19 ms·

I’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

I’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 Then Spotify came busting in and decided that the open podcasting platform is obsolete and paid Joe Rogan $100 million for exclusive distribution of his content.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 ago
I 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 ago
  that phase was over 10 years ago
- rektide 5y ago
  This is what happens when you fail to write a RFC.
  - javajosh 5y ago
    Being serious: do you really think a lack of RFC killed RSS? If so, why not submit one now? I feel like RSS could make a serious comeback if given a chance, like built-in browser support for it.
    - bmn__ 5y ago
      Atom killed RSS. It has RFCs out the wazoo.
      - vanilla_nut 5y ago
        Does that distinction really matter? I use Atom/RSS interchangeably and from what I can tell there is very little difference for me.
        bmn__ 5y ago
        We were talking about RFCs, so yes. It's the fundamental qualitative distinction between the two technologies: good specs really do matter. https://pwn.ersh.io/notes/why_specs_matter/ https://pwn.ersh.io/notes/why_specs_matter/ https://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/12/18/dive-into-xml.html https://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/12/18/dive-into-xml.html https://web.archive.org/web/2004/http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/02/04/incompatible-rss https://web.archive.org/web/2004/http://diveintomark.org/arc... http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/rss-has-been-damaged-by-in-fighting-among-those-who-advocate-for-it http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/rss-has-been-damaged-...
  - DonHopkins 5y ago
    What, and document all of RSS's embarrassing design flaws??! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7728020 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7728020 >The worst use of the <BLINK> tag ever was the discussion held in the early days of RSS about escaping HTML in titles, whose attention-grabbing title went something like this: "Hey, what happens when you put a <BLINK> tag in the title???!!!" >The content of that notorious discussion went on and off and on and off for weeks, giving all the netizens of the RSS community blogosphere terrible headaches, with people's entire blogs disappearing and reappearing every second, until it finally reached a flashing point, when Dave Winer humbly conceded that it wasn't the user's fault for being an idiot, and maybe just maybe there was tiny teeny little design flaw in RSS, and it wasn't actually such a great idea to allow HTML tags in RSS titles.
    - rektide 5y ago
      I don't see that as a flaw. Caveat emptor. Also we have user-agents. Our userscripts (& amassed socialized, collective defenses they enable) should help provide us agency, to defend us against hijinx, to give us our own preferred view of systems. The web platform is uniquely able to handle these trivial little harassment cases, in ways far better than conventional software. This is just such a small-minded, speck-of-dust little concern to me, such a minor irrelevant point. Who cares how long & how stupid the thread on blink tag was, or how hyperbolic the lulz were at the time over it- this is easy to fix. Podcasting not having a specification allows hollowed out soulless corporate ghouls to put any audio series they want online however they want & call it a podcast. Even a flawed, shitty specification at least defines some base idea, creates a general technical terrain that defines the idea. Podcasting got ripped the fuck off by monsters, because it had no specification. Technical cooperation is impossible without defined technical grounds.
- ianceicys 5y ago
  Is it a lost battle? http://newpodcastingapps.com/ http://newpodcastingapps.com/
  - ComradePhil 5y ago
    Yes. The situation is much much worse actually. Web hosting companies can be pressured into removing domains and hosting. Companies running mobile App Stores can be forced to remove apps from their platform. Social media sites are forced to take down content all the time. This doesn't mean it will be impossible for people to find these types of content but with each level of restriction, the people who are able and willing to go through the pain to get the information will shrink to a point that they hold no power anymore. The web was "open" because it was rather small and insignificant. Now that it can move markets and decide which way the world power shifts, those who are at risk of losing their power will do everything to control it so that it doesn't happen.
- mongol 5y ago
  Internet talkshow. Great name. I will start to use it.
  - cghukkvfdd 5y ago
    Why not just call it a talkshow? Why is it that the means of distribution is relevant at all?
    - throwaway2037 5y ago
      This is an interesting point. To me, it feels like an old-form talkshow would be radio or TV. Both of these are subject to heavy regulation and corporate gatekeeping. That is much less true for Internet publishing. Although, as Internet publishing becomes more and more centralised, the same regulations and gatekeeping are likely to emerge in similar form.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > Why is it that the means of distribution is relevant at all? The medium is the message [1]. Recitations and radio shows have as much in common as linear-TV talk shows and streamed ones. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message
      - cghukkvfdd 5y ago
        The only people who think that the medium is the message are people whose focus is studying media, and not messages. Kind of like "to the guy with a hammer everything looks like a nail" type.
- vanilla_nut 5y ago
  I prefer to call them Spodcasts. If you're exclusive to spotify, you're not really a podcast. You're a spodcast.
TulliusCicero 5y ago
That's actually a very fair take. Ultimately they're doing what's good for business, but, well, some of those choices still have consequences.
andrewzah 5y ago
I’ll gladly dig my own career grave for $100 million.
- goodguyamericun 5y ago
  Does JR get it per year?
  - pan69 5y ago
    Looks like it is a multiyear licensing deal: > The deal with Mr. Rogan is a multiyear licensing agreement for an amount of time that couldn’t be learned. https://www.wsj.com/articles/spotify-strikes-exclusive-podcast-deal-with-joe-rogan-11589913814 https://www.wsj.com/articles/spotify-strikes-exclusive-podca...
TrispusAttucks 5y ago
Spotify competing with YouTube isn't the root problem. The people calling for censorship are the problem. This is the latest attack in an ongoing war on free speech. We are losing our freedoms. Today it's Joe Rogan's speech tomorrow it's yours.
- mulletbum 5y ago
  Joe Rogan got paid by a company to distribute his content with the right to not distribute any portion they want. If anything, Joe Rogan is giving up his free speech. No one is taking it. Anyone can make a podcast and put it out. Zero stopping them other than maybe money to buy a device to record and send it.
  - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
    Be realistic. YouTube was really the only other platform option for mass distribution at JRE scale.
    - s5300 5y ago
      Forget about the magical think called thepiratebay ?
    - ViViDboarder 5y ago
      No. He could have continued distribution the same way he was prior. He also could have self distributed. He didn’t need a distribution platform because Podcasts don’t require it. Just an RSS feed. He sold out and this is what happens to sellouts.
      - jondwillis 5y ago
        In my experience, sellouts build penthouses and then have the clout and capital to start buying up the next crop of sellouts.
        5y ago
concinds 5y ago
The open web is dead. It's likely Rogan would have been banned from YouTube and Apple Podcasts had he not moved to Spotify. He could have moved to tiny platforms like Odysee or Rokfin that would likely have poor retention rates, or just relied on people adding his URL manually to Apple Podcasts, but come on. Nobody would do that. The "death of the open web" problem isn't creators somehow consistently choosing to empower companies that keep hurting them. Users are doing that, and creators follow. Imagine Tim Ferriss gets banned from all "non-open web" platforms today: podcast app indexes, Google Search, Twitter, Facebook, Spotify. We'll imagine he gets banned for zero reason: did nothing wrong, did nothing different, isn't any intrinsically less relevant or popular than he was yesterday. What's left is his website (if you remember the URL), and newsletter if you're already subscribed. You can add his podcast URL to your podcast app, but his podcast doesn't appear in Search. How much of his reach does he lose, overnight? 50%? 75%? Google Search isn't the "open web", and if they don't list you, you don't exist. How can one creator fix that?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- CodeGlitch 5y ago
  > It's likely Rogan would have been banned from YouTube and Apple Podcasts had he not moved to Spotify. I'm not so sure. Just put the non controversial episodes on YouTube, then link and advertise the "problematic" episodes that are only available on your own platform. This is what the Lotus Eaters do: https://www.lotuseaters.com https://www.lotuseaters.com
  - thrown_22 5y ago
    - leephillips 5y ago
      Do you have an example of someone who was banned in early 2020, or any time, for supporting masks?
loceng 5y ago
You think YouTube would have acted better if Rogan was still posting his full episodes there?
- knorker 5y ago
  But it was not an excluse deal with YouTube. He was on all the apps, now only Spotify.
MathMonkeyMan 5y ago
Dude, $100 million.
PUSH_AX 5y ago
> If he hadn’t done it he’d have none of these problems. I disagree, unless he has his own on prem platform. Which isn’t beyond the realm of possibility.
imgabe 5y ago
His previous method of distribution was YouTube, which notoriously removes and demonetizes content without warning or appeal, so the move to Spotify was meant to guard against that. I suppose at this point he could easily fund hosting the content himself if he can get out of the contract with Spotify.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  One imagines he could solve this problem by doing what Fox News did and becoming his own platform. As a US publisher, the First Amendment protects his right to do so.
buzzwords 5y ago
The real issue is that no matter what, we were not allowed to hear from individuals because some people think their views are harmful to us. He would have always be reliant on others who can be put under pressure to remove jre from their platform
- jolux 5y ago
  Not the case with normal RSS-based podcasting.
- afavour 5y ago
  S3 bucket with an RSS feed. Done. And not about to be shut down.
  - maccolgan 5y ago
    S3 bucket?
raverbashing 5y ago
> He didn’t have to take the deal that removed his podcast from open distribution and put it under corporate control. But he did For 100Mi? I'd have a very long list of things I would do for that price. "Selling out?" For sure. I wouldn't have a podcast with the guests he picked for the show on several topics, surely (but he wasn't made to have those guests). "Open podcast" is hard if you have to pay for bandwidth, and also it's just one of the most time consuming ways of generating content.
gsich 5y ago
Podcasts without RSS feeds are not podcasts. That is a strict technical requirement.
- kuekacang 5y ago
  We may agree by this definition. But when the public redefine podcast as something else, like “recorded talkshow audio”, you can only reinforce the definition so much.
yummypaint 5y ago
There is another dimension of choice being taken away as well. Spotify doesn't allow users to hide podcasts or rearrange the order in which things appear, so if you are an 18-34 male you have absolutely no choice but to see JRs face presented to you constantly with no way to remove it... It's functionally an unblockable banner ad even though im paying them. If i had the ability to just not see this podcast at all (like spotify already does for specific songs) i wouldn't have a horse in this race. However, being involuntarily subjected to something has a way of breeding intense dislike that wouldn't otherwise exist.
- Handytinge 5y ago
  This is why I cancelled Spotify. I don't use it for podcasts, I prefer to curate them myself. However since they started offering them, I now have thing that I can only describe as "ads" turning up every time I open Spotify. I started paying for Spotify years ago to remove ads, and now I appear to be paying _and_ getting ads.

TOMDM 5y ago

I 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 ago
that phase was over 10 years ago
rektide 5y ago
This is what happens when you fail to write a RFC.
- javajosh 5y ago
  Being serious: do you really think a lack of RFC killed RSS? If so, why not submit one now? I feel like RSS could make a serious comeback if given a chance, like built-in browser support for it.
  - bmn__ 5y ago
    Atom killed RSS. It has RFCs out the wazoo.
    - vanilla_nut 5y ago
      Does that distinction really matter? I use Atom/RSS interchangeably and from what I can tell there is very little difference for me.
      - bmn__ 5y ago
        We were talking about RFCs, so yes. It's the fundamental qualitative distinction between the two technologies: good specs really do matter. https://pwn.ersh.io/notes/why_specs_matter/ https://pwn.ersh.io/notes/why_specs_matter/ https://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/12/18/dive-into-xml.html https://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/12/18/dive-into-xml.html https://web.archive.org/web/2004/http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/02/04/incompatible-rss https://web.archive.org/web/2004/http://diveintomark.org/arc... http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/rss-has-been-damaged-by-in-fighting-among-those-who-advocate-for-it http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/rss-has-been-damaged-...
- DonHopkins 5y ago
  What, and document all of RSS's embarrassing design flaws??! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7728020 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7728020 >The worst use of the <BLINK> tag ever was the discussion held in the early days of RSS about escaping HTML in titles, whose attention-grabbing title went something like this: "Hey, what happens when you put a <BLINK> tag in the title???!!!" >The content of that notorious discussion went on and off and on and off for weeks, giving all the netizens of the RSS community blogosphere terrible headaches, with people's entire blogs disappearing and reappearing every second, until it finally reached a flashing point, when Dave Winer humbly conceded that it wasn't the user's fault for being an idiot, and maybe just maybe there was tiny teeny little design flaw in RSS, and it wasn't actually such a great idea to allow HTML tags in RSS titles.
  - rektide 5y ago
    I don't see that as a flaw. Caveat emptor. Also we have user-agents. Our userscripts (& amassed socialized, collective defenses they enable) should help provide us agency, to defend us against hijinx, to give us our own preferred view of systems. The web platform is uniquely able to handle these trivial little harassment cases, in ways far better than conventional software. This is just such a small-minded, speck-of-dust little concern to me, such a minor irrelevant point. Who cares how long & how stupid the thread on blink tag was, or how hyperbolic the lulz were at the time over it- this is easy to fix. Podcasting not having a specification allows hollowed out soulless corporate ghouls to put any audio series they want online however they want & call it a podcast. Even a flawed, shitty specification at least defines some base idea, creates a general technical terrain that defines the idea. Podcasting got ripped the fuck off by monsters, because it had no specification. Technical cooperation is impossible without defined technical grounds.
ianceicys 5y ago
Is it a lost battle? http://newpodcastingapps.com/ http://newpodcastingapps.com/
- ComradePhil 5y ago
  Yes. The situation is much much worse actually. Web hosting companies can be pressured into removing domains and hosting. Companies running mobile App Stores can be forced to remove apps from their platform. Social media sites are forced to take down content all the time. This doesn't mean it will be impossible for people to find these types of content but with each level of restriction, the people who are able and willing to go through the pain to get the information will shrink to a point that they hold no power anymore. The web was "open" because it was rather small and insignificant. Now that it can move markets and decide which way the world power shifts, those who are at risk of losing their power will do everything to control it so that it doesn't happen.
mongol 5y ago
Internet talkshow. Great name. I will start to use it.
- cghukkvfdd 5y ago
  Why not just call it a talkshow? Why is it that the means of distribution is relevant at all?
  - throwaway2037 5y ago
    This is an interesting point. To me, it feels like an old-form talkshow would be radio or TV. Both of these are subject to heavy regulation and corporate gatekeeping. That is much less true for Internet publishing. Although, as Internet publishing becomes more and more centralised, the same regulations and gatekeeping are likely to emerge in similar form.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > Why is it that the means of distribution is relevant at all? The medium is the message [1]. Recitations and radio shows have as much in common as linear-TV talk shows and streamed ones. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message
    - cghukkvfdd 5y ago
      The only people who think that the medium is the message are people whose focus is studying media, and not messages. Kind of like "to the guy with a hammer everything looks like a nail" type.
vanilla_nut 5y ago
I prefer to call them Spodcasts. If you're exclusive to spotify, you're not really a podcast. You're a spodcast.

TulliusCicero 5y ago

That's actually a very fair take. Ultimately they're doing what's good for business, but, well, some of those choices still have consequences.

andrewzah 5y ago

I’ll gladly dig my own career grave for $100 million.

goodguyamericun 5y ago
Does JR get it per year?
- pan69 5y ago
  Looks like it is a multiyear licensing deal: > The deal with Mr. Rogan is a multiyear licensing agreement for an amount of time that couldn’t be learned. https://www.wsj.com/articles/spotify-strikes-exclusive-podcast-deal-with-joe-rogan-11589913814 https://www.wsj.com/articles/spotify-strikes-exclusive-podca...

TrispusAttucks 5y ago

Spotify competing with YouTube isn't the root problem. The people calling for censorship are the problem. This is the latest attack in an ongoing war on free speech. We are losing our freedoms. Today it's Joe Rogan's speech tomorrow it's yours.

mulletbum 5y ago
Joe Rogan got paid by a company to distribute his content with the right to not distribute any portion they want. If anything, Joe Rogan is giving up his free speech. No one is taking it. Anyone can make a podcast and put it out. Zero stopping them other than maybe money to buy a device to record and send it.
- TrispusAttucks 5y ago
  Be realistic. YouTube was really the only other platform option for mass distribution at JRE scale.
  - s5300 5y ago
    Forget about the magical think called thepiratebay ?
  - ViViDboarder 5y ago
    No. He could have continued distribution the same way he was prior. He also could have self distributed. He didn’t need a distribution platform because Podcasts don’t require it. Just an RSS feed. He sold out and this is what happens to sellouts.
    - jondwillis 5y ago
      In my experience, sellouts build penthouses and then have the clout and capital to start buying up the next crop of sellouts.
      - 5y ago

concinds 5y ago

The open web is dead. It's likely Rogan would have been banned from YouTube and Apple Podcasts had he not moved to Spotify. He could have moved to tiny platforms like Odysee or Rokfin that would likely have poor retention rates, or just relied on people adding his URL manually to Apple Podcasts, but come on. Nobody would do that. The "death of the open web" problem isn't creators somehow consistently choosing to empower companies that keep hurting them. Users are doing that, and creators follow. Imagine Tim Ferriss gets banned from all "non-open web" platforms today: podcast app indexes, Google Search, Twitter, Facebook, Spotify. We'll imagine he gets banned for zero reason: did nothing wrong, did nothing different, isn't any intrinsically less relevant or popular than he was yesterday. What's left is his website (if you remember the URL), and newsletter if you're already subscribed. You can add his podcast URL to your podcast app, but his podcast doesn't appear in Search. How much of his reach does he lose, overnight? 50%? 75%? Google Search isn't the "open web", and if they don't list you, you don't exist. How can one creator fix that?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
CodeGlitch 5y ago
> It's likely Rogan would have been banned from YouTube and Apple Podcasts had he not moved to Spotify. I'm not so sure. Just put the non controversial episodes on YouTube, then link and advertise the "problematic" episodes that are only available on your own platform. This is what the Lotus Eaters do: https://www.lotuseaters.com https://www.lotuseaters.com
- thrown_22 5y ago
  - leephillips 5y ago
    Do you have an example of someone who was banned in early 2020, or any time, for supporting masks?

loceng 5y ago

You think YouTube would have acted better if Rogan was still posting his full episodes there?

knorker 5y ago
But it was not an excluse deal with YouTube. He was on all the apps, now only Spotify.

MathMonkeyMan 5y ago

Dude, $100 million.

PUSH_AX 5y ago

> If he hadn’t done it he’d have none of these problems. I disagree, unless he has his own on prem platform. Which isn’t beyond the realm of possibility.

imgabe 5y ago

His previous method of distribution was YouTube, which notoriously removes and demonetizes content without warning or appeal, so the move to Spotify was meant to guard against that. I suppose at this point he could easily fund hosting the content himself if he can get out of the contract with Spotify.

shadowgovt 5y ago
One imagines he could solve this problem by doing what Fox News did and becoming his own platform. As a US publisher, the First Amendment protects his right to do so.

buzzwords 5y ago

The real issue is that no matter what, we were not allowed to hear from individuals because some people think their views are harmful to us. He would have always be reliant on others who can be put under pressure to remove jre from their platform

jolux 5y ago
Not the case with normal RSS-based podcasting.
afavour 5y ago
S3 bucket with an RSS feed. Done. And not about to be shut down.
- maccolgan 5y ago
  S3 bucket?

raverbashing 5y ago

> He didn’t have to take the deal that removed his podcast from open distribution and put it under corporate control. But he did For 100Mi? I'd have a very long list of things I would do for that price. "Selling out?" For sure. I wouldn't have a podcast with the guests he picked for the show on several topics, surely (but he wasn't made to have those guests). "Open podcast" is hard if you have to pay for bandwidth, and also it's just one of the most time consuming ways of generating content.

gsich 5y ago

Podcasts without RSS feeds are not podcasts. That is a strict technical requirement.

kuekacang 5y ago
We may agree by this definition. But when the public redefine podcast as something else, like “recorded talkshow audio”, you can only reinforce the definition so much.

yummypaint 5y ago

There is another dimension of choice being taken away as well. Spotify doesn't allow users to hide podcasts or rearrange the order in which things appear, so if you are an 18-34 male you have absolutely no choice but to see JRs face presented to you constantly with no way to remove it... It's functionally an unblockable banner ad even though im paying them. If i had the ability to just not see this podcast at all (like spotify already does for specific songs) i wouldn't have a horse in this race. However, being involuntarily subjected to something has a way of breeding intense dislike that wouldn't otherwise exist.

Handytinge 5y ago
This is why I cancelled Spotify. I don't use it for podcasts, I prefer to curate them myself. However since they started offering them, I now have thing that I can only describe as "ads" turning up every time I open Spotify. I started paying for Spotify years ago to remove ads, and now I appear to be paying _and_ getting ads.