12 ms·

Spotify’s CEO apologizes to employees over Joe Rogan controversy

62 points by ilamont 5y ago

jihadjihad 5y ago
> In his memo, Ek said the company is committing to “an incremental investment of $100 million” for licensing, development and marketing of music and audio content from historically marginalized groups. It's astounding that Joe Rogan's contract with Spotify is worth more [0] than what Spotify is willing to "incrementally invest" in content from marginalized groups. 0: https://www.wsj.com/articles/spotify-strikes-exclusive-podcast-deal-with-joe-rogan-11589913814 https://www.wsj.com/articles/spotify-strikes-exclusive-podca... Edit: What astounded me is that his contract was so huge, I had no idea until I just looked it up.
- nextlevelwizard 5y ago
  I dont get why you feel astonished by that. Being historically marginalized doesn't automatically mean you will bring in more money than JRE.
  - colejohnson66 5y ago
    When the commitment is triggered by Rogan's controversy, you'd expect this apology to include commitment for more. But maybe that's just me.
    - redisman 5y ago
      I would think it would be a lot less. One is buying very popular content for their core business, the other is appeasing a few employees/twitteristas
- Veen 5y ago
  It's a business, not a charity. Rogan is enormously popular. Content from marginalized groups is, almost by definition, less so.
  - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
    Rest assured they will be investing in only a tiny few of the very least marginalized people in said “marginalized groups.” That’s how identity politics works.
  - dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
    Indeed, spreading antivax sentiments, disinformation, racism and hate is big business. Spotify is a small player though and Facebook is the big winner in this category.
    - LoveGracePeace 5y ago
      If you're referring to Rogan, he isn't doing any of that and neither is Spotify that I'm aware of in this universe.
    - wonderwonder 5y ago
      have you ever listened to a full session of Rogan? This is pretty much the opposite of what he does. He has thoughtful conversations with a variety of people, including Bernie Sanders. He talks like normal people do when having a conversation.
      - Karsteski 5y ago
        Anyone who is boiling down media content to "spreading antivax sentiments, disinformation, racism and hate" is almost certainly repeating nonsense they've heard, and it's clear that this commenter has either never listened to a JRE episode or is purposefully being disingenuous.
        dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
        "This is not a vaccine, this is essentially a gene therapy." "Ivermectin alone is capable of driving this pathogen to extinction." "I don't think it's true there's an increased risk of myocarditis from people catching Covid-19 that are young, versus the risk from the vaccine." Guest claims that if you get vaccinated after having had Covid, you're at greater risk of harmful side effects. https://www.bbc.com/news/60199614 https://www.bbc.com/news/60199614
- mongol 5y ago
  Is it? I assume that they are both based on business valuations. Of course, Spotify did not know what they would get with Rogan, and probably would have paid less in retrospect. As it turned out he cost them more than 200 million when all is accounted for.
  - b112 5y ago
    There was also all that free advertising about the platform, when they signed him.
  - duck 5y ago
    > Spotify did not know what they would get with Rogan I think this could be true and at the same time I think they might have even paid him more knowing what they know now.
    - mongol 5y ago
      Yes perhaps. I think they would have liked to avoid the current controversy but in a month's time it may not matter.
  - dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
    > Spotify did not know what they would get with Rogan Really? They didn't view any of the 1700 something streams they imported ahead of the deal?
    - mongol 5y ago
      I think they did not expect this controversy
- filoleg 5y ago
  > It's astounding that Joe Rogan's contract with Spotify is worth more [0] than what Spotify is willing to "incrementally invest" in content from marginalized groups. Not saying that what Spotify is doing is the right thing to do, but it is a bit less surprising when you look at the viewership numbers[0] (I know it is a tweet, but it links to the official Nielsen chart with the numbers). It kind of blew me away to see it. JRE essentially has more viewers than the next 4 major shows combined (which are extremely mainstream, like major tv primetime averages or the Hannity show). The only thing that gets more viewers is Superbowl. 0. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FIMfLxpXMAgpgIs?format=jpg&name=small https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FIMfLxpXMAgpgIs?format=jpg&name=...
- nradov 5y ago
  The ironic thing is that the most popular podcasts today grew with no investment or marketing. Anyone can start a podcast for free! If the content is good then it will go viral and there's no need to spend $100M.
- wonderwonder 5y ago
  Why would they do that? would investing $100 million in "historically marginalized groups" bring as many new ears as Joe Rogan? I don't think it would, why would a company that is required to maximize returns to share holders and investors invest money they know would not bring the strongest returns? Its a business, not a charitable institution.
- kamaal 5y ago
  >>It's astounding that Joe Rogan's contract with Spotify is worth more [0] than what Spotify is willing to "incrementally invest" in content from marginalized groups. Capitalism can be very brutal at times. The approach capitalism takes when a restaurant business begins to fail is to ask 'How can I make tasty food for cheap, so that more people can buy from me?' This is really like asking why does Costo sell its hot dog deal for $1.50, why shouldn't they be more responsible selling a Salad or something. The right way to approach such questions is to ask, what do people want to eat?
gkoberger 5y ago
Spotify knows enough people won't churn to make a huge difference (and honestly, the people who sign up because of this might even balance it out). However, what they can't lose is employees. If they become a place nobody wants to work at, they're actually screwed. It's weird to see how inevitable the ending feels (to me, as an outsider). I'm 100% confident Joe Rogan will be removed from their platform; it's just a matter of how long it takes for Spotify to realize it's past the point of no return.
- exdsq 5y ago
  Which is just crazy. Out of all the things people could spend their times trying to improve, removing a podcaster from Spotify is very low on any rational list. Direct your energy at something important and get out of your bubble of anger at {popular to hate thing of the month}.
  - dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
    Arguably targeting the highest profile spreaders of misinformation and disinformation has the greatest impact, independent of the specific information.
    - ComradePhil 5y ago
      Experts in any field disagree. Why are opinions of some experts "misinformation" and "disinformation", specially when it is about something that we definitely don't know enough about?
      - alkonaut 5y ago
        That’s why you’d only label the absolutely worse horseshit as “misinformation”. It’s not simply a name for the minority position whereever where there isn’t consensus. More importantly it’s those areas where there is a time critical aspect to the misinformation or disinformation. Something that makes the idea of “hearing all opinions” not viable. Things that come to mind include “polls won’t open until tomorrow” (on Election Day). Or, in this case, medical information.
_-david-_ 5y ago
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  Rogan apologized too. No need for the "gotcha" act.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    So Spotify is only going apologize if somebody who says the N word also apologizes. Since all those musicians who used it aren't apologizing then Spotify won't?
    - long_time_gone 5y ago
      I don't know what Spotify will do. I am saying that we should take Rogan's word for it when he apologized for being offensive.
      - zozbot234 5y ago
        Rogan didn't apologize for 'being offensive', he did so for unknowingly causing offense by mentioning the so-called 'N-word' in sensible contexts. It ought to go without saying that taking offense at such mentions, as if someone were somehow inherently complicit with slavery and/or racism for the mere neutral utterance of even the most hateful slur can only be described as irrational, even magical thinking.
        long_time_gone 5y ago
        Except that isn't what he apologized for at all. It requires "irrational, even magical thinking" to interpret his words that way. From Rogan [1]: “the most regretful and shameful thing that I’ve ever had to talk about publicly.” “horrible, even to me.” “I was trying to make the story entertaining and I said it was like we got out and we were in Africa. It’s like we were in ‘Planet of the Apes,’” he said, adding that it was an “idiotic” thing to say that “looks terrible even in context.” [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/05/arts/music/joe-rogan-spotify-apology-slur.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/05/arts/music/joe-rogan-spot...
ur-whale 5y ago
https://archive.is/FBitx https://archive.is/FBitx
some-guy 5y ago
It's interesting to see how the economic model of the platform changes the controversy. If he were still on YouTube / generic podcast platforms, it's harder to become de-platformed, but of course you make less money.
cultofmetatron 5y ago
I watched the entire N word video. All his did was use it while quoting someone else or talking about the word himself. Crass, sure but hardly racist or transgressive against anyone. It would be highly offensive if he called someone that but thats not what happened here. And for the record, I'm very against his antivax stance, I just don't think he should be cencoered for it and he's certainly not a white supremecist
- roughly 5y ago
  > All his did was use it while quoting someone else or talking about the word himself. Crass, sure but hardly racist or transgressive against anyone. An awful lot of people disagree with you very strongly on that point.
  - cultofmetatron 5y ago
    those people need to get out of their bubble and realize there's a difference between a word and the intention.
    - roughly 5y ago
      I suspect that those people would argue with you that racial issues in this country are hardly a settled matter or history, that even unintentional acts can have consequences, and that a sort of willful blindness to both of those facts helps perpetuate, not solve, issues of racial disparity and injustice in this country.
      - Firmwarrior 5y ago
        Where does it stop, though? At this rate, another 20 years down the line someone is going to be digging up our social media posts and canceling us for saying "the N word" directly instead of more indirectly saying "vicious racial epithets"
        roughly 5y ago
dvt 5y ago
Here's a hot take for you, HN: this all started with the maniac known as Alex Jones. Everyone was okay with him getting deplatformed because he's a cooky conspiracy theorist that genuinely spreads insane misinformation (and was hurtful to Sandy Hook victims). Now, we're going after literal radio personalities. Tomorrow? Musicians? Authors? Book burning has never led to a socially-uplifting culture. I think being a free speech quasi-absolutist is the only viable position (apart from obvious edge-cases like yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater, fighting words, etc., which SCOTUS is very careful to delineate). Folks really need to read some John Stuart Mill. It's a shame to see such vitriolic response to a right our ancestors literally died for.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- CJefferson 5y ago
  Given Joe Rogan was given 100 million dollars, and is constantly pushed on the front page of my Spotify account, and his show continues, in what way is he being deplatformed, or silenced?
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    In that Spotify forcibly removed more than 100 of his episodes.
    - nickthegreek 5y ago
      They did no such thing. JRE requested the removal of those episodes.
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        I didn't notice that in the articles I read about it. Can you point out where one says that?
        5y ago
golergka 5y ago
One of the most depressing things in the 2022 is the amount of seemingly smart people from most developed democracies in the world who desperately want more censorship.
- serverholic 5y ago
  I think it stems from a rise in marxist thinking. Marx was obsessed with socioeconomic class and, in his mind, we should restructure society to eliminate classes because classes are oppressive. In this philosophy anything is acceptable if it means eliminating or reducing some form of oppression. So censorship is totally valid under this philosophy. Today, people don't talk much about "class" but the same ideas have been adapted to race, gender, and other areas that could be viewed as oppressive.
  - creata 5y ago
    > anything is acceptable if it means eliminating or reducing some form of oppression I don't know about Marx, but that sounds closer to a comic book villain than a real person. And skimming through some search results, it looks like he heavily supported freedom of the press.
    - serverholic 5y ago
      In the communist manifesto Marx advocates for the: > Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. The state controlling communications doesn't sound very free speech to me.
      - creata 5y ago
        Like I said, I don't know about Marx, and I don't know what he means by "the means of communication". But for one thing, it seems (from the paragraph above the line you quoted) that he views this as a necessary and temporary evil: > despotic inroads on the rights of property... unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production. And for another, he's also said to have said (in "Comments on the Latest Prussian Censorship Instruction"): > The real, radical cure for the censorship would be its abolition; for the institution itself is a bad one, and institutions are more powerful than people. That seems pretty unambiguously against censorship.
kerneloftruth 5y ago
The CEO should have instead come out at the start and said hey we're a platform for music and content for diverse tastes and interests. Some people might find some content undesirable. Period. Full stop. If employees really can't handle diversity of thought and expression, they should seek new, fresh employees (with hiring filters to screen out intolerant minds).
- pl0x 5y ago
  Most of these employees won't leave as well. The pay and benefits are too good at Spotify. It's all virtue signaling.
wonderwonder 5y ago
Brian Armstrong of Coinbase looks smarter everyday. Just tell the disgruntled employees that if they don't want to be there then leave, enough with the disruption of the workplace. Focus on your job.
- pl0x 5y ago
  All startups should have this mandate. Bringing politics into the job is destroying any innovation that is left in the US.
  - vanusa 5y ago
    Arguably, it was Spotify's decision to bring trolls like Rogan onto the platform, knowing full well that this is exactly what they were -- which was where politics got "brought into the job" in the first place. Not their employees' understandable disgust with that decision.
    - wonderwonder 5y ago
      1. You have clearly never listened to an entire episode of Rogan if you think he's a troll. 2. If the employees are disgusted and not just virtue signaling they should leave. The CEO should encourage them to do so.
      - vanusa 5y ago
        Re: 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test
        wonderwonder 5y ago
        So, you have never listened to a full episode then right... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect
        5y ago
elevenoh 5y ago
Checks in to see whether HN has gone full pro-censorship - not yet.
Taywee 5y ago
I don't care about any controversy what Rogan said. What I care about is that, as a paying customer who has no interest in podcasts at all, I have a podcast section front and center at the top of my home page with no way of removing it. I'm annoyed that many of these podcasts have pictures that are not safe for work when I try to use Spotify to listen to music at work. I'm annoyed about being automatically opted into pop-up advertisement despite paying for an ad-free experience. I am annoyed about more and more music that is nothing like any of my listening habits being mixed into more and more of my mixes, and later finding out that artists have the option to pay to have their music treated preferentially and inserted into unrelated streams. I'm annoyed that I have music playing regularly that I don't like and I don't want to listen to, but I can't simply tell Spotify to not play it in the future (the official response being "Just listen to more music that you do like, and the AI will learn eventually!") Spotify was a platform with an ad-supported model and a paid ad-free option, and now it's a platform with an ad-supported model and a slightly-more-subtle ad-supported paid option. Not worth it. A modern music platform having no ability to filter out music you don't want to listen to is unacceptable. The controversy has a lot to do with what's wrong with Spotify right now (podcast-pushing and chasing more and more ad revenue, treating even their paying customers as nothing more than an advertisement base to leverage for more revenue), but it is a symptom of the ad-revenue chasing greed that's infecting everything right now.
- Miner49er 5y ago
  Yeah, I think this is really what it comes down to. I'm in the same boat. I joined Spotify to stream music, not podcasts. Spotify has fully shown that they're going to put podcasts ahead of music at this point (probably because they can stuff in ads). This was the final straw for me. I've switched to a platform that focuses on music and pays artists more. I don't care about Rogan, and I don't think many people who are upset with Spotify do. They care that music doesn't seem to be Spotify's top priority.
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    > I've switched to a platform that focuses on music and pays artists more. What platform is that, and are you really sure? Every platform that has a free tier has dismal pay per play numbers. But what I care about is how much of my $10 per month the artists and songwriters get. AFAICT it's almost universally 70%. But I'd be happy to be corrected, because I'd be really easy to convert away from Spotify at the moment...
jebronie 5y ago
pl0x 5y ago
The woke mafia will destroy the US and Silicon Valley giving room for other tech centers like China, India, Nigeria, Kenya, and Russia. They will try to cancel everyone including their own. The US has a mid-term coming up and part of this is political warfare. While Facebook employees were busy with their gender neutral bathrooms, China was building Tiktok.
- fulafel 5y ago
  Spotify is a Swedish company.
- redisman 5y ago
  Hey I love gender neutral private bathrooms. Public stalls are barbaric. I wanna poop in peace #ally
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    This, but unironically. Single-occupancy restrooms are one of the best ways to deal with the whole distraction around restroom 'rights'.
    - redisman 5y ago
      I was also unironic. I really like private bathrooms and they often have that all genders sign on them
- epgui 5y ago
  I think the histrionic mafia will destroy reasonableness.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
I still hope they hold the line though. There has been enough cancellation of people lately. I was hoping the practice might become less trendy or the failure of twitter, whichever comes first.
vanusa 5y ago
“There are no words I can say to adequately convey how deeply sorry I am for the way The Joe Rogan Experience controversy continues to impact each of you,” Ek wrote in a memo obtained by the Los Angeles Times. “To be clear, his guests dropping the N-bomb left, right and center -- we knew about that all along, and never had a problem with it as such - as long as it came attached to a decent revenue stream. But when it became a controversy, and started to negatively impact our stock price -- that's when we started to have second thoughts."

62 points by ilamont 5y ago

> In his memo, Ek said the company is committing to “an incremental investment of $100 million” for licensing, development and marketing of music and audio content from historically marginalized groups. It's astounding that Joe Rogan's contract with Spotify is worth more [0] than what Spotify is willing to "incrementally invest" in content from marginalized groups. 0: https://www.wsj.com/articles/spotify-strikes-exclusive-podcast-deal-with-joe-rogan-11589913814 https://www.wsj.com/articles/spotify-strikes-exclusive-podca... Edit: What astounded me is that his contract was so huge, I had no idea until I just looked it up.

nextlevelwizard 5y ago
I dont get why you feel astonished by that. Being historically marginalized doesn't automatically mean you will bring in more money than JRE.
- colejohnson66 5y ago
  When the commitment is triggered by Rogan's controversy, you'd expect this apology to include commitment for more. But maybe that's just me.
  - redisman 5y ago
    I would think it would be a lot less. One is buying very popular content for their core business, the other is appeasing a few employees/twitteristas
Veen 5y ago
It's a business, not a charity. Rogan is enormously popular. Content from marginalized groups is, almost by definition, less so.
- nopenopenopeno 5y ago
  Rest assured they will be investing in only a tiny few of the very least marginalized people in said “marginalized groups.” That’s how identity politics works.
- dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
  Indeed, spreading antivax sentiments, disinformation, racism and hate is big business. Spotify is a small player though and Facebook is the big winner in this category.
  - LoveGracePeace 5y ago
    If you're referring to Rogan, he isn't doing any of that and neither is Spotify that I'm aware of in this universe.
  - wonderwonder 5y ago
    have you ever listened to a full session of Rogan? This is pretty much the opposite of what he does. He has thoughtful conversations with a variety of people, including Bernie Sanders. He talks like normal people do when having a conversation.
    - Karsteski 5y ago
      Anyone who is boiling down media content to "spreading antivax sentiments, disinformation, racism and hate" is almost certainly repeating nonsense they've heard, and it's clear that this commenter has either never listened to a JRE episode or is purposefully being disingenuous.
      - dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
        "This is not a vaccine, this is essentially a gene therapy." "Ivermectin alone is capable of driving this pathogen to extinction." "I don't think it's true there's an increased risk of myocarditis from people catching Covid-19 that are young, versus the risk from the vaccine." Guest claims that if you get vaccinated after having had Covid, you're at greater risk of harmful side effects. https://www.bbc.com/news/60199614 https://www.bbc.com/news/60199614
mongol 5y ago
Is it? I assume that they are both based on business valuations. Of course, Spotify did not know what they would get with Rogan, and probably would have paid less in retrospect. As it turned out he cost them more than 200 million when all is accounted for.
- b112 5y ago
  There was also all that free advertising about the platform, when they signed him.
- duck 5y ago
  > Spotify did not know what they would get with Rogan I think this could be true and at the same time I think they might have even paid him more knowing what they know now.
  - mongol 5y ago
    Yes perhaps. I think they would have liked to avoid the current controversy but in a month's time it may not matter.
- dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
  > Spotify did not know what they would get with Rogan Really? They didn't view any of the 1700 something streams they imported ahead of the deal?
  - mongol 5y ago
    I think they did not expect this controversy
filoleg 5y ago
> It's astounding that Joe Rogan's contract with Spotify is worth more [0] than what Spotify is willing to "incrementally invest" in content from marginalized groups. Not saying that what Spotify is doing is the right thing to do, but it is a bit less surprising when you look at the viewership numbers[0] (I know it is a tweet, but it links to the official Nielsen chart with the numbers). It kind of blew me away to see it. JRE essentially has more viewers than the next 4 major shows combined (which are extremely mainstream, like major tv primetime averages or the Hannity show). The only thing that gets more viewers is Superbowl. 0. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FIMfLxpXMAgpgIs?format=jpg&name=small https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FIMfLxpXMAgpgIs?format=jpg&name=...
nradov 5y ago
The ironic thing is that the most popular podcasts today grew with no investment or marketing. Anyone can start a podcast for free! If the content is good then it will go viral and there's no need to spend $100M.
wonderwonder 5y ago
Why would they do that? would investing $100 million in "historically marginalized groups" bring as many new ears as Joe Rogan? I don't think it would, why would a company that is required to maximize returns to share holders and investors invest money they know would not bring the strongest returns? Its a business, not a charitable institution.
kamaal 5y ago
>>It's astounding that Joe Rogan's contract with Spotify is worth more [0] than what Spotify is willing to "incrementally invest" in content from marginalized groups. Capitalism can be very brutal at times. The approach capitalism takes when a restaurant business begins to fail is to ask 'How can I make tasty food for cheap, so that more people can buy from me?' This is really like asking why does Costo sell its hot dog deal for $1.50, why shouldn't they be more responsible selling a Salad or something. The right way to approach such questions is to ask, what do people want to eat?

gkoberger 5y ago

Spotify knows enough people won't churn to make a huge difference (and honestly, the people who sign up because of this might even balance it out). However, what they can't lose is employees. If they become a place nobody wants to work at, they're actually screwed. It's weird to see how inevitable the ending feels (to me, as an outsider). I'm 100% confident Joe Rogan will be removed from their platform; it's just a matter of how long it takes for Spotify to realize it's past the point of no return.

exdsq 5y ago
Which is just crazy. Out of all the things people could spend their times trying to improve, removing a podcaster from Spotify is very low on any rational list. Direct your energy at something important and get out of your bubble of anger at {popular to hate thing of the month}.
- dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
  Arguably targeting the highest profile spreaders of misinformation and disinformation has the greatest impact, independent of the specific information.
  - ComradePhil 5y ago
    Experts in any field disagree. Why are opinions of some experts "misinformation" and "disinformation", specially when it is about something that we definitely don't know enough about?
    - alkonaut 5y ago
      That’s why you’d only label the absolutely worse horseshit as “misinformation”. It’s not simply a name for the minority position whereever where there isn’t consensus. More importantly it’s those areas where there is a time critical aspect to the misinformation or disinformation. Something that makes the idea of “hearing all opinions” not viable. Things that come to mind include “polls won’t open until tomorrow” (on Election Day). Or, in this case, medical information.

_-david-_ 5y ago

long_time_gone 5y ago
Rogan apologized too. No need for the "gotcha" act.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  So Spotify is only going apologize if somebody who says the N word also apologizes. Since all those musicians who used it aren't apologizing then Spotify won't?
  - long_time_gone 5y ago
    I don't know what Spotify will do. I am saying that we should take Rogan's word for it when he apologized for being offensive.
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      Rogan didn't apologize for 'being offensive', he did so for unknowingly causing offense by mentioning the so-called 'N-word' in sensible contexts. It ought to go without saying that taking offense at such mentions, as if someone were somehow inherently complicit with slavery and/or racism for the mere neutral utterance of even the most hateful slur can only be described as irrational, even magical thinking.
      - long_time_gone 5y ago
        Except that isn't what he apologized for at all. It requires "irrational, even magical thinking" to interpret his words that way. From Rogan [1]: “the most regretful and shameful thing that I’ve ever had to talk about publicly.” “horrible, even to me.” “I was trying to make the story entertaining and I said it was like we got out and we were in Africa. It’s like we were in ‘Planet of the Apes,’” he said, adding that it was an “idiotic” thing to say that “looks terrible even in context.” [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/05/arts/music/joe-rogan-spotify-apology-slur.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/05/arts/music/joe-rogan-spot...

ur-whale 5y ago

https://archive.is/FBitx https://archive.is/FBitx

some-guy 5y ago

It's interesting to see how the economic model of the platform changes the controversy. If he were still on YouTube / generic podcast platforms, it's harder to become de-platformed, but of course you make less money.

cultofmetatron 5y ago

I watched the entire N word video. All his did was use it while quoting someone else or talking about the word himself. Crass, sure but hardly racist or transgressive against anyone. It would be highly offensive if he called someone that but thats not what happened here. And for the record, I'm very against his antivax stance, I just don't think he should be cencoered for it and he's certainly not a white supremecist

roughly 5y ago
> All his did was use it while quoting someone else or talking about the word himself. Crass, sure but hardly racist or transgressive against anyone. An awful lot of people disagree with you very strongly on that point.
- cultofmetatron 5y ago
  those people need to get out of their bubble and realize there's a difference between a word and the intention.
  - roughly 5y ago
    I suspect that those people would argue with you that racial issues in this country are hardly a settled matter or history, that even unintentional acts can have consequences, and that a sort of willful blindness to both of those facts helps perpetuate, not solve, issues of racial disparity and injustice in this country.
    - Firmwarrior 5y ago
      Where does it stop, though? At this rate, another 20 years down the line someone is going to be digging up our social media posts and canceling us for saying "the N word" directly instead of more indirectly saying "vicious racial epithets"
      - roughly 5y ago

dvt 5y ago

Here's a hot take for you, HN: this all started with the maniac known as Alex Jones. Everyone was okay with him getting deplatformed because he's a cooky conspiracy theorist that genuinely spreads insane misinformation (and was hurtful to Sandy Hook victims). Now, we're going after literal radio personalities. Tomorrow? Musicians? Authors? Book burning has never led to a socially-uplifting culture. I think being a free speech quasi-absolutist is the only viable position (apart from obvious edge-cases like yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater, fighting words, etc., which SCOTUS is very careful to delineate). Folks really need to read some John Stuart Mill. It's a shame to see such vitriolic response to a right our ancestors literally died for.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
CJefferson 5y ago
Given Joe Rogan was given 100 million dollars, and is constantly pushed on the front page of my Spotify account, and his show continues, in what way is he being deplatformed, or silenced?
- josephcsible 5y ago
  In that Spotify forcibly removed more than 100 of his episodes.
  - nickthegreek 5y ago
    They did no such thing. JRE requested the removal of those episodes.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      I didn't notice that in the articles I read about it. Can you point out where one says that?
      - 5y ago

golergka 5y ago

One of the most depressing things in the 2022 is the amount of seemingly smart people from most developed democracies in the world who desperately want more censorship.

serverholic 5y ago
I think it stems from a rise in marxist thinking. Marx was obsessed with socioeconomic class and, in his mind, we should restructure society to eliminate classes because classes are oppressive. In this philosophy anything is acceptable if it means eliminating or reducing some form of oppression. So censorship is totally valid under this philosophy. Today, people don't talk much about "class" but the same ideas have been adapted to race, gender, and other areas that could be viewed as oppressive.
- creata 5y ago
  > anything is acceptable if it means eliminating or reducing some form of oppression I don't know about Marx, but that sounds closer to a comic book villain than a real person. And skimming through some search results, it looks like he heavily supported freedom of the press.
  - serverholic 5y ago
    In the communist manifesto Marx advocates for the: > Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. The state controlling communications doesn't sound very free speech to me.
    - creata 5y ago
      Like I said, I don't know about Marx, and I don't know what he means by "the means of communication". But for one thing, it seems (from the paragraph above the line you quoted) that he views this as a necessary and temporary evil: > despotic inroads on the rights of property... unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production. And for another, he's also said to have said (in "Comments on the Latest Prussian Censorship Instruction"): > The real, radical cure for the censorship would be its abolition; for the institution itself is a bad one, and institutions are more powerful than people. That seems pretty unambiguously against censorship.

kerneloftruth 5y ago

The CEO should have instead come out at the start and said hey we're a platform for music and content for diverse tastes and interests. Some people might find some content undesirable. Period. Full stop. If employees really can't handle diversity of thought and expression, they should seek new, fresh employees (with hiring filters to screen out intolerant minds).

pl0x 5y ago
Most of these employees won't leave as well. The pay and benefits are too good at Spotify. It's all virtue signaling.

wonderwonder 5y ago

Brian Armstrong of Coinbase looks smarter everyday. Just tell the disgruntled employees that if they don't want to be there then leave, enough with the disruption of the workplace. Focus on your job.

pl0x 5y ago
All startups should have this mandate. Bringing politics into the job is destroying any innovation that is left in the US.
- vanusa 5y ago
  Arguably, it was Spotify's decision to bring trolls like Rogan onto the platform, knowing full well that this is exactly what they were -- which was where politics got "brought into the job" in the first place. Not their employees' understandable disgust with that decision.
  - wonderwonder 5y ago
    1. You have clearly never listened to an entire episode of Rogan if you think he's a troll. 2. If the employees are disgusted and not just virtue signaling they should leave. The CEO should encourage them to do so.
    - vanusa 5y ago
      Re: 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test
      - wonderwonder 5y ago
        So, you have never listened to a full episode then right... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_effect
        5y ago

elevenoh 5y ago

Checks in to see whether HN has gone full pro-censorship - not yet.

Taywee 5y ago

I don't care about any controversy what Rogan said. What I care about is that, as a paying customer who has no interest in podcasts at all, I have a podcast section front and center at the top of my home page with no way of removing it. I'm annoyed that many of these podcasts have pictures that are not safe for work when I try to use Spotify to listen to music at work. I'm annoyed about being automatically opted into pop-up advertisement despite paying for an ad-free experience. I am annoyed about more and more music that is nothing like any of my listening habits being mixed into more and more of my mixes, and later finding out that artists have the option to pay to have their music treated preferentially and inserted into unrelated streams. I'm annoyed that I have music playing regularly that I don't like and I don't want to listen to, but I can't simply tell Spotify to not play it in the future (the official response being "Just listen to more music that you do like, and the AI will learn eventually!") Spotify was a platform with an ad-supported model and a paid ad-free option, and now it's a platform with an ad-supported model and a slightly-more-subtle ad-supported paid option. Not worth it. A modern music platform having no ability to filter out music you don't want to listen to is unacceptable. The controversy has a lot to do with what's wrong with Spotify right now (podcast-pushing and chasing more and more ad revenue, treating even their paying customers as nothing more than an advertisement base to leverage for more revenue), but it is a symptom of the ad-revenue chasing greed that's infecting everything right now.

Miner49er 5y ago
Yeah, I think this is really what it comes down to. I'm in the same boat. I joined Spotify to stream music, not podcasts. Spotify has fully shown that they're going to put podcasts ahead of music at this point (probably because they can stuff in ads). This was the final straw for me. I've switched to a platform that focuses on music and pays artists more. I don't care about Rogan, and I don't think many people who are upset with Spotify do. They care that music doesn't seem to be Spotify's top priority.
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  > I've switched to a platform that focuses on music and pays artists more. What platform is that, and are you really sure? Every platform that has a free tier has dismal pay per play numbers. But what I care about is how much of my $10 per month the artists and songwriters get. AFAICT it's almost universally 70%. But I'd be happy to be corrected, because I'd be really easy to convert away from Spotify at the moment...

jebronie 5y ago

pl0x 5y ago

The woke mafia will destroy the US and Silicon Valley giving room for other tech centers like China, India, Nigeria, Kenya, and Russia. They will try to cancel everyone including their own. The US has a mid-term coming up and part of this is political warfare. While Facebook employees were busy with their gender neutral bathrooms, China was building Tiktok.

fulafel 5y ago
Spotify is a Swedish company.
redisman 5y ago
Hey I love gender neutral private bathrooms. Public stalls are barbaric. I wanna poop in peace #ally
- zozbot234 5y ago
  This, but unironically. Single-occupancy restrooms are one of the best ways to deal with the whole distraction around restroom 'rights'.
  - redisman 5y ago
    I was also unironic. I really like private bathrooms and they often have that all genders sign on them
epgui 5y ago
I think the histrionic mafia will destroy reasonableness.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

I still hope they hold the line though. There has been enough cancellation of people lately. I was hoping the practice might become less trendy or the failure of twitter, whichever comes first.

vanusa 5y ago

“There are no words I can say to adequately convey how deeply sorry I am for the way The Joe Rogan Experience controversy continues to impact each of you,” Ek wrote in a memo obtained by the Los Angeles Times. “To be clear, his guests dropping the N-bomb left, right and center -- we knew about that all along, and never had a problem with it as such - as long as it came attached to a decent revenue stream. But when it became a controversy, and started to negatively impact our stock price -- that's when we started to have second thoughts."