4 ms·

I reject that hypothesis. Open dialogue is not what's harmful and those who seek to silence or censor have never ended up on the right side of history. The only

I reject that hypothesis. Open dialogue is not what's harmful and those who seek to silence or censor have never ended up on the right side of history. The only thing that works over the course of time is fighting bad information with better information. Besides, no one could do as much damage as the official sources have done to themselves throughout the Covid pandemic. People are just forgetting the mountain of misinformation they spread. Starting with "masks don't work" and "closing travel is racist" and "the possibility of a lab leak is a crazy conspiracy theory". Big tech actually banned people for that and yet still think they should be the gatekeepers? Where is the humility? That's an environment not unlike that of Gallio. Which the church and priests who assert themselves as the source of truth while expelling the heretics.

watwut 5y ago
"Open dialog" and "intentionally lying or misleading for political purposes" are in direct opposition. The latter kills former. I am not saying censorship is answer necessary, but I am saying we should stop pretending the discussion has anything to do with open dialog or "adding information".
arrosenberg 5y ago
One doesn't have to be pro-government to recognize that Joe Rogan is acting in extremely bad faith. He has a lucrative financial agreement that incentivizes him to drive viewership - he's not promoting open dialogue, he's promoting topics and guests that will attract polemics to drive ratings.
- steelstraw 5y ago
  You're describing the corporate media. Rogan is just doing what he's been doing for thousands of hours: Having conversations with a wide variety of people across the spectrum. Fundamentally they're trying to control and narrow who he has a conversation with. When he had Bernie Sanders on (who he supported), Bernie was pressured to reject Rogan's support. Guilt by association. That's how tribal all of this is.
  - arrosenberg 5y ago
    The corporate media definitely does it, and it didn't come as any surprise to me that Joe Rogan began fomenting controversy far more often after the $100M move to Spotify. Can't have an "open dialogue" with that much money in the balance.
    - kipchak 5y ago
      Is the contract viewership based? I thought it was just a straight 100M.
    - steelstraw 5y ago
      I'm not sure that changes his payday at all and don't see that kind of change on his side. He had many controversial guests like Alex Jones prior to Spotify. He's been doing this since 2009 and has over 1,700 episodes. The controversy is from the corporate media and other gatekeepers now attacking him. He's the tip of the spear that is threatening their business model and control over the narrative. It's not so much about Joe as it's about elite gatekeepers vs independent media. The same fight is being waged against Substack. They just lack this kind of central figure to point at and demonize.
    - jazzyjackson 5y ago
      People had plenty of problems with Joe's guests before the Spotify contract - the blowback was immediate and Spotify removed dozens of episodes from his back-catalog: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2021/04/06/joe-rogan-spotify-removing-shows/ https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2021/04/06/joe-rogan-spotif... I think its more controversial now only because people have leverage over Spotify - when he self hosted his show there really wasn't a way to protest. You could boycott the advertisers I guess but I don't think MeUndies and Butcher Box would have cared.

watwut 5y ago

"Open dialog" and "intentionally lying or misleading for political purposes" are in direct opposition. The latter kills former. I am not saying censorship is answer necessary, but I am saying we should stop pretending the discussion has anything to do with open dialog or "adding information".

arrosenberg 5y ago

One doesn't have to be pro-government to recognize that Joe Rogan is acting in extremely bad faith. He has a lucrative financial agreement that incentivizes him to drive viewership - he's not promoting open dialogue, he's promoting topics and guests that will attract polemics to drive ratings.

steelstraw 5y ago
You're describing the corporate media. Rogan is just doing what he's been doing for thousands of hours: Having conversations with a wide variety of people across the spectrum. Fundamentally they're trying to control and narrow who he has a conversation with. When he had Bernie Sanders on (who he supported), Bernie was pressured to reject Rogan's support. Guilt by association. That's how tribal all of this is.
- arrosenberg 5y ago
  The corporate media definitely does it, and it didn't come as any surprise to me that Joe Rogan began fomenting controversy far more often after the $100M move to Spotify. Can't have an "open dialogue" with that much money in the balance.
  - kipchak 5y ago
    Is the contract viewership based? I thought it was just a straight 100M.
  - steelstraw 5y ago
    I'm not sure that changes his payday at all and don't see that kind of change on his side. He had many controversial guests like Alex Jones prior to Spotify. He's been doing this since 2009 and has over 1,700 episodes. The controversy is from the corporate media and other gatekeepers now attacking him. He's the tip of the spear that is threatening their business model and control over the narrative. It's not so much about Joe as it's about elite gatekeepers vs independent media. The same fight is being waged against Substack. They just lack this kind of central figure to point at and demonize.
  - jazzyjackson 5y ago
    People had plenty of problems with Joe's guests before the Spotify contract - the blowback was immediate and Spotify removed dozens of episodes from his back-catalog: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2021/04/06/joe-rogan-spotify-removing-shows/ https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2021/04/06/joe-rogan-spotif... I think its more controversial now only because people have leverage over Spotify - when he self hosted his show there really wasn't a way to protest. You could boycott the advertisers I guess but I don't think MeUndies and Butcher Box would have cared.