. It is erroneous to consider Rogan’s podcast as a ‘source’ of information, it’s an entertainment show that wants to believe it’s truthful. It’s not, and your reply proves he’s a danger to society in general. I stand with all artists that are doing what the government should have done months ago, cancel misinformation so we may exit this burning building safely.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

r00fus 5y ago

Are you ignoring the fact that Joe was well-known before Spotify picked him up as exclusive? It's not like he wasn't the biggest name in podcasting pre-Spotify. What changes is him and Spotify making $$$, not whether his voice being heard or not.

verdverm 5y ago
Do you think JRE would have remained on YouTube over the pandemic if he hadn't jumped to Spotify?
peteradio 5y ago
Did he have censor proof assurances from these other platforms? I wonder would the interviews in question have seen the light of day?
- r00fus 5y ago
  Free speech doesn't mean free from consequences.
  - peteradio 5y ago
    What does this even address? Your original implication was that JRE is doing this for the bux, but my comment is saying he may well have done this deal to protect his platform. Now you say this? What exactly is your point?