157 ms·
Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes
- LAC-Tech 5y agoLet's be honest. It was always a matter of if - not when - they'd start to cancel Joe Rogan. Arguing about the minutiae of who said what on which podcast is missing the forest for the trees. There was always a reason.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- oliv__ 5y agoI'm growing really tired of this "sanitization" of society, and what views you are/aren't allowed to hold anymore. Love or hate JRE's content, I don't think anything good comes from silencing people
- xadhominemx 5y agoHe took a $100m to deal to publish original content on Spotify. Spotify is no longer just a library, it’s a publisher with editorial responsibilities.
- oliv__ 5y agoI agree that as a publisher who paid a hefty sum for the exclusive rights to the content, they 100% have the right to do this. I'm just saying this general trend of cancellation and suppressing views that don't fit squarely in the box of "whatever society accepts at the moment" (which by the way changes by the minute) is troubling.
- philistine 5y agoWe have always done this. Since the beginning of our species. We live under a society of consensus. We believe in stuff because our parents told us to believe, however silly it might be. There never was a point in history where someone could say everything they wanted without having the consequences of their speech.
- Sparyjerry 5y agoThe way TV always had a censor to filter out what was deemed bad, now for no reason at all the same is happening on tech. They assume everyone is a child and they have to be the parent. At the very least they could put an EXPLICIT filter on like they do with songs, because we should all assume once you are 18 you can do a half decent job of deciding what is bullshit for yourself.
- EthOptimist 5y agoIs it possible Spotify was debating what to do, decided to not take down Joe Rogan's episodes, but then some rogue employee did it anyway?
- waffle_maniac 5y agoI don’t get why people are so triggered by this guy. Seems like very fragile people.
- throw_m239339 5y agoWhen people believe that "words are violence", demanding broad censorship is the logical progression.
- philistine 5y agoWords can indeed be violent under the correct context. That is a legal fact. https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/verbal-threats-as-assault.html https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/verbal-threat...
- throw_m239339 5y ago> Words can indeed be violent under the correct context. That is a legal fact. https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/verbal-threat https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/verbal-threat "Page does not exist" You are linking to a 404 page. You pretty much didn't establish a legal fact, nor made a point that is even relevant to my statement.
- jaygray0919 5y agoHave never listened to Joe Rogan but definitely will start with the 70 deleted episodes.
- garfieldnate 5y agoThe removal of Michael Malice episodes upsets me, as he discusses some really important issues. Still, all of the conversations listed are likely gems: comedians like Bill Burr and Tom Segura, Alex Jones in the only context where someone is constantly fact-checking him in real time, and Tim Ferris is a puzzler. I wonder if Joe has any legal recourse here, as according to him he was contractually given full power over the content of the podcast.
- Acrobatic_Road 5y agoA lot of pre-COVID episodes deleted meanwhile recent controversial COVID episodes remain.
- iratewizard 5y ago
- labster 5y ago
- EarlKing 5y ago
- iratewizard 5y ago
- philistine 5y agoI like the idea that it's the guests themselves asking for deletion because they no longer want to be associated with him.
- OrvalWintermute 5y agosounds like conjecture
- freebuju 5y agoThis was my thought too but I can't seem to find anything from Spotify's new policy that touches on content removal for subjects unwilling to appear on a recorded podcast. Maybe legal disputes could be playing a hand here, however the timing is too convenient. Easiest answer seems to be Spotify is doing some cleaning on their yard after the recent backlash.
- finite_jest 5y ago
- TigeriusKirk 5y agoAndy Dick and Dave Foley episodes were removed? Skeptical about that, but if so, why?
- jonnyone 5y agoMany episodes with COVID discussion are still up. The ones taken down feature comedians and (non-COVID related) controversial figures. I'm not sure these removals are related to the controversy.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y agoI wonder what this means for his $100 million contract
- dghughes 5y agoThat's what I don't get did Spotify hand Rogan a bucket of cash or is there a contract with clauses that can end the contract. That would seem to be obvious and the point of a contract. It would be nice to know how much Rogan is costing Spotify versus what he makes for them. At some point there will be a change in which way the cash flows and suddenly the show will be a problem for Spotify.
- namelessoracle 5y agoHe had apparently provisions in it to let him have Alex Jones on. Its quite possible that spotify would have to breach contract to get him to be silent about x or y issue.
- kgwxd 5y agoOh no, why Dave Foley? What did he do?
- kcplate 5y agoHe was the sacrificial Canadian since Neil Young was Canadian.
- ALittleLight 5y agoSeems like this is just a gradual push to a complete ban in my estimation. Half measures will only annoy both pro and anti Rogan factions.
- ratsmack 5y ago>"You can please some of the people some of the time, all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can never please all of the people all of the time." -- Abe Lincoln
- prvc 5y agoThat sounds nice, but it seems optimistic to think that one can please all of the people, even once.
- mohamez 5y agoI don't take most quotes seriously because they are pseudo-wisdom, a tiny aspect of a quote is valid under some conditions doesn't make it a mathematical statements to be taken seriously all of the time.
- okprod 5y agoSo the only thing you take seriously are mathematical statements? I hope you don't have a pet, spouse, child, elderly relatives, etc.
- pc86 5y agoHonestly confused about the "spouse" and "elderly" inclusion here but I'm afraid if you explain yourself you're only going to dig yourself deeper.
- throw123123123 5y agoQuotes can be correct some of the time, or be correct all of the time in a very narrow sense, or be correct under some circumstance, but quotes cant be correct all of the time, under any circumstance and in a broad sense - Abe "Mohamez" Lincoln
- reffaelwallen 5y agoTitle is misleading? Could be that the podcast owner removed them?
- Acrobatic_Road 5y agoWhy would Joe Rogan remove his own episodes?
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
- willis936 5y ago
- crate_barre 5y ago
- jffry 5y ago"Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." Second to last line of https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- crate_barre 5y agoWell give me a chance, I might make this more interesting than you think. We are, after all, literally discussing silencing.
- jffry 5y agoI'm just providing you with an explanation for why you might have accrued downvotes beyond the initial one that you were complaining about. As you can now see, doing so has derailed a potential discussion you wished to have.
- UncleMeat 5y agoDownvotes are not censorship.
- crate_barre 5y agoIt’s also impolite. State your case when you do so.
- hindsightbias 5y agoThere’s a blizzard going on, billions and billions of snowflakes.
- Dylan16807 5y ago> I can only spot the cursing in my post. Are you pretending people can only see the part of the post above the edit line when they vote, or something? I downvoted you for being obnoxious in the edits.
- sinab 5y agoThis isn't the first time that JRE episodes have been removed from Spotify: [April 13, 2021] https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-rogan-experience-podcast-episodes-removed-spotify-2021-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-rogan-experience-podcast...
- jackothy 5y agoSo the title should really be: "Spotify deletes AN ADDITIONAL 71 Joe Rogan episodes" Seems 42 episodes have been gone since around the article you posted (March-April 2021). Now 113 episodes are gone in total. So are Spotify likely to remove more episodes soon when they waited almost a year since the last time? Hard to tell. The pressure on Spotify is probably higher this time. Joe Rogan fans also seem to have endured the last batch of removals well. Perhaps this batch will anger them more since the "stakes" are higher due to the unusually heated controversy at the moment. Or perhaps it will all be business as usual in a few months time.
- bayoucountry 5y agoI'm really confused -- why does anyone care so much to delete these episodes? What is so important to be gained by deleting episodes like this?
- supreme_berry 5y agoBecause you are dumb and typical socialist kid with pink hair
- jimmygrapes 5y agoRemember all those times you have seen gaslighting ideologues saying "nobody is actually calling for [canceling/deleting/censorship]", remember how they couch any argument with "private company can do what it wants". I don't care about Joe Rogan in particular, but you're deluding yourself if you think there isn't some relevance here. A lot of people now suddenly hate Joe, the same way they hate Jordan Peterson, the same way they hated Trump. Every comment will have a preface or disclaimer: "I'm not a fan" in so many words. I did it above. In a short time that will turn from "I don't support him but..." into something akin to "I see you referenced him, therefore I disregard anything else said"
- tedd4u 5y agoSo, it’s pretty serious. Spotify is paying Joe Rogan to broadcast disinformation that is getting people killed. I think it’s okay in this case if people have a sudden change of opinion or a newly formed strong opinion. He didn’t crack an off color joke.
- Covzire 5y ago
- apolymath 5y ago
- jonnyone 5y ago>broadcast disinformation that is getting people killed. A statement many people appeal to that nobody can substantiate.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ouEight12 5y ago> that is getting people killed. Twice as many people died in the US last year from Heart Disease than from COVID, but I'm pretty sure we don't (yet) ban youtubers who extol the awesomeness of gluttonous fast food in weekly videos. At some point, people need to grow up and take responsibility for themselves, and also allow others to do the liberty to do the same. If someone is an adult, in the US, and not vax'd by now, that's on them. Period. Not anyone else. To put it another way, I owned not one, but two separate copies of "The Anarchists Cookbook" over the years growing up.. the number of governments I have, to date, attempted to overthrow? Zero. Why? Because I was capable of reviewing the offered material and going "yeah, not today prison, not today."
- manigandham 5y agoBlockchain fixes this. But on a serious note, podcasting was originally just mp3 files freely distributed to be played on ipods. It's anathema to ever have a centralized platform like Spotify hoarding exclusive rights and control.
- wyager 5y agoThis is more the domain of tech like IPFS and BitTorrent than blockchains.
- macdaknife 5y agoBlockchain et al allow the government complete visibility into any transaction. It provides a tool for complete gov control.
- manigandham 5y agoVisibility is not the issue. Lack of distribution is. How does a decentralized registry mean complete government control?
- scarface74 5y agoDistribution of a podcast is just hosting an RSS feed and hosting MP3s. I could set that up on my home computer over my symmetrical gigabit Ethernet.
- manigandham 5y agoIt's not a technical issue, it's about control. Spotify has exclusive rights which is at odds with the original podcast ethos.
- scarface74 5y agoIf I recall correctly, it’s in his contract that if he leaves Spotify, he gets the rights to all of his episodes.
- scarface74 5y agoI think Joe Rogan is an idiot. But, if anything, Spotify should have just posted a disclaimer somewhere stating these aren’t their views, with some links to reputable sources - even their own “Science Vs” podcast. It’s not like now the people who believed what he was saying are going to shrug their shoulders and start reading the “New England Journal of Medicine”.
- lokar 5y agoAnd grant a clear copyright use of the audio to people to produce commentary style rebuttals?
- scarface74 5y agoEven better.
- ______-_-______ 5y agoThe Joe Rogan Experience* *The stories and information expressed here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything mentioned here as fact.
- macdaknife 5y agoName calling? Keep it classy!
- Dylan16807 5y agoIt's a reference. And who is it calling names?
- queuebert 5y agoPersonally I really hate that idea. Spotify is a for-profit corporation. It's only official view is to make as much money as possible. Any other political or philosophical statement is at best a calculated ploy to make more profit. Let's not pretend otherwise. Now, if the platform were a publicly funded news organization or TV station, then you could make that argument with a straight face.
- macdaknife 5y agoPodcasting 2.0 is one of the likely answers to this. In the meantime, I'm sure a lot of people will cancel their accounts on Spotify.
- jwilliams 5y agoJoe Rogan signed an exclusive deal with Spotify - which appears to be the opposite of what Podcasting 2.0 represents.
- scarface74 5y agoPodcasting 1.0 was posting an RSS feed to MP3 files. He gave up his “freedom of speech” on his own terms once he took a check for $100 million.
- prvc 5y agoIf Spotify is trying to effect or create the appearance of a willingness to reach a compromise in response to the recent singer pressure campaign, then it is doing nothing other than signal weakness.
- protomyth 5y agoYep, either they remain absolute, or they will bend in the wind at every new demand. Compromising with the modern version of book burners is not going to be a good long term strategy. Worse, they spent a lot of money and knew what they were getting, so it just makes them look like idiots to investors.
- literallyWTF 5y agoModern version of book burners? Do you want to pretend to be a victim any harder?
- shockeychap 5y agoIsn’t the goal - blocking access to certain content - the same? That’s not playing the victim. It’s the plain truth.
- jknoepfler 5y agoA more apt analogy would be efforts to restrict cigarette advertising. Book burning was about eradicating a cultural heritage, and was accompanied by a literal genocide in the case of Nazi Germany. Although in this case, the action to remove the proverbial cigarette ads was taken voluntarily by the private media (magazine/etc., in the case of the analogy), and not done as a result of government coersion. The analogy is really disingenuous at best, and pretty stupid at worst.
- shockeychap 5y agoBook burnings were hardly exclusive to the Nazis. They just showed us how it can be part of the progress to something much bigger and uglier than ever imagined. And I have to disagree on your cigarette analogy. This is so much bigger than regulation of advertising. This is about using the platforms to enforce censorship of anybody you deem offensive. This is not the same thing at all.
- doopy1 5y agoThis could just be a server going down for a few hours or something.
- hourislate 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- s5300 5y agoIt’s not censorship, at all. This is literally peak Capitalism, something anybody that finds their way to & stays on HN should very much understand. Money is currently talking, Spotify - a company - is reacting to money talking. Any other interpretation of this is… I don’t know, but definitely not correct. In the end, we’re once again shown, money is all that matters.
- iratewizard 5y agoThis would probably happen under most economic systems / forms of government. You call it peak capitalism? I call it digital feudalism, and two earls are fighting over perceived digital territory.
- hackinthebochs 5y agoCensorship by way of market forces is still censorship.
- manigandham 5y agoIt absolutely is censorship when the exclusive owner and distributor of the content refuses to distribute and takes it down. It's the very definition of it. You might be conflating that with the first amendment and free speech, but that's entirely different. This is the deal Rogan signed so it's also free market capitalism, but that's not mutually exclusive either.
- Znayder 5y agoIn the world of venture capital, unlimited interest-free money supply from central banks and non-profitable companies 'making' billions, there is really no capitalism or free market economy to speak of. This economy is based on speculation, not supply and demand and so the investors (getting most of the free government money) make the rules, not the costumers.
- qwertyuiop_ 5y ago
- wayoutthere 5y agoThis is not the government and you have no idea what the Stasi system was.
- stevespang 5y ago
- loktarogar 5y agoThanks for the wikipedia article - perhaps you should have read it first
- Taniwha 5y agoReally? Spotify are getting people to report on their neighbours?
- sergiotapia 5y agoWhere can I find a backup so I can archive them and upload them to bittorrent?
- TOMDM 5y agoWhy not just seed an existing torrent
- xdennis 5y agoThere are torrents for most episodes in 4 parts ("JRE_001-837", "JRE_838-1094", "JRE_1095-1250", "JRE_1251-1476"). But some episodes are missing, especially pre-YouTube episodes. I collected all the banned ones in audio form, but many sites don't allow you to create a torrent as a new user, so I gave up.
- guidovranken 5y agohttps://boards.4chan.org/t/thread/1047940 https://boards.4chan.org/t/thread/1047940
- sergiotapia 5y agoThanks will run this through ffmpeg to 720p x265 for storage.
- baby 5y agoThat must suck hard for Joe Rogan. He moved his show to their platform and now is getting massively moderated/censored. It's very interesting to see. In America, I always felt like people were very extreme with their freedom of expression, so much that you have so many abuses like the tea party and others that wouldn't exist in other countries that penalize forbidden speech (like denying the holocaust, being racist, etc.), limit politician air time, etc. So I'm guessing, like a lot of things in the US, private companies are now deciding to figure that part out.
- TOMDM 5y agoYeah I'm sure the dude is having a real hard time with the contract he's already been paid $100m for is slowly collapsing
- afavour 5y agoI think he can probably wipe his tears with some of the $100 bills Spotify gave him. But seriously, though. He surely knew the stakes when he decided to sign the deal with Spotify, moving from an open podcasting ecosystem to a corporate controlled one. > So I'm guessing, like a lot of things in the US, private companies are now deciding to figure that part out. For people who decided to take a giant paycheck from those private companies, yes.
- mrobins 5y agoHe got paid $100M and his popularity is at least partly based on throwing red meat to stir up controversy. I think he’s thriving on attention from lots of people who would never otherwise think about him.
- apolymath 5y ago[dead]
- umvi 5y agoSo we've decided as a society that any opinion that doesn't conform to the majority needs to be silenced? Scary.
- macdaknife 5y agoSociety decided against censors, and the technocrats are now the enemy.
- vr46 5y agoHow are they silencing him? He can publish anywhere he likes, they just paid him to work for them and now he's bringing their brand into disrepute.
- jimbob45 5y ago“Separate but equal” is not legal in the US. That strategy may work for now but it won’t hold up long-term.
- mrobins 5y agoSpotify’s purchase of JRE turns them into his publisher/sponsor. When consumers and musicians cut ties they’re speaking with their $$ and saying they don’t want to support his content. That’s not the same as silencing or censoring him. There are countless open platforms he can speak his mind on.
- choward 5y ago
- crate_barre 5y agoWhat are the chances Spotify cut Neil Young or Joni Mitchell a 100m dollar check?
- macdaknife 5y agoSlim to none
- silisili 5y agoThis is idiotic. I really respected Spotify for their position in the face of 'controversy.' I'm not a JRE listener, but believe in free speech. What Spotify is doing now just pisses off both sides. Pro speech people don't like this, JRE listeners don't like this, and anti Rogan people won't stop until he's 'canceled' completely.
- rainonmoon 5y agoFortunately Rogan is still as free as ever to publish these episodes in any other venue, but Spotify (like any publisher) reserves the right to host (or not) whatever content it wants. This isn't an infringement on anyone's speech, so hopefully "pro-speech" people (interesting false dichotomy you've struck between this group and "anti-Rogan" people) are just as happy as they were yesterday. EDIT: A lot of reflexive comments here very quickly assuming this is about removing Rogan's COVID-sensitive content, but looking at the list of removed episodes and how many guests are the subjects of serious sexual allegations, people might want to consider who they're actually defending here.
- joshuamorton 5y agoI'm actually not sure that's true, it depends on the precise details of spotify's contract with rogan. Part of it was exclusivity. But even still, its censorship Rogan opted into to get $$$.
- rainonmoon 5y agoYou're right, unfortunately I fell prey to the same knee-jerk instinct that I'm calling out! It would've been more accurate for me to say he's free to publish these views in any other avenue, if not the episodes.
- dev_tty01 5y agoIs he though? I suspect Spotify owns the rights to those episodes and to his show, so I doubt he is free to publish these views in another avenue. Spotify wouldn't pay $100M and not contractually lock up all of those rights.
- MBCook 5y agoSpotify has played this perfectly. First they spent $100m on a very controversial figure, just to get an exclusive contract. When he acted controversially they stood up for him, making plenty of people mad and getting others to disassociate themselves from Spotify (Young, Mitchell). Wouldn’t surprise me if they were having some quiet issues with sponsors/ads. Now they seem to be removing episodes, but reportedly not the controversial ones? This of course goes over poorly with both the pro (why remove them?) and anti (why not the problem ones?) camps. Hope it was all worth it Spotify. Couldn’t have happened to a nicer company trying to destroy a formerly open ecosystem.
- unmole 5y agoWhat exactly does deleting episodes get Spotify? I'm really not seeing the grand strategy you are alluding to. Edit: I missed the obvious sarcasm. I need coffee.
- blamazon 5y agoThey're alluding to a lack of grand strategy. Edit: Enjoy your coffee!
- enkid 5y agoI'm pretty sure the comment is sarcasm.
- utunga 5y agoUnderstandable given how dry - but you may want to tweak the settings on your sarcasm detector.
- fastball 5y agoPretty sure the first sentence is sarcasm.
- MattGaiser 5y agoI am not sure there is really a winning play in situations like this that does not result in substantial losses either way.
- jre-commentator 5y agohonestly seems more like the guests requesting their episodes being removed and it being done in batches. Lots of common names being removed.
- bennesvig 5y agoSome guests who got theirs removed complained on twitter, so this seems unlikely.
- stevespang 5y ago
- xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
- Justin_K 5y agoCan you share your copy of the contract? You seem to know all the terms and conditions.
- finite_jest 5y ago> They can do whatever the fuck they want. If that's your framing, you should also grant that we can also protest whatever the fuck we want. This is a trite and unfruitful line of argument.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- xyzzy_plugh 5y agoForgive me but what are you protesting exactly? You are certainly free to do whatever you want, I'm not the thought police. But maybe take a second, step back, and think about what you are outraged about... A private enterprise retracting publication of their IP. Outrageous! Imagine if TV shows or movies were removed from Netflix! Or if someone bought Vine and shut it down. Or if part of a Wikipedia page were ever edited. At some point you have to look in the mirror.
- finite_jest 5y ago> Forgive me but what are you protesting exactly? Corporate censorship. [1] > At some point you have to look in the mirror. I don't appreciate your personal attack. You are not arguing in good faith, and I'm done responding to you. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship
- xyzzy_plugh 5y agoNothing was intended as a personal attack. I just don't understand the outrage. And how is this corporate censorship? There exists a private contract between two parties, money changed hands. I have no evidence that Spotify is overstepping their bounds here. They can remove any content any time. It's not an open platform. To even get content on their you have to form a contract with a distributor, who I imagine is under no obligation to actually distribute anything.
- forgingahead 5y agoI feel like the tail-end of Web 1.0 (generally decentralised protocols/processes) with broadband speeds was really a golden age, peaking around the early to mid 2000s. Once the Web 2.0 train arrived, centralisation into large corps that could do arbitrary cancellations (whether it's locking you out of your Google or Oculus accounts, or getting removed from Twitter or Spotify) really just made the web a lot less interesting for information discovery and sharing. Blockchain aside, I do find it amusing that we can basically go back to 2005 tools to avoid some of this accelerating authoritarianism. Rip podcasts to MP3s, torrent or email them around. Same with movies, video clips, etc. Sure, mass distribution becomes less instant, but nobody can argue that Doom wasn't popular when it was released just because it wasn't on Steam or whatever.
- bandyaboot 5y agoSaw this clip of Joe Rogan criticizing vaccine skeptics near the beginning of the pandemic. He calls people who think vaccines are dangerous “whackos”. Seems he lost his way. https://twitter.com/kingbullyo/status/1489666078431236100?s=20&t=z4GYzVM4-hLvwSAOdZWMuw https://twitter.com/kingbullyo/status/1489666078431236100?s=...
- codeivore 5y agothere's lots of money in lies
- roving-pardon 5y agoMost of the episodes that where removed are comedians. Makes sense. :/
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- spoonjim 5y agoMy guess is that this is a technical error. Daniel Ek seems to know that yielding an inch to these whiners never yields anything but more whining.
- jorgesborges 5y agoMaybe the compromise was to remove videos algorithmically, ostensibly to avoid bias from human selection, and this is the poor result? None of the episodes that were removed are particularly controversial: they're comedians and contrarians mostly, and none of the episodes that actually inspired this controversy.
- graderjs 5y agoI'm not sure this website is accurate as Rogan so far has not said anything on Twitter or Instagram about this. Yet if true, this is such BS. It's hard not to see Rogan, with his massive and mostly bipartisan audience, yet still polarizing and controversial discussions, as a litmus test for how well the West really embraces dissent. We're supposed to have invented dissent, right? And Joe Rogan, he's our little free speech canary--and the Western culture is killing him. But if you don't care about this or don't think it's important, try to remember that bastard time traveling love child of Donne and Orwell: never send to know for whom the censors come. Sigh. He shouldn't have posted that 9 minutes video "addressing the controversy" and taken such a conciliatory tone. People see those things as weakness or creating a fake-pretext to make it easier to censor him. From Joe's perspective he probably doesn't care. He's got the exclusive deal, so not going to lose a dime if Spotify cancels him, and even if they does lose money... he probably doesn't really need the money. He's his own platform, his audience is in love with him not with the delivery mechanism. From society's point of view these kind of binary outrages about censorship, to me, relate to a recent Glenn greenwald tweet where he says that society's going to end up needing two of everything depending on one's ideology: segregated websites, etc. And I think that's probably the point because the outrage about different views is helping to manufacture consent for introduction of a Chinese style censorship system in the West. But it'll be worse than the Chinese system which is guided by some sort of people focused ideology, as it'll be something corporate. In light of the possible oppressing nature of this the smart thing for individuals to do is not to engage in these ridiculous outrage battles, to avoid inflaming this intolerance of other people's views. Instead of letting yourself be used to manufacture consent for whatever new horror is slumbering towards Bethlehem to be born, set yourself to manufacture your own tolerance toward people with different opinions and not let your strings be pulled by whoever is seeking to inflame these kind of divisions. I mean we're supposed to be "the permeable", right? (Short Bus).
- FeteCommuniste 5y ago> I'm not sure this website is accurate as Rogan so far has not said anything on Twitter or Instagram about this. I checked for a couple of the episodes on Spotify (#1103 Tom Segura, #1218 Gad Saad) and could not find them, so it may be legit.
- ramesh31 5y agoIt's been one weird fucking ride watching Joe go from an unheard of zero budget podcast about nothing to being a central figure in American politics over the last 10 years. Some times I wish we could just go back.
- bourgoin 5y agoI did a rough tally of the 70 removed episodes: Comedian: 45, Political Commentator/Media Personality: 8, Brian Redban: 5, Health/Fitness: 2, Scientist: 2, Author: 2, Musician: 1, Pornstar: 1, (MMA) Fight Companion: 1, Giorgio Tsoukalos, Kevin Smith, Cliffy B & Johnny Cristo (can't even figure out who these last two are)
- trog 5y agoHaving worked with computers before, the explanation I am leaning to based on zero evidence is that there is a bug somewhere, possibly in the tool used to make the determination about which episodes have been 'removed'
- FeteCommuniste 5y agoSome of them are really baffling. Tom Segura, Bert Kreischer, Ian Edwards? Tim Ferris?
- scruple 5y agoThe Louis Theroux one really throws me off.
- robbedpeter 5y agoOoh, conspiracy time, it's scientologists pulling the strings!
- killingtime74 5y agoMaybe they are having trouble paying their S3 bill
- stevehawk 5y agoreal chance these were done due to jokes that aren't woke/pc more than vax related
- yannikyeo 5y agoLikely delete out of requests by the guests.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- firasd 5y agoWhen JRE went to Spotify many people were hailing it as an anti-cancellation move. They clearly misunderstood.. the podcast was decentralized (even if your podcast host shuts you down you can serve the rss and mp3s from somewhere else). And Youtube was another avenue of distribution. Centralization makes you more vulnerable to getting particular content vetoed.
- snotrockets 5y agoIt is “anti cancelation” [sic]: Rogan is no longer the one facing the results of his speech, Spotify is. That’s basically what so-called canceling is about: asking people to own for their speech.
- Sparyjerry 5y agoSpotify doesn't realize this move is cancelling themselves. I just ended my premium sub to Spotify because of their move.
- ahmed_ds 5y agoI think I speak for the majority of people here. Before the Spotify deal, you would just see couple of Joe Rogan clips on YouTube and you have sat through maybe 3-4 entire podcasts. You don't care much about MMA or you don't think comedians are that important/hypeworthy as the JRE fandom would claim. After the Spotify deal you just slowly stopped even seeing the clips because for some reason you just don't care to search for them and YouTube stopped recommending new clips. You would hear about some hot takes about Joe Rogan vs something but you just don't find it worthwhile to investigate or frankly having an opinion about them.
- stevehawk 5y agothe only Joe Rogan clips my friends and I watch, even as MMA fans, are the ones we watch for the "lulz" where he makes fun of and questions the anti-vaxxers. Oh those were days.. just two years ago.. when he was semi respectable. Now the Youtube algorithm doesn't even throw him out to me anymore.
- hateful 5y agoThis describes my experience exactly.
- listless 5y agoSame same
- dtemp 5y agoWhen I heard of JRE many years ago, I said to myself, "do I care to hear the endless opinions of the former host of Fear Factor? Nope." And that was that, never even decided to give it a try with so much other potential content available.
- browningstreet 5y agoPretty reductionist. He made himself a success in more than one industry. And you haven’t listened to him. So what qualifies your opinion of him more than his opinion about anything?
- hyperdunc 5y agoRogan better buckle up. He's stepping on the narratives of some powerful people and this kind of thing won't stop until he's under thumb.
- qaq 5y agoI think this will lead to outcome that few people cheering for this are anticipating. Musk, Thiel etc. will back an alternative platform that will host JRE, Lex, Jordan Peterson etc. and in the long term it will win due to being less restrictive. Which in the long term is prob a positive thing.
- TOMDM 5y agoMan, I'm not a huge Lex fan, but are we really going to lump him in with Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson? This also speaks to me of a solution in search of a problem. You know what's really non restrictive? Distributing MP3s via RSS.
- 0des 5y agoHe owes his recent popularity to the reach of Joe rogans platform. Let's not be coy.
- namelessoracle 5y agoUntil AWS declares you cant host that mp3 via RSS and sites that do get pushed to tor.
- dehrmann 5y agoThis is where "private company" arguments start to fall apart when it comes to free speech because at some point, you need hosting or a network connection.
- Talanes 5y agoYeah, there's a big difference between "We don't want to host your content on our public-facing platform" and "We don't want to sell you digital infrastructure." I'm all for the right to control how you present to the public, even if you are Twitter.com, but locking groups of people out of commerce just feels sinister.
- 5y ago
- austenallred 5y agoIt's now 113. I wonder if it's not so much about the selection of the episodes as it is they'll be deleting many of them, and it just takes a while.
- jerrygarcia 5y agoWe are all microscopic pawns, who cares?
- faangiq 5y agoOf course they folded. (And on a Friday night too.) Would you risk billions and cocktail party invites over something as silly as free speech? Daniel Ek is not that dumb.
- benatkin 5y agoI'm interested in the multi-episode guests that only had some of their episodes removed. One is Kevin Smith, of whom I'm a fan. Does anyone know of any others? There are other multi-episode guests who had them all banned, like, I think, Dave Asprey, who is a blowhard. I think those who say things that situationally get their content removed are probably pushing the edge in a way I can appreciate.
- mrobins 5y agoOne of the ironic things here is that it’s pitted Spotify’s brand as a music company against their brand as a podcast company. For people originally drawn to Spotify as a music service the departure of even a few icons all of a sudden makes Apple Music very attractive.
- voisin 5y agoI switched from Spotify to Apple Music fairly recently and I am still shocked on the daily how poorly built Apple Music is. In the several years I subscribed to Spotify I never had issues of content not loading or choppiness in the playback, but with Apple Music it is nearly every day. The only thing Apple Music has going for it over Spotify (in my opinion) is that the recommendations are easily 10x better for discovering new content.
- Gigachad 5y agoI only tried music streaming last year and started with Apple Music and was shocked at how outright broken the platform is. Like I’d press play and a different song on the page would play. Or it would start lagging out really bad until I reload the page. Shocked and how poor apple did here considering I haven’t had issues with any other product from them.
- mullingitover 5y ago> Shocked and how poor apple did here considering I haven’t had issues with any other product from them. You must not have tried Apple Home.
- beebmam 5y agoI actually find apple music discovery to be far worse for my tastes than Spotify. But nothing even comes close to the SoundCloud Weekly and SoundCloud Upload discovery playlists. I've found such incredible indie musicians through those playlists. I can't rave enough about them.
- bradly 5y ago
- dudeinjapan 5y agoHonestly I felt that $100m was pretty low for Joe Rogan to sell out to Spotify. Wonder how the "cancellation" scenario is covered in his contract.
- sva_ 5y agoHe never confirmed it and the contract only goes for 3 out 4 years I think.
- DantesKite 5y agoI'm curious if he said the n-word in any of the episodes. The Rock just announced on Twitter some news about finding out just how much Joe Rogan used that slur. News spreads fast in Hollywood circles. Maybe Spotify is trying to get ahead of the curve before any more controversies break out.
- inferiorhuman 5y agoIndia Arie already bailed on Spotify because she didn't want to be associated with Rogaine's race related bullshit. She's explicitly stated that she's indifferent to his COVID misinformation. That was all over one episode. Undoubtedly there's more, it's just a question of how much more.
- dehrmann 5y agoThat would get awkward fast because of all the songs using that word.
- randyrand 5y agoyou can say anything you want as long as you sing it.
- symlinkk 5y agoWho cares
- sshine 5y agoThe Rock cares.
- Talanes 5y agoI've never really listened to his show, but surely if he was just casually dropping n-words on air it wouldn't be a thing just popping up now.
- xyzwave 5y ago
- afavour 5y agoI’m struggling to have sympathy with anyone involved in this. Podcasting has always felt like a resurgence of the “original web” spirit to me: anyone can upload, anywhere. All you need is an RSS feed and anyone can subscribe. Then Spotify came busting in and decided that the open podcasting platform is obsolete and paid Joe Rogan $100 million for exclusive distribution of his content. So they’ve dug their own grave here. Rogan has too. He didn’t have to take the deal that removed his podcast from open distribution and put it under corporate control. But he did. And he paved the way for many others to go down the same path and erode the open podcasting ecosystem. If he hadn’t done it he’d have none of these problems. So he’s dug his own grave too. I wish both parties nothing but the best in digging their way out of the mess they created for themselves.
- TOMDM 5y agoI know it's a lost battle because anyone whose not a nerd will never care, but I wish we could all just call content that moves to a centralised platform like Spotify an internet talkshow or whatever and leave the word podcast to the people distributing MP3s via RSS.
- stjohnswarts 5y agothat phase was over 10 years ago
- rektide 5y agoThis is what happens when you fail to write a RFC.
- bitcurious 5y agoThe anti-censorship comments here of course resonate with me, but I'm curious about the legality of this. Spotify advertised Rogan and sold paid subscriptions. Now they've unilaterally removed the ability to listen from millions of paying customers, at least some of whom subscribed exclusively for the purpose of listening to JRE. Do these customers have no recourse?
- Gigachad 5y agoCancel your subscription? You never paid for permanent access.
- drak0n1c 5y agoUnfortunately I fear we'll have to wait until web3 enables some sort of DRM-replacing copy-supporting NFTs for song/podcast/game/etc copy ownership rights. Legally the major publishers, platforms, and stores have license clauses allowing them to revoke their hosted access to digital media you "bought", so the alternative might be decentralized copyright and file hosting.
- ViViDboarder 5y agoYou don’t buy rights to anything when you use a subscription service like Spotify. You’re paying for the right to stream things in their current catalog. Buying perpetual rights to content is possible with the current web. I buy DRM free MP3s and have been for decades.
- mongol 5y agoCertainly they have put in words about this in the fine print.
- slenk 5y agoI'm sure it is in their terms that they can remove anything whenever they want. They do it to music all the time.
- stevecalifornia 5y agoI am going to call this some kind of technical error. The episodes deleted are so mundane that it's impossible to imagine taking these down but keeping all kinds of horrible music that is explicitly violent, rapey and racist.
- philistine 5y agoI like the idea some of those might be the guests themselves asking to be removed due to the controversy.
- slenk 5y agoAnd you really like spreading that on all the threads here is seems
- Sparyjerry 5y agoImagine if they removed every song that someone claimed 'demeaned' woman. Hell, just remove every song with the n word, f word, and more. It's actually really surprising Spotify would do this over what.. someone who claimed vaccines were bad? I guess soon all that will be left on Spotify is loves songs and children's songs.
- graderjs 5y ago
- asah 5y agoPlease do not equate podcasts with the actual Holocaust. (Ironically, equating the vaccine with the Holocaust is what got JRE in trouble in the first place)
- graderjs 5y ago[flagged]
- waffle_maniac 5y agoNot really. Your comments will probably be deleted.
- graderjs 5y agoOh, yes, totally. You stand corrected. Your comment did not age well. There's stays my comment... 'tis not too late to seek a newer world.
- waffle_maniac 5y agoCheck again ;)
- graderjs 5y agoSo...my comment still stands, and your comment still has not aged well--you will not be satisfied with that, right? You'd rather see it eradicated, no? You're not equipped to deal with discussions online because you're not really thinking. So of course you prefer censorship. It's flagged it's not deleted. You can still read it. A flag is a viewpoint of some people. These sorts of discussions degrade the discourse, and I'd rather engage on topic points--and I am making an important point about people's reactions to info different to the info in their heads: rather than thinking, critically, they want to name-call (and censor 'internally' in their own heads), or censor.
- dudeinjapan 5y agoOnly love can break your Spotify account.
- nomilk 5y agoThis is bigger than Spotify. Rogan was a proactive person conducting open research into the world around him. When proactive people investigate things and share their findings, it now only takes a few to dislike the findings, fuss, and have the findings removed. To those that support this, I have 4 questions: 1. Is disincentivising sharing knowledge really good for the world? 2. Is it reasonable to expect 100% of inquiries be 100% accurate on the very first attempt? 3. Is it efficient for society to repeat the same research many times since previous investigations are scrubbed from public record? 4. Is it healthy for public discourse to be made less diverse and only concern 'safe' topics?
- make3 5y agoare you joking with your research thing, he's click bait lord, the real world requires careful rational causality extraction to understand it
- waffle_maniac 5y agoHe has fringe people on his show to drive engagement. Fauci is not going to pay the bills.
- nomilk 5y agoSure, but: 1. Lots of correct scientific ideas were considered outright heretical (not just merely fringe), prior to mainstream acceptance. If you exclude 'fringe' ideas, you exclude the bad ones and the good ones. 2. People who get duped will simply stop listening. Example: This week I was duped by a youtuber, and will never rely on that source again [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30137025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30137025
- paulryanrogers 5y agoScience and consensus being wrong sometimes doesn't mean we have to actively promote widely debunked crap. Or that we cannot boycott and complain about it. I'd say we can even call for it to no longer be published. And if it can be shown to actively cause significant harm the legal system can respond.
- ofou 5y agoI had faith in Spotify would do the right thing. Now, they succumbed to the cancel culture. What's a disgusting world we're living in.
- lowkey 5y ago[deleted]
- albedoa 5y agoThe very post you are replying to was in the upper half of the front page when you replied to it five minutes ago. There are 317 comments. What does "cancelled" mean to you?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- suyash 5y ago
- bachmeier 5y agoPredictably, people break out the C-word. Every business decides what they sell and what they don't. Do they also complain about censorship and shout at the manager of a shoe store for not selling books? Spotify decided they don't want to sell those episodes of JR. That's not censorship, it's business, and it's very different than if it's done by the government.
- finite_jest 5y ago> Predictably, people break out the C-word. Censorship is now a taboo word? That's pretty ironic.
- xdennis 5y ago> Do they also complain about censorship and shout at the manager of a shoe store for not selling books? No. Censorship is the suppression of speech. If you don't sell a book because you don't think it fits your store, or you don't think it's profitable, that's not censorship. But if you refuse to carry a book SPECIFICALLY because you don't like the message, then that IS censorship. Some forms of censorship are illegal, and some forms are legally required. But that doesn't mean that it's not censorship just because you agree with that's being censored.
- archagon 5y agoThat just dilutes the definition to the point of being meaningless. You will find very few bookstores with a section devoted to extremist treatises and manifestos. That is not censorship in any conventional sense of the word.
- jcims 5y agoI grew up around evangelical Christians. The negative reaction to Rogan *feels* exactly like the clucking and tutting about 'dangerous ideas' that I've heard from the more cellophane elements of that crew.
- steelstraw 5y agoJoe Rogan is the new Howard Stern.
- ifyoubuildit 5y agoYeah, it feels like theres a new kind of conservativism being born in the last couple years.
- yanderekko 5y agoIt's not conservative. It's puritanical, however. Political tribalism has filled the void left by the diminishment of religious tribalism.
- cardosof 5y agoYes, because religious activities were at or near the center of everyday life for many. It was the topic of discussion during meals. It defined people and their personalities. Now politics has taken that place, and I'm not sure we're better that way.
- tsol 5y agoAt least with religion we mostly know what is supposed to be right and wrong. It's exhausting when it changes every month and something innocent I said last month is taken as an awful slight next month
- ifyoubuildit 5y agoConservative like the people that the old hippies used to call squares. The people who wanted you to fall in line and get a hair cut, get a job, and stop listening to that evil music.
- tablespoon 5y ago> #232 Giorgio Tsoukalos Removed on February 4th, 2022 The Ancient Aliens guy? They sure are casting a wide net. I mean, it's one thing to try to clamp down on medical misinformation during a pandemic, but it's an entirely different thing to clamp on harmless wackiness.
- motohagiography 5y agoI have a pet theory about what makes Giorgio Tsoukalos and Ancient Aliens so dangererous they needed to be deleted from Rogan/Spotify. Essentially Ancient Aliens is more scientific and intellectually rigorous than anything you read in mainstream news or any of the narratives that drive policy, and it exists as a constant source of embarassment to anyone whose job is to prop those narratives up. It is profoundly subversive. The people I know who get mad about it get really mad about it, because it is the satire to end all satire. Ancient astronaut theory is a fully consistent ideology and critical theory with at least as much applicability as any critical theory. I could easily write persuasive word for word transcriptions of any of their episodes for any current social issue and it would be as rigorous as the criteria for whatever else people already believe. When you add a philosophical layer of Pascal's Wager meets Roko's Basilisk - Ancient Aliens may well be the pinnacle of human achievement.
- qbasic_forever 5y agoWow, yeah there's got to be something else that's causing these to be pulled down. Like maybe one of the advertisers in the episode isn't aligned with or allowed by Spotify. Or maybe Joe played a small clip of music that Youtube didn't catch but Spotify did and doesn't have the rights to play. I remember in a lot of those earlier episode Joe would play a lot of videos and random things sometimes with music.
- thebigjewbowski 5y agoI love Joe. I use Spotify exclusively to listen to his podcast. I listen to every episode… I wish there was a way to tell them if it wasn’t for his show I’d never use their app but I suspect they already know that. Unfortunately I think attacks on his having been prescribed ivermectin and his guests like the highly published cardiologist and the guy that contracts with the defense department and has patents related to MRNA really got on his nerves and recently he’s been leaning too hard into the “mainstream media lies” discussions, it’s nearly bordering on an obsession. I was surprised he was even discussing it with Jim Gaffigan. We’re at a very bad place in American discourse. In a recent episode (past 2 weeks) Bill Maher quoted some survey that nearly a majority of Americans believe that we’re headed towards a civil war. Attacking, degrading, deplatforming and silencing our fellow citizens is only going to push us further towards the brink.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- goodguyamericun 5y agoWell, nyt and wapo got a Pulitzer for a made up collusion, and most don't even know that Durham report has claimed it was so (made up) and therefor pulitzers were badly earned. Still think media is honest?
- OrvalWintermute 5y agoThat is not my favorite one about the NYT. It was also the NYT's Walter Duranty [1] that covered up Stalin's mass murder of millions in the Ukrainian Holodomor [2], and also, Stalin's purges and show trials. He didn't just cover up the Holodomor, or the Russian starvation, he actually fake fact-checked it in true Facebook fashion, writing the following "Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda. The food shortage, however, which has affected the whole population in the last year and particularly in the grain-producing provinces – the Ukraine, North Caucasus [i.e. Kuban Region], and the Lower Volga – has, however, caused heavy loss of life", and in doing so, refuted the reporting of Gareth Jones. And Walter got a Pulitzer for his misinformation. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Stalins-Apologist-Walter-Duranty-Timess/dp/0195057007 https://www.amazon.com/Stalins-Apologist-Walter-Duranty-Time... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
- friendlydog 5y agoAh, the old appeasement trap. The censormongers who demanded their collection leave Spotify aren't going to come back now that Spotify has caved. And the people who wanted Spotify to have Joe are going to be pissed off and leave. This is a no win scenario now for Spotify. I have never listened to old Joe, but I can tell you I have paid Spotify for the last time. My small contribution doesn't mean anything in the context of their user counts, but if they were going to fold they should have done it immediately so they didn't lose the first half of content.
- stereoradonc 5y agoCancel culture. Here I come...
- SantiagoElf 5y ago[flagged]
- nr2x 5y ago
- SantiagoElf 5y ago
- MisterMower 5y agoI’m going to assume you can’t refute his ideas since you went straight for the ad hominem attack.
- nr2x 5y agoWhat attack? I'm genuinely curious.
- MisterMower 5y agoWhat's your life like? Good times? Those questions were not asked with good will.
- ApolloFortyNine 5y agoI wonder what's next, now that Spotify has shown they'll cave to popular music artist demands. My guess is it'll be against some country singer who is against abortion/anti illegal immigration.
- gnicholas 5y agoI wonder what rights Rogan might have to publish these episodes elsewhere, or to litigate their removal. Presumably he didn't sign a contract saying "you can have all my episodes and can remove as many of them as you want from the internet, with zero consequences".
- Tenoke 5y agoThere's almost definitely some exclusivity clause in the contract they signed, even if we don't know the details. I doubt he can republish them unless they fully break off the partnership
- gnicholas 5y agoI’m sure there is an exclusivity clause regarding episodes they are distributing. But I would imagine he might have secured the right to have ownership revert to him for any episodes they pull. It’s not like they wouldn’t have considered the possibility that they might want to pull some of his episodes at some point. Having the rights revert would have the dual benefit of enabling him to distribute such episodes, and disincentivizing spotify from pulling episodes too aggressively.
- sam_bristow 5y agoThere were enough zeros on the deal that I'd imagine Spotify got rights to do damn-near anything.
- bdowling 5y agoExactly. If pulling the episodes is a breach of Rogan's contract with Spotify, then Spotify could be liable. Of course, none of us know what's in that contract.
- Geee 5y agoMy best guess is that those guests wanted to be removed (they don't want to be associated with the controversy). Or it's just a bug.
- YEwSdObPQT 5y agoNo it isn't either. Micheal Malice (who had some episodes where he appeared removed) was unaware of them removing them until someone told him via Twitter. A lot of people aren't going to buy it was a mistake considering the timing.
- cardosof 5y agoQuestion: out of those 113, how many of the guests are associated with: the left, the right, pro-vaccines, anti-vaccines, pro- alternative treatments (ivermectin), anti alternative treatments?
- Sparyjerry 5y agoLiterally just talking to people is becoming a problem? He's done nothing but talk and you will see through this thread all of a sudden people who have problem never listened telling all sorts of lies. We are in a literal book burning era, and it is self imposed. Insane.
- squabble 5y agoIt would also be interesting to see what has been cut from episodes which are (partially?) available.
- buzzwords 5y agoOpen Web is truly dead. It's such a shame too. Learning other people's view, even if you don't agree with them is an important part growing. I have to say, I am quite resentful of people now. Because there was such amazing tool that you could learn other people's view and thoughts and a handful of loud mouths killed it.
- ipnon 5y agoIt only dies if we surround ourselves in walled gardens, and fail to build the platforms that incentivize open inquiry. We've traded so much for the convenience of not doing it ourselves. As long as one hyperlinked document remains at the far reaches of a TCP/IP network, the Web still lives. The content you're seeking is out there, and the audience for the unconventional is growing.
- npteljes 5y agoWhy would it be dead, if you can find the missing episodes on the Open Web? Also, why would a content service policing its own content be in any way related to "The Open Web"? Now if the domain providers, ICANN, ISPs, or any such internet utility entities would be actively doing this, that'd be a story about the web openness. Not a large streaming service deciding what to stream. Joe himself sold out to this entity knowing about this precise outcome. This has nothing to do with the web itself.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jjulius 5y agoWe can easily find these deleted episodes hosted elsewhere on the web. Legally? Maybe not, but they're still out there on the open web, and so are similar views and statements to those that Spotify opted not to host.
- cfn 5y agoIt looks like they went on rampage yesterday and removed a bunch of episodes. I don't recognize the names (and there too many) so I don't know why that even happened. I have watched a number of JREs and this is odd. I like Spotify a lot but I have no issue leaving them if this is the new policy. There are a lot of music services out there and Spotify shines because of the podcasts.
- jillesvangurp 5y agoApparently it excludes the episode with Dr. Robert Malone, which is the one that ticked off the likes of Neil Young: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3SCsueX2bZdbEzRtKOCEyT https://open.spotify.com/episode/3SCsueX2bZdbEzRtKOCEyT. It's still online, for now. I actually listened to that one and even though I don't agree with everything that was discussed during that 3 hour interview, a few things struck me as odd in the huge wave of criticism that followed. - Dr Malone has a rather impressive CV and a rather relevant one when it comes to Covid. This is a point that is glossed over by most media. He's not some crackpot theorist but somebody with a rather impressive research career centered on doing research around major virus outbreaks. Or at least that's what Joe Rogan spends about an hour of the interview trying to establish as the ground truth. Like him or not, when somebody like that says something, you might want to listen. Or if that reputation has some flaws, an eager fact checker might want to highlight that. Instead it was glossed over. If this is somehow not true, I've yet to find an article challenging that reputation. - In the podcast, Dr Malone and Rogan discuss the cancel culture and the fact that several notable colleagues of his have had to deal with that. To the point where medical licenses were cancelled. And that he too has been under attack following a rather negative piece in the Atlantic. - Some pretty harsh criticism is voiced towards Pfizer and the FDA's failure to do its job in overseeing the way Pfizer rushed the vaccine to market and maybe cut a few corners with testing protocols. Those are serious accusations. When they are made by somebody with Malone's apparent reputation, a serious journalist might want to fact check them. I've not seen any attempt at that. - During the interview, Dr. Malone singles out the Atlantic article that criticized him and the author of that article as an inexperienced "woke" journalist that basically got their facts wrong. And then every other mainstream media goes on to use specifically that article as the core basis for "cancelling" Malone. What happened to allowing the other side to counter? Isn't that what you are supposed to do as a good journalist? You don't have to agree with any of what was discussed during that interview of course but I find it notable that mainstream media gloss over most of that and fail to fact check any of it. There are some rather serious issues that were discussed in this interview that as of yet have not been challenged and instead are simply ignored. For example, I read a pretty harsh article on the BBC a few days ago that was actually attempting to "fact check" exactly this episode on a few things and it left me wondering if they'd even bothered to listen to this episode or whether I actually listened to the same thing. A Guardian actually mentioned the Atlantic article. Neither of them gave Malone an opportunity to respond. Given the amount of time spent during the podcast discussing exactly that article, that is more than a bit sloppy. I noticed as well the bias in Rogan's interview and maybe a bit eagerly jumping to conclusions by Joe Rogan. For me that falls under free speech. But still, it was an interesting exchange and packed with a lot of detail and well argued opinions that, as of yet, remain mostly unchallenged. That worries me. For reference, I got vaccinated, boostered, and will get another shot. But I have a few growing concerns regarding the special status of Pfizer at this point and their apparent influence over mainstream media and politicians to basically run what looks like a character assassination campaign. There's plenty there for a serious journalist to fact check. Maybe the most worrying thing is the apparent self censure ship mainstream media seem to be applying to themselves.
- nathias 5y agoNever used Spotify, never listened to Rogan, but I truly despise anyone cheering for online censorship.
- rsanheim 5y agoIf you care about music creators or podcasts (in the original spirit of the medium), you have long ago left Spotify or never subscribed to begin with.
- bhaak 5y ago> CEO Daniel Ek has defended the inclusion of Rogan on the company's roster and told a company town hall that the podcast was vital to Spotify's success. > "If we want even a shot at achieving our bold ambitions, it will mean having content on Spotify that many of us may not be proud to be associated with," Ek said during the town hall. "Not anything goes, but there will be opinions, ideas and beliefs that we disagree with strongly and even makes us angry or sad." https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/more-than-70-episodes-of-joe-rogans-podcast-are-no-longer-on-spotify/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/more-than-70... At least he's sad. But sad tears are dried by dollars notes?
- dkga 5y agoAnd...? They paid for this content, they should have a right to just put it in the freezer if they want to.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- paulus_magnus2 5y agoIt would be interesting to see the list of topics / keywords / conjectures in the "missing" episodes so that we know roughly which ones are "off limits".
- qqq111 5y ago
- gubikmic 5y agoThe context is important here: https://www.instagram.com/p/CZlnH8MAb8L/ https://www.instagram.com/p/CZlnH8MAb8L/
- hnarn 5y agoI don't really understand why anyone who claims to be a proponent of a free market economy has an issue with a private corporation deciding what type of content they want to broadcast. JR sold his catalog of intellectual property (podcast episodes) of his own free will and was paid very well for it: about $100M from what I can gather. What Spotify chooses to do with it is completely up to them, even if they bought it with the express intention of "burning" it all, i.e. never broadcasting it, that would still not be censorship. That would be nothing but exercising their intellectual property rights, that they paid for, just like buying the rights to a song that you hate to stop that specific recording from ever being played again is within your right, or even negotiating with the artist to never play it again. He signed a "multi-year" exclusive deal (the details are fuzzy, for obvious reasons) which means he sold his trademark and time for money, which is how the market works. Exactly what he sold (NDA, limitations on his speech in his free time etc.) we'll probably never know, but whoever calls this "censorship" needs a reality check. There exists plenty of proper censorship in the world if you look for it, and this isn't it.
- account42 5y agoOnce you have copyright there no longer is a free market economy. In a true free market economy, anyone who has a copy would be free to distribute those missing episodes and could do so easily since the price of making additional copies is effectively zero. In a reality with copyright your argument needs to take into account the purpose of why there is copyright in the first place. In the US the original purpose of copyright was to incentivize the creation of content and locking up content goes against that.
- CivBase 5y agoSo basically "If you are a proponent of the free market economy, you shouldn't complain about things a company does as long as they're compliant with the letter of the law." That's an especially rich take considering the controversy is over actions a company is taking specifically to address other peoples' complaints.
- parentheses 5y agoI agree with everything you said, but I feel that you're missing the point here. The issue is not _that_ the episodes were deleted. The issue is that social pressure resulted in removal of information from (what is considered by most as) the "public realm". This information comes in the form of "open" (seeming) discussion with people who hold various views. This type of debate and discussion should be encouraged by our society. This stands in stark contrast with the profit motivator that drives those who govern these "public realm"-ish services. This is not a matter of the free market being free, but more that our society is becoming greatly dependent on services that are intrinsically business driven. Those services being seen as the "open forum" that they are not needs to be fixed.
- dgudkov 5y agoWell, it only tells me that the decentralized internet is increasingly imminent. The only question remains: who is going to pay for it?
- digitcatphd 5y agoI fail to see how anyone can seriously listen to Joe Rogan. He has a circus of quacks and conspiracy theorists on the show and when he does occasionally have a legitimate scientist he can barely muster any response beyond “wow that blows my mind”
- emsy 5y agoYes, there are occasional episodes with quacks. But using those to dismiss the whole show is blatantly ignorant.
- subpixel 5y agoNo - ignorance is downplaying the results of giving quacks a megaphone and an endorsement. All the Joe Rogans of the world want is audience stats - let him pivot to exposing quacks and continue to take fools money.
- emsy 5y agoWhat happened to the idea that you should make up your own mind? And if you’re not allowed to do that, who vets the information? And who vets the vetters?
- dave_sullivan 5y ago"Occasional" is generous I think. This is the best explanation I've heard of the show's appeal: Back when I was a kid you didn’t need Joe Rogan. Your best friend had a 27 year-old brother who was a fucking loser who would smoke pot in a room with blacklight posters and tell you that the Mayans invented cell phones.
- drewcon 5y agoSuch an awful credentialist meme. Joe Rogan facilitates discussion with interesting people and not much more. Mainstream news has done just about as poorly as it could have reporting facts, unknowns, and probabilities with Covid...as the anointed truthsayers, they most definitely created a vacuum by dismissing credible questions and skepticism (lab leak, mask effectiveness, how to think about vaccines long term). And they have been eager to bless the opinions of those who have been far too optimistic https://youtu.be/_FvWnlIEHVo https://youtu.be/_FvWnlIEHVo There is no way we just deplatform or content moderate our way out of honestly misguided information like Malone and McCullough. Misinformation and disinformation cannot include people who are trying in good faith to present a pov that happens to just be just wrong…at some point in time that would include…everyone.
- gypsyharlot 5y agoTime to cancel the Spotify subscription.
- rendall 5y agoI guess I incorrectly remember, when the contract was first reported, that any censorship on the part of Spotify would be considered a breach and Rogan could walk away with his show and the $100M payment. Anyone else remember it that way?
- dogma1138 5y agoI think that was mainly FUD there is no way that they would’ve put that in there at least not in a manner that could be triggered by simply removing an episode. There might be some material breach clauses there around censorship but it would guess if there are they are worded in a manner that can only be triggered if Spotify directly forces Joe to say something or to bring a specific guest to say something for example.
- choward 5y agoJust curious, how exactly is that FUD? It's not the F, the U or the D.
- dogma1138 5y agoYou are technically correct but FUD these days is often used as a synonym for disinformation in general.
- rendall 5y agoBut disinformation itself has a specific meaning "propaganda spread deliberately to deceive" that does not apply here, either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- aneil 5y agoJesus. A lot of indiscriminate nuking of content with the Feb 4 date. Tim Ferriss, Comedian Russell Peters, Dan Savage, Giorgio Tsoulakis (the "It's Aliens" guy), Kyle Kulinski. What a shit show. I'd love for someone to get Neil Young's take on this now.
- codechad 5y ago[dead]
- jjulius 5y agoAnd maybe, ya know, Spotify's reasoning before we assume that all of these removals are Young's fault. Edit: Oh look, it's not just because Young made a stink about COVID shit, imagine that... >Rogan went on Instagram Saturday to discuss the content of the old episodes, addressing two videos on social media of him saying a racial slur and another where he described a Black neighborhood as being similar to the Planet of the Apes movie. https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/more-than-70-episodes-of-joe-rogans-podcast-are-no-longer-on-spotify/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/more-than-70...
- throwaway_r211 5y agoWhy do they need to remove the whole episodes though? Can't they just put a voice over through that part of the show? "beep.. beep.. Spotify has had to interrupt this podcast as the next few moments contain words and ideas we deem to impure for our listeners to hear.. beep beep.." and that's why you shouldn't do DMT after eating a burrito.
- jjulius 5y agoThe answer to that can be found in a statement that Spotify's CEO made during a company town hall earlier this week[1]... >"A publisher has editorial control over a creator’s content — they can take action on the content before it’s even published,” he says, like editing episodes, removing guests, or preventing one from publishing at all. Ek noted that Spotify does have editorial control over the properties it owns outright, like The Ringer and Gimlet, but emphasized the distinction between those studios and Rogan. “Even though JRE is an exclusive, it is licensed content. It is important to note that we do not have creative control over Joe Rogan’s content. We don’t approve his guests in advance, and just like any other creator, we get his content when he publishes, and then we review it, and if it violates our policies, we take the appropriate enforcement actions.” So contractually speaking, they can't edit the content, essentially making it all-or-nothing when it comes to an episode. If Rogan feels strongly enough about having an episode put back up but with the kind of edit you suggested, then the onus to do so is on him, not Spotify. That's the deal that Rogan signed. [1]https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/3/22915456/spotify-ceo-joe-rogan-daniel-ek-town-hall-speech-platform-podcast https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/3/22915456/spotify-ceo-joe-r...
- hogrider 5y agoGood. Platforms can't claim neutrality in this age of disinfo.
- emerged 5y agoTalk about your free publicity! Hope all you Rogan haters love Rogan because this is how you get more of him. Congrats!
- misiti3780 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
- ezconnect 5y agoUS is more than China now.
- jdrc 5y agoWe have torrents, cheap hosting and bw, tons of stuff. There is no excuse for this madness. There is a culprit however, mobiles
- hwers 5y agoAre you a bot?
- calsy 5y agoPay $100 million dollars for a creator and his content just so you can delete large portions of it after putting it on your service. Smart....
- tutuncommon 5y agoAs soon as you take a dollar from someone your freedom is over.
- sovietmudkipz 5y agoI would rather they put BEEPs around the offending content.
- gpas 5y agoWhat was the problem with Tim Ferriss episode? I get some of the names are problematic (from Spotify point of view) but Ferriss? There was a time when he was promoted all over the world.
- julienreszka 5y agoGiving in to the mob is stupid, the mob will never be satisfied
- panarky 5y agoWhen a person takes an ostensibly principled stand to defend the right to post health lies and racist speech on a private service for profit, while remaining silent as government agents ban books and force teachers to tell lies to their students, it is becomes obvious that the principles were always bullshit.
- uejfiweun 5y ago
- LatteLazy 5y agoI agree. I just don't get it. It's like that thing about how dumb the average person is and half of people are dumber than average. Are we really this backwards? These issues were solved hundreds of years ago, free speech works, censorship doesn't
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- nataz 5y agoUp to 113 deleted episodes now.
- farmerstan 5y agoAnd yet no one is complaining about all the misogynistic songs on Spotify and other lyrics. Grown adults have an honest conversation is more dangerous than people singing about raping women and treating them like shit. It’s pretty fascinating.
- LatteLazy 5y agoPlot twist: Joe only does this because he wants Spotify to cancel the contract and pay him a huge cancellation penalty.
- meatsauce 5y agoThis is very problematic.
- meatsauce 5y agoRogan needs to sue them for breach and walk away with millions.
- aqme28 5y ago1) He walks away with millions either way. He was paid $100 million 2) Is it breach? Is that against the terms of his deal? I would assume that Spotify has reserved the right to limit content it doesn't like.
- chillage 5y agoI'm mildly surprised that someone's started this github all the way back last summer, and now it's finally become politically relevant. I guess someone's got an app out there somewhere for everything
- karaterobot 5y agoFunny how far down I had to scroll to find somebody mentioning the site this thread is supposedly about.
- mark_l_watson 5y agoThat is a interesting list. I noticed that there are both liberal and conservative people who were removed from his podcast. I wonder why they did that? I think this may not be political. They may just want to tighten up the catalog, polish the brand they purchased, and have just the very best material?
- mcot2 5y agoThey should have to provide a justification for why they are removing them. Many of those episodes are with some of my favorite comics such as Bill Burr. Why did they remove them?
- basisword 5y agoThe latest news suggests he used the n-word repeatedly in earlier episodes. I wonder is Spotify if removing episodes for that reason? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-60270467 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-60270467 Edit: the downvotes are interesting…
- MichaelMoser123 5y agoIn Russia they used to justify their brand of censorship with the argument that "that's what they are doing in the US too"; often these claims are exaggerated and not strictly true, but now you have given them yet another argument for strengthening their Russian brand of authoritarianism. Sad story that there seems to be some kind of convergence between the east and the west; it seems like the shit is flowing both ways :-(
- xyst 5y agohuh? The government didn’t censure anything. Spotify did due to the PR disaster (musicians pulling out, scientific community speaking out, …). How does a private corporation action equate to government level censorship in the US?
- MichaelMoser123 5y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDjkXjSVWIw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDjkXjSVWIw "Jen Psaki urges Spotify to take further action on Joe Rogan: ‘More can be done’" the white house press secretary called for more action, well, and she got it. And guess who, Russian government mouthpeace RT jumped right onto it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqx2BzSfdkI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqx2BzSfdkI My guess is that they will be using this as a showcase and justification for their own shit at home.
- odonnellryan 5y agoGovernment asking a private company to stop misinformation about a health crisis doesn't really mean the government is censoring.
- randyrand 5y agoWith the internet being so monopolistic, I don’t think the distinction is so important. If private corporations can police information and communication, they’re the de facto new government. Worse, the handful of companies that police our communication (Apple, Google, etc) all have extremely big presences in Washington. This is not what free speech looks like.
- kerneloftruth 5y agoThis is 3 days after Jen Psaki said from the white house podium that disclaimers are a good "first step", but that "we" (the white house) want to see "more done" by tech companies. Now spotify has complied with the government's wishes. We're now beyond "but it's a private company...", and indeed into censorship. Glen Greenwald did a great piece on this topic a couple of days ago: https://rumble.com/vtyr34-democrats-are-pressuring-companies-to-censor-for-them-a-violation-of-the-fi.html https://rumble.com/vtyr34-democrats-are-pressuring-companies...
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Tehchops 5y agoITT: People confusing "free speech" with what a corporate entity does with it's private platform.
- choward 5y agoITT: people who think that this isn't government censorship even though the Whitehouse called for the censorship.
- guilhas 5y agoPeople confuse what a corporate entity decides to do, with what they are forced to do Pressured by small mobs, billionaire's funded groups, political actors... This is just people reacting and saying what they're doing is probably wrong and goes against their customers interests
- magicroot75 5y agoFree speech as a constitutional guarantee isn't the only type of free speech we ought to fight to protect.
- kryogen1c 5y agothis looks alarmingly like a destruction of wrongthink. comedians, musicians, joes friends. this isnt just the rambling conspiracies of alex jones or covid skepticism with non-consensus doctors. rather than debate the meaning of IP, free markets, or the first amendment, we should he focusing on us - the people. our communites. why is it that companies think its advantageous to silence people like this? it must be following the money. spotify is following the zeitgeist. the fact that everyone would rather erase this content because its existence is unbearable is a warning side. engendering disgust is a half step from dehumanization, and dehumanization is a half step from death.
- rez9x 5y agoLooking through the deleted episodes, most of them aren't even the scientists and pundits in opposition to globalist narratives. They're comedians, actors, and musicians. I am clearly out of the loop. Why would Spotify remove episodes with Kevin Smith and Brian Posehn? I love both of these comedians/writers, but they're largely in-line with Spotify's neoliberal viewpoints, are they not?
- Arcuru 5y agoJust going off the list, it seems pretty likely that at least some of the guests requested Spotify to remove the episodes.
- omot 5y agoDang some of my favorite episodes are with other comedians. They try to out do each other’s humor, so you get really hilarious moments. Sad to see all the removed episodes are heavily comedian episodes…
- ed-209 5y agoQueue everyone pretending to be constitutional scholars. Bottom line is that "we" no longer value free speech and as such it will be eliminated. Full stop.
- weakfish 5y ago
- xyst 5y agohot take: if people do not like the actions that private corporations take on their platforms to protect their bottom lines. Then send your money to people that are working to build decentralized systems that do not have a corporate owner or answer to shareholders.
- newswasboring 5y agoIs there a decentralized attempt at Spotify? That would be mind blowing
- thebigspacefuck 5y agoAudius?
- randyrand 5y agoI still worry about the I.P. protocol, hosting, and ISPs, which are all easily controlled.
- edmcnulty101 5y agoIf Dem's wonder why Trump win's in 2024 it's because of this type of thing. The biggest political shift in history is happening right now. There's been a 14% shift from Democrat to Republican in the PAST YEAR. Censorship over open dialogue is always a short sighted solution and it turns people from colleagues who disagree into enemies. Reference: https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fd5353bf0-921f-4896-9fc3-0ab626a5082b_1240x718.png https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q...
- FabHK 5y agoThe Streisand effect is strong. I've never had the desire to listen to this Joe Rogan guy, but now I do want to get hold of some of these episodes (Russell Peters, the comedian? Dan Savage? maybe a random smattering of the others...)
- choward 5y agoIronically, Barbra Streisand pulled her content from Spotify.
- penjelly 5y agodamn some of the newly removed i never would have guessed would get removed based on the guest
- joemazerino 5y agoScrolling through names on this site is confusing me. Why is the singer of Tool having his interview removed?
- chmod600 5y agoFact: CNN spread misinformation about Ivermectin. JR even got CNN's Sanjay Gupta to admit that it was misinformation. https://nypost.com/2021/10/14/joe-rogan-takes-on-sanjay-gupta-over-cnn-lying-about-covid-treatment/ https://nypost.com/2021/10/14/joe-rogan-takes-on-sanjay-gupt... I find it really disturbing when our definition of "misinformation" is so one-sided.
- Mezzie 5y agoI hope that the episodes are properly archived somewhere so that in the future when our emotions cool, we can examine this more objectively. Spotify may have the legal right to pull the episodes, but this clash has cultural significance and so we should preserve everything as accurately as possible so its repercussions can be studied.
- edwnj 5y ago[flagged]
- whacim 5y agoWas related to Rogan's Instagram post related to the 'N-word'? https://www.instagram.com/tv/CZlnH8MAb8L/?hl=en https://www.instagram.com/tv/CZlnH8MAb8L/?hl=en
- ComradePhil 5y agoFrom what it seems, the "controversial" COVID-related podcasts are intact. It's mostly his conversations with other comedians or political people like Gad Saad, Sargon of Akkad, Milo Yiannopoulos, Gavin McInnes, Alex Jones etc. that have been removed which is a way of punishing Joe Rogan while making it look like it was about completely something else. Removing the COVID related podcasts when everyone is paying attention would be too obvious and Streisand effect could have made those removed episodes even more popular, which is the last thing the pharmaceuticals would want at this time. I strongly believe he's being punished for the COVID-related podcasts though. These are the ones in question for those who are brave enough to listen to what the mainstream media has been labeling "dangerous disinformation": - #1747 Dr. Peter McCallaugh https://open.spotify.com/episode/0aZte37vtFTkYT7b0b04Qz?si=JJrWQXnXTlmOuFGK9XRfzg https://open.spotify.com/episode/0aZte37vtFTkYT7b0b04Qz?si=J... - #1757 Dr. Robert Malone https://open.spotify.com/episode/3SCsueX2bZdbEzRtKOCEyT?si=4o5nDwquRkG7K2X1oZS3tA https://open.spotify.com/episode/3SCsueX2bZdbEzRtKOCEyT?si=4...
- nathanvanfleet 5y agoSeems like a nice project would be to get every single episode, convert them all to text, and then scan the missing episodes to figure out why it was removed. I can guess for the Milo, Gavin, Alex Jones, and Molyneux episodes. That's a yikes
- bool3max 5y ago
- rcpt 5y agoIt's weird to think about how the world would be if Napster were never killed.
- zxcvbn4038 5y agoMissed opportunity - now is the time to host the 113 missing episodes on another site so people can hear what is being suppressed. The guy would probably become more popular then ever. Streisand effect!
- chiefalchemist 5y agoI can understand why Young and a hndful of other celebrities are upset with Rogan. They have a history with a childhood disease that has influenced their adult lens. Fair enough. We're all human. Where the understanding breaks down is, why now? Why Rogan? Why Covid? What about all the other ills of the world that need addressing and fixing? For those they're silent? Things more long running and sure to keep running long after Covid and/or Rogan is gone. As a priority, is Rogan + Covid a top issue? Or is there something more nefarious going on here?
- iex_xei 5y agoInteresting. They made the episodes they didn't delete much more valuable now.
- hwers 5y agoWatching this get over 730 likes and 1100 comments and be pushed to the very bottom of the front page of HN. Hm.
- soared 5y agoIt has been discussed by Dang before that threads with very high comment activity are punished by the algo as they're almost always flame wars.
- hwers 5y agoMakes me wonder if the bot comments like this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30220886 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30220886 was a ploy to strategically silence this story somehow (by using abusing the flame war disincentivizer feature).
- chkaloon 5y agoI listened to JRE years ago, and those early shows were pretty raunchy at times. When he started getting popular and more "mainstream", I knew those were going to come back to bite him, it was just a matter of time. I'm just surprised it took this long. Maybe the move to Spotify shielded him for a while, making it harder for people to just run across these episodes by chance.
- throwingawayyou 5y ago
- buildsjets 5y agoAnd nothing of value was lost.
- gregors 5y agoThis reminds me of when Howard Stern left terrestrial for satellite radio because the FCC kept fining him - only to deal with the corporate censors at the new company.
- systematical 5y agoLooks like the media found its new Marilyn Manson and Eminem. The CNN slobfest on rogan is sad. Imagine having the resources to cover the most pressing topics affecting humans and focusing on a guy who believes in DMT elves.
- snowgrove 5y agoThe number of deleted episodes is now up to 113.
- jjice 5y agoMy opinion isn't even based on all the JRE stuff with Spotify recently, I just don't like Spotify anymore. I use it every day, but only because it's the best I have. The UI changes at least a bit every single quarter, and if I have a weak connection, but my songs are downloaded, I still can't access them. I have to disconnect from any network and then I can access my *downloaded* music. It's slow on my cheap, but recent Android phone, all for an app that plays music. On my old phone, it just stopped working. It was two years old. They finally added lyrics back, but about 4 or 5 years ago, they had lyrics and removed them, saying they'd be back soon, but didn't communicate anything about it. They soon removed the button that said it would be back soon. So many artists I listen to don't have a legitimate way to purchase their music, so moving to completely owned music is difficult (this would be optimal for me). Even if I was able to make that move, finding new music would be a lot more difficult. I will say that Spotify is 100% responsible for the new music I find, which it does do a good job at. The problem is that the Spotify alternatives are even worse than Spotify. I really do think it is the best I have, but god damn do I dislike a lot about it.
- kpennell 5y agoTons of artists put their music for sale on Bandcamp and make 90% of the sale (very high compared to itunes, amazon, etc.)
- jjice 5y agoI use Bandcamp every opportunity I have, but a good chunk of artists I listen to don't upload their music there.
- vanilla_nut 5y agoI recently switched to Jellyfin, self-hosted on a raspberry pi. I already had a pretty large music collection and I'm building more and more out with Bandcamp purchases. I managed my own library for a decade+ before I got Spotify. I realized, like you, that the app, recommendations, etc. weren't worth it any more this year. So I switched back to managing my own library. It's a bit of work to set everything up, but it's honestly fun to consciously think of my library again. Give it a try -- happy to share details about my own setup if you're on the fence.
- filed 5y agoSpotify is a left wing activist company. Just like Airbnb and GoFundMe. Conservatives are dropping their principles- meaning why should we give the left free speech or services from private companies when they deny that to the right. We want revenge. We want AG from GOP states to investigate these companies for fraud, theft, or discrimination. They are no longer a neutral company. Period, and this is war. Conservatives can no longer expect services from lefty companies. How about truckers, who are conservative, not deliver food to lefty cities. How will they like that. So now lefty's need to start their own lefty trucker companies so they can get food. It is a private business, go start your own trucking company to get food- how do you like that?
- atleta 5y agoI haven't been listening to JR since around (maybe before) he left YT, so know it comes as a surprise that his earlier episodes were also taken to Spotify (and off of YT). Makes sense, I just wasn't aware. I can see some of the nuts on the list (like Eddie Bravo and, of course, Alex Jones), but seeing Gad Saad came as a surprise. Also, anyone knows what could have been wrong with David Seaman? (I haven't heard his episodes nor anything about him outside of his soccer/goalie career. But curiously he seemed to have been on the show pretty frequently.)
- steelstraw 5y agoIt was only a question of time before the all-out war on Rogan began. He's way too big and off-key to permit him to keep going. The concept of free speech in the US is a mirage: you have it right up to the line where it matters or can threaten power centers, then you don't. Every major institution is united to destroy Rogan, including the WH. The Press Secretary -- speaking on behalf of the US Govt -- demanded Spotify do more to stop him, and this is treated as normal and benign. Ask Julian Assange if effective dissent is permitted. The power derived from controlling the flow of information is immense. That's why every tyrant and authoritarian wields censorship power. Tyranny can't exist without it. And as Orwell and Chomsky have both said, the most effective form isn't jailing dissidents but doing this. Read what Orwell said about why censorship in the UK during the war was so much more effective than the overtly autocratic regimes that just imprisoned dissidents. We're at the point where we also arrive in these cycles. If you object to the attempt to silence Rogan, then you will be instantly tarred with the same brush used to try to destroy him: You're a racist, anti-vax, etc. etc. That's the enforcement mechanism to keep everyone quiet. -Glenn Greenwald
- zimpenfish 5y ago> It was only a question of time before the all-out war on Rogan began. Apparently those 70 episodes have racial slurs in. It's not really an "all-out war on Rogan" as much as "Spotify don't want to be seen to be hosting racial slurs in their most visibly public content that they made a specific point of paying $$$ for", right?
- WithinReason 5y agoWhy not just beep the word though?
- zimpenfish 5y agoYep, that would work in isolated cases. Maybe some of them will be reinstated if that happens?
- toraway1234 5y ago
- jivetolkien 5y agoAwesome
- jivetolkien 5y agoBut but but my free marketism
- magicroot75 5y agoBut but but my strawman
- DragonL80 5y agoJoe Rogan is an expert at nothing and this cult of personality around his likeness and its toxic ideas is disgusting. I wouldn't be sad if they deleted them all.
- spurgu 5y ago
- bitwize 5y agoAfter discovering why they dropped the episodes, personally I hope that every music artist withdraws their catalog from Spotify and tanks it as a platform if they continue to support him. Supporting a racist asshole should not be tolerated.
- randyrand 5y agoThey support plenty of racist, rapey, and violence condoning music as well and have for years.
- tpoacher 5y agoHonest question from a non american. Who is Joe Rogan? And why is he a persona non grata? And what is his relation to Jordan Peterson? I'm seeing a weird attempt to link the two in the media (presumably as an attempt to use the former to discredit the latter) but I've never even heard of Joe Rogan except in the context of trollposts (which usually do not give the necessary background I need to know what's going on)
- Znayder 5y agoWe don't have anything that even remotely resembles a free market economy on the level of big tech! We have an economy that functions by virtue of central banks pumping billions into venture capital firms. Venture capital investors in turn speculate on big tech companies that never make any profit. It's a top-down regulated economy full of Ponzi schemes, where a handful of brokers with a virtually unlimited supply of government money make the rules. That is why big tech and big business agenda's are constantly at odds with the popular opinion on the internet and society. They don't care because it is no longer your money they need.
- pmags 5y agoFrom Ars Technica's coverage of this issue: >In another clip, Rogan spoke to a guest who has parents of different skin colors. "Powerful combination, genetic-wise, right?" Rogan said. "You get the body of the black man and then you get the mind of the white man all together in some strange combination... that doesn't, by the way, mean that black people don't have brains. It's a different brain. Don't get me wrong." https://twitter.com/cultofdusty1/status/1096148338918023168 https://twitter.com/cultofdusty1/status/1096148338918023168