10 ms·

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

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.
    - rhizome 5y ago
      Maybe not a penthouse, but... https://www.workandmoney.com/s/joe-rogans-house-austin-texas-dc70658dead7495c https://www.workandmoney.com/s/joe-rogans-house-austin-texas...
- johoho234 5y ago
  I don't understand why can't he just put his podcasts up on https://www.joerogan.com/ https://www.joerogan.com/ ? Why isn't anyone who think they have something to say that might be bad for business or controversial not just self-publish? It's normal that distributors and publications would be unsure about publishing controversial stuff that could be bad PR and bad for business, so self-publishing seems like the way to go.
  - can16358p 5y ago
    I think of two reasons: 1. He has an exclusive deal with Spotify preventing it. 2. To reach masses (masses != HN audience) you need to be on Spotify/Apple Music/YouTube. Not technically, but practically, it's a must.
    - johoho234 5y ago
      So greed?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  Freedom of speech is different from privilege of being advertised.
enchiridion 5y ago
This argument is so tired. You’re saying they have the right to censor, so say it. The counter argument is that censorship is bad in all its forms. It’s one I and many others support.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- almost_usual 5y ago
  So big government needs to dictate how the free market works? Seems very “free”.
  - enchiridion 5y ago
    Where did I say that? I can personally object to something without invoking the government to action.
    - almost_usual 5y ago
      So let the shareholders decide what’s best for Spotify.
      - enchiridion 5y ago
        Ya sure. But there are literally decision makers who frequent this forum, so if I object to something for sound reasons it’s worth saying so.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - atoav 5y ago
      So if the government can force spotify to publish all opinions, why should they not be able to force you to do the same on your blog? In the status quo private people and companies are allowed to not accept contributions on their websites. This is not censorship, this is their right as runners of a plattform. Joe rogan can always go and create his own if he finds that no one wants to publish him. I don't see how enabling the government to force people to publish speech they don't want to say isn't 100% worse than what we have now. It reminds me of stories from the soviet union.
atoav 5y ago
I am not American, I grew up in a country where everything Nazi is very much verboten (Austria, Germany). I was always quite curious about the American insistence on free speech. Today I feel free speech is worse off in the US than it is over here, purely for cultural reasons. Also: I thought the limits on the US idea of free speech was that things like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre would not be covered by free speech. But hasn't the internet created another kind of crowded theatre in which people can yell the online equivalent of "Fire!" to deal substantial damage to society? I think censorship is a slippery slope and I am not at all for it — yet I wonder if what we see here is just the beginning of society figuring out how to deal with free speech in the web. Finding the borders of what can reasonably be allowed, because "everything" proofed to be an unacceptably destructive answer to most.
- egeozcan 5y ago
  > Also: I thought the limits on the US idea of free speech was that things like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre would not be covered by free speech. But hasn't the internet created another kind of crowded theatre in which people can yell the online equivalent of "Fire!" to deal substantial damage to society? This is a very good point. Many extremists (left and right) are shouting "fascism!" or "communism!" and moving masses of people. The analogy works quite well.
  - Taurenking 5y ago
    Too bad only one side of the analogy gets banned. It's not a very well thought of equivalence when the individual can't even yell "I think there might be a fire" without being censored, because platforms think (and most of the time they're right) that consumers are too stupid.
    - egeozcan 5y ago
      > Too bad only one side of the analogy gets banned. I don't understand what you mean. > when the individual can't even yell "I think there might be a fire" without being censored Um, don't you think they should get banned when there isn't a fire?
nonethewiser 5y ago
Irrelevant in terms of what values should be exemplified. Not to mention you don't know the contract. The only public knowledge about the contract comes from Rogans description orbit, which contradicts what you're saying.

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.
  - rhizome 5y ago
    Maybe not a penthouse, but... https://www.workandmoney.com/s/joe-rogans-house-austin-texas-dc70658dead7495c https://www.workandmoney.com/s/joe-rogans-house-austin-texas...
johoho234 5y ago
I don't understand why can't he just put his podcasts up on https://www.joerogan.com/ https://www.joerogan.com/ ? Why isn't anyone who think they have something to say that might be bad for business or controversial not just self-publish? It's normal that distributors and publications would be unsure about publishing controversial stuff that could be bad PR and bad for business, so self-publishing seems like the way to go.
- can16358p 5y ago
  I think of two reasons: 1. He has an exclusive deal with Spotify preventing it. 2. To reach masses (masses != HN audience) you need to be on Spotify/Apple Music/YouTube. Not technically, but practically, it's a must.
  - johoho234 5y ago
    So greed?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
shadowgovt 5y ago
Freedom of speech is different from privilege of being advertised.

enchiridion 5y ago

This argument is so tired. You’re saying they have the right to censor, so say it. The counter argument is that censorship is bad in all its forms. It’s one I and many others support.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
almost_usual 5y ago
So big government needs to dictate how the free market works? Seems very “free”.
- enchiridion 5y ago
  Where did I say that? I can personally object to something without invoking the government to action.
  - almost_usual 5y ago
    So let the shareholders decide what’s best for Spotify.
    - enchiridion 5y ago
      Ya sure. But there are literally decision makers who frequent this forum, so if I object to something for sound reasons it’s worth saying so.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - atoav 5y ago
    So if the government can force spotify to publish all opinions, why should they not be able to force you to do the same on your blog? In the status quo private people and companies are allowed to not accept contributions on their websites. This is not censorship, this is their right as runners of a plattform. Joe rogan can always go and create his own if he finds that no one wants to publish him. I don't see how enabling the government to force people to publish speech they don't want to say isn't 100% worse than what we have now. It reminds me of stories from the soviet union.

atoav 5y ago

I am not American, I grew up in a country where everything Nazi is very much verboten (Austria, Germany). I was always quite curious about the American insistence on free speech. Today I feel free speech is worse off in the US than it is over here, purely for cultural reasons. Also: I thought the limits on the US idea of free speech was that things like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre would not be covered by free speech. But hasn't the internet created another kind of crowded theatre in which people can yell the online equivalent of "Fire!" to deal substantial damage to society? I think censorship is a slippery slope and I am not at all for it — yet I wonder if what we see here is just the beginning of society figuring out how to deal with free speech in the web. Finding the borders of what can reasonably be allowed, because "everything" proofed to be an unacceptably destructive answer to most.

egeozcan 5y ago
> Also: I thought the limits on the US idea of free speech was that things like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre would not be covered by free speech. But hasn't the internet created another kind of crowded theatre in which people can yell the online equivalent of "Fire!" to deal substantial damage to society? This is a very good point. Many extremists (left and right) are shouting "fascism!" or "communism!" and moving masses of people. The analogy works quite well.
- Taurenking 5y ago
  Too bad only one side of the analogy gets banned. It's not a very well thought of equivalence when the individual can't even yell "I think there might be a fire" without being censored, because platforms think (and most of the time they're right) that consumers are too stupid.
  - egeozcan 5y ago
    > Too bad only one side of the analogy gets banned. I don't understand what you mean. > when the individual can't even yell "I think there might be a fire" without being censored Um, don't you think they should get banned when there isn't a fire?

nonethewiser 5y ago

Irrelevant in terms of what values should be exemplified. Not to mention you don't know the contract. The only public knowledge about the contract comes from Rogans description orbit, which contradicts what you're saying.