8 ms·

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.

by 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.
    - aksss 5y ago
      There's always a convenient excuse for censorship. Who defines "worse horseshit" today? Tomorrow? Show me the information and I'll find an excuse. A better standard is whether the communication rises to criminal offense or civil matter that caused harm (e.g. voter/election fraud, some sort of willful disregard/negligence). In other words, there's a standard/mechanism for redress already (there's an app for that). If opinion doesn't violate a law or expose someone to a likely successful civil suit, you should be free to express it. Hard for me to imagine scenarios where this doesn't satisfy requirements. If you're concerned about timeliness, keep in mind that censorship doesn't happen quickly enough to stop the election fraud example you gave, unless you are advocating a 'ministry of information' scenario where conversations need to pre-approval to be aired - I would assume you would not advocate for such a thing, in principle.
      - alkonaut 5y ago
        > If opinion doesn't violate a law or expose someone to a likely successful civil suit, you should be free to express Absolutely. I don’t think we are arguing freedom of speech here. > If you're concerned about timeliness, keep in mind that censorship doesn't happen quickly enough to stop the election fraud example you gave Is the fact that it’s futile a good reason to say that obvious fraud should not be removed on sight? > A better standard is whether the communication rises to criminal offense or civil matter that caused harm (e.g. voter/election fraud, some sort of willful disregard/negligence). In other words, there's a standard/mechanism for redress already (there's an app for that). That’s the bar for the law. Obviously the bar for anyone such as a broadcaster can be set at that point or lower. A company has to follow the law obviously but here the question is probably what to employees, prospective employees, customers, investors etc feel. The company adds up the numbers and decides who to include in their platform. Because it’s important to keep in mind that companies promote a select few voices on a platform. They don’t censor away an uncomfortable voice. They chose not to be the megaphone. I’m not sure what the alternative is to the situation we are seeing? Forcing platforms to give everyone a voice? There will always be arbitrary moderation and association in free media. Because it’s part of what free media is. We can’t have a free press without self-censorship.
        aksss 5y ago
        > I don't think we're arguing free speech "Free speech" is being progressively constrained to prevent "offense" and attacked with the murky dog whistle of "misinformation" or disloyalty (most commonly Russian agency), causing a national debate in the process. > should not be removed on sight? I just meant that 'on sight' is often too late to be any more effective than legal action for the Election Day example you gave. The prospective "damage" we risk in most cases that we hear stories about today is highly debatable (next point). > Alternative to the situation we're seeing We would need to agree on the situation "we" are seeing before focusing too much on solutions. I see outsized and misplaced risk intolerance. Indeed, intolerance for open dialogue and skeptical challenge generally if it contrasts with the government/institutional positions. The rapidity with which (ex-CIA now state department) spokesman Ned Price started accusing AP reporter Matt Lee of disloyalty a few days ago is pretty shocking and gross. But that's our reality right now. > We can't have a free press without self-censorship I think I very much disagree with this, but may not be understanding the statement. When you say "self" censorship, does that mean you and I showing restraint (systemically unreliable), or (industry collaboration with) a centralized institution (as in the royal "We") which would not be 'self-censorship' by definition? I think you can have free press without institutional censorship as long as we aren't speaking in complete absolutes and are acknowledging a place for the rule of law. Why? We've been modeling it pretty well for a while, and while everyone imagines the times they are living in are unprecedented, this country has faced far worse crises and managed to hold on to some bedrock principles unique to its model of government (delegated powers and inalienable rights of the people). What's really changed that requires a new call for censorship? I know of a few reporters making the case that we can never compete with China unless we become effectively more 'totalitarian' ourselves. I dismiss the reasoning out of hand entirely. I've heard some other reasons revolving around danger and offense but very wooly and inarticulate definitions/constraints that makes me think risk outweighs reward by a large margin.
    - tablespoon 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. I think there's a gray area: minority scientific position that's being hyped by a faction for political reasons (e.g. a faction that's cherry picking outlier studies for the sole reason that they support their pre-existing policy preferences). Now some might argue that "both sides" do that, and to a degree they might be right. However, I think there's another heuristic that helps avoid paralysis due to that: if both sides aren't trying to solve the problem in good faith, pick the one that is, and reject the one that's just reacting against proposed solutions.
    - ComradePhil 5y ago
      > That’s why you’d only label the absolutely worse horseshit as “misinformation”. Joe Rogan is primarily being attacked for bringing in Dr. Peter McCallaugh. Name one thing that he has said that is "misinformation".
  - okl 5y ago
    > Experts in any field disagree. Why are opinions of some experts "misinformation" and "disinformation" Find out if/why the experts are justified to hold their respective opinion, evaluate the facts and come to a conclusion. Just because someone says something does not make it true. Regardless if that person is an expert or not.
    - aksss 5y ago
      I agree with your approach if it's us as individuals making the evaluation, but if it's some centralized authority (even the private/public censorship arrangement as we have now) "clearing" allowable conversation in the public sphere, then would completely disagree. Free and open dialog is a hill to die on. One of those political principles that is, for me, more important than any 'safety' or conformity benefit claimed from censorship. I confess to being a bit gobsmacked that this is even a debate in the U.S., for as many times as it's been had and litigated in the past.
      - okl 5y ago
        Oh sure, I don't support that. I would love to see people reward quality information instead of sentational infotainment with their "clicks" but alas that's not the world we're living in. -- What to do?
- jimmyjazz14 5y ago
  I don't know if that's true, attempts to censor information tends to lend credibility to those being censored.
- redisman 5y ago
  What impact? He’ll literally peace out with his $100M back to YouTube and free aggregators like Apple with much larger reach. He’s also the most popular podcast! So he wont have any problems finding a new network if need be. These people are delusional if they think they can change anything
- aksss 5y ago
  Does that include governments? Or is there no objective standard -- the mis/disinformation is whatever the (local/state/federal) government is not currently supporting? It's obviously a slippery slope approaching censorship this way. Mis/disinformation should not be conceived of as skeptical questioning that may lead to dumb people making bad choices. That's a level of second-guessing and faux-benign concern that cannot guide policies of censorship. Skeptical questioning, dialog, and debate is more beneficial for society than it is dangerous to dumb people (who are high-risk even without overhearing the speculative conversations of others). There is some level of acceptable risk, whether it's vehicular traffic, or allowing people to speak their mind. Think about the societal product of ten years living where skepticism of government is effectively outlawed vs a government routinely subjected to open skepticism. I think the latter is a stronger society.
tombert 5y ago
At the risk of starting a flame war, if people see something bad, even if it is {popular to hate thing of the month}, should nothing be done about it?
- pcan77 5y ago
  Pretty sure racist remarks on the podcast and use of n-word casually isn't {popular to hate thing of the month}, so I respectfully disagree heavily with you here.
  - tombert 5y ago
    I don't think we actually disagree here; I totally think that racist remarks and casual use of the N-word is pretty bad, more than just a cringy thing to hate in a month. I was trying to say that, using the parent comment's framework, even if it was the {popular thing to hate of the month} (which it isn't), if it is sufficiently bad, something should be done about it regardless.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    If you listened to them in context they weren't racist. I listened to at least 5 of them in context, and they weren't racist and mostly portraying the opposite, so I'm satisfied he's not racist and this is a made up out of context attack as is typical of extremists. They post sound bites without context to enrage weak-minded people who won't seek out clarity on the situation. It's a tactic as old as propaganda.
- ytNumbers 5y ago
  People consider misinformation to be bad. The problem with censoring it is that I can think of many important instances in my lifetime where accepted narratives were later debunked and misinformation later became accepted fact. Since our understanding of COVID-19 has shifted quite a bit over the past two years, it seems to me the proper thing to do is to let people have freedom of speech.
- exdsq 5y ago
  I think it depends on so many things. In this particular case there are far worse problems in the world than Joe Rogan quoting someone and using the N word. I completely disagree with his stance on vaccinations but I also disagree that he's some sort of major source of disinformation. In the general case, I think it's bad that the socially expected thing at the moment is to be angry at {something}. It is both bad for peoples mental health and in general and it detracts from more serious issues in the world. Take for example the situation in Ukraine. Wouldn't it be more effective to be vocal to our politicians to say we don't want to start some catastrophic war there than to try and force a tech company to remove a podcast host? If Joe Rogan isn't removed, will people even remember this discussion in three months? Probably not, because by that time {someone} will have said {something} and everyone will be tweeting angry thoughts at them instead.
gkoberger 5y ago
Right or wrong (I think right, personally), a lot of people have a lot of time on their hands because they're sitting at home due to a pandemic (while loved ones are getting sick). This is different than normal "cancelling" over a bad joke; it's about being tired of misinformation being spread that is elongating this virus and causing countless deaths.
- LoveGracePeace 5y ago
  Not a big fan of Rogan but he isn't spreading misinformation, he's speaking his mind, voicing his opinion. There was a time only a few years ago when this was a time honored concept called Freedom of Speech.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    I agree. I think he has some dumb takes on things, but I actually signed UP for spotify as a result. Before I was just using a combination of adblockers to block 90% of spotify's ads.
  - redisman 5y ago
    It’s pretty crazy how anyone talking outside of the party line is now a racist and a anti-vaxxer and god knows what. You can’t stop people from thinking differently from you unless you’re willing to instate a China-level state
- dgfitz 5y ago
  > sitting at home due to a pandemic People are still sitting at home? That is not my experience even a little bit.
  - agilob 5y ago
    >People are still sitting at home? That is not my experience even a little bit. In a company I work for not a single person came back to our local office, in fact, many people decided to move further away from the city and we said publicly that forced coming back to the office will mean changing jobs for us. That's coming from ~150 developers and testers. Even my neighbour who works in a call centre works 4 of 5 days from home... Like is anyone coming back to your fancy cubicles or dirty openspaces?
nextlevelwizard 5y ago
I haven't really followed Rogan's show since it became Spotify exclusive, but unless stuff has really went off the rails I don't recognize the qualities people are painting on him. I don't know if this is some 4D chess move from Spotify, but I actually had to take a look at the two "antivax" episodes and neither had antivax message. So either this is all very clever marketing from Spotify or people try to make Rogan look bad for whatever reason and they don't realize that if you out right lie about things that are easy to verify it makes everything else you push less credible.
- weeblewobble 5y ago
  “If you’re, like, 21 years old, and you say to me, ‘Should I get vaccinated?’ I’ll go ‘No,’” - Joe Rogan, 4/23/21
  - exdsq 5y ago
    This was almost a year ago when vaccines were still new and the death/hospitalization rates of healthy 21 years olds from COVID is basically zero. I’m 27 and have my jabs, and suggest others get theirs too, but I totally understand this perspective. In fact you couldn’t even get your vaccines in the UK last April at 21.
    - weeblewobble 5y ago
      This is a bit of kitchen sink argument-- it was a long time ago! young people actually don't need the vaccine! he's just sharing his perspective! British people couldn't get vaccinated in April! None of which addresses the claim in OP that people calling Joe Rogan "anti-vaxx" are "outright lying". It is anti-vaccine to encourage young people not to get vaccinated. Simple as that.
      - lamontcg 5y ago
        > young people actually don't need the vaccine! SARS-CoV-2 causes much higher rates of myocarditis in kids than the vaccines do: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm Kids should still get vaccinated. They are at low risk from SARS-CoV-2, but risk of the vaccines are still even lower.
furgooswft13 5y ago
> Direct your energy at something important Like paying musicians reasonable amounts of money per stream? People have been complaining about this since the very beginning of Spotify. But as usual woke nonsense takes up all the air in the room because it's fiscally irrelevant.
Johnny555 5y ago
removing a podcaster from Spotify is very low on any rational list. Direct your energy at something important If someone is really offended or disagree with what he's broadcasting, then why do you think that removing him would be low on any rational list? His podcast reaches 11 million listeners, so getting him off the air seems like it would be pretty impactful.
- exdsq 5y ago
  Let’s assume what he’s said is awful and needs to be removed because it’s dangerous. I disagree with this, but I’ll assume it’s the case. Spotify removes him. He goes to YouTube or something. His fans go there. Zero tangible impact. This can actually go far worse - after the Trump subreddits got taken down they moved to another domain which is a clone of Reddit but only about Trump and now you have a smaller echo chamber with the same people attending but less counter-information or moderation. So it’s possible that you can make things worse this way too. It could make an impact if he was banned from Spotify and then quit podcasts entirely, but that’s not likely because it’s so popular. All the time we discuss this we aren’t addressing truly horrific issues like Chinese persecution of Muslim minorities or the mobilization of troops in Ukraine or other things that people will actually remember in a few months or the UK government doing all sorts of interesting things.
  - Johnny555 5y ago
    His fans go there. But will they all follow him there? If 10% of his fans don't, then he's talking to a million fewer people than he used to. And, of course, if he says the same thing on Youtube, they'll start the same campaign to drop him from there too, until all that's left are niche providers where it's harder for people to find him. Like you, I don't agree that he's said anything so bad that he deserves to be kicked off spotify or any platform, but if someone is passionate about it, doing so would reduce his reach, at least temporarily.
    - bmelton 5y ago
      Arguably, Joe has done more for Spotify than Spotify has done for Joe (ignoring the $100 million deal) Him moving to Youtube or somewhere that isn't paywalled likely increases his availability to those who aren't willing to pay to listen to him

by exdsq 5y ago

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.
  - aksss 5y ago
    There's always a convenient excuse for censorship. Who defines "worse horseshit" today? Tomorrow? Show me the information and I'll find an excuse. A better standard is whether the communication rises to criminal offense or civil matter that caused harm (e.g. voter/election fraud, some sort of willful disregard/negligence). In other words, there's a standard/mechanism for redress already (there's an app for that). If opinion doesn't violate a law or expose someone to a likely successful civil suit, you should be free to express it. Hard for me to imagine scenarios where this doesn't satisfy requirements. If you're concerned about timeliness, keep in mind that censorship doesn't happen quickly enough to stop the election fraud example you gave, unless you are advocating a 'ministry of information' scenario where conversations need to pre-approval to be aired - I would assume you would not advocate for such a thing, in principle.
    - alkonaut 5y ago
      > If opinion doesn't violate a law or expose someone to a likely successful civil suit, you should be free to express Absolutely. I don’t think we are arguing freedom of speech here. > If you're concerned about timeliness, keep in mind that censorship doesn't happen quickly enough to stop the election fraud example you gave Is the fact that it’s futile a good reason to say that obvious fraud should not be removed on sight? > A better standard is whether the communication rises to criminal offense or civil matter that caused harm (e.g. voter/election fraud, some sort of willful disregard/negligence). In other words, there's a standard/mechanism for redress already (there's an app for that). That’s the bar for the law. Obviously the bar for anyone such as a broadcaster can be set at that point or lower. A company has to follow the law obviously but here the question is probably what to employees, prospective employees, customers, investors etc feel. The company adds up the numbers and decides who to include in their platform. Because it’s important to keep in mind that companies promote a select few voices on a platform. They don’t censor away an uncomfortable voice. They chose not to be the megaphone. I’m not sure what the alternative is to the situation we are seeing? Forcing platforms to give everyone a voice? There will always be arbitrary moderation and association in free media. Because it’s part of what free media is. We can’t have a free press without self-censorship.
      - aksss 5y ago
        > I don't think we're arguing free speech "Free speech" is being progressively constrained to prevent "offense" and attacked with the murky dog whistle of "misinformation" or disloyalty (most commonly Russian agency), causing a national debate in the process. > should not be removed on sight? I just meant that 'on sight' is often too late to be any more effective than legal action for the Election Day example you gave. The prospective "damage" we risk in most cases that we hear stories about today is highly debatable (next point). > Alternative to the situation we're seeing We would need to agree on the situation "we" are seeing before focusing too much on solutions. I see outsized and misplaced risk intolerance. Indeed, intolerance for open dialogue and skeptical challenge generally if it contrasts with the government/institutional positions. The rapidity with which (ex-CIA now state department) spokesman Ned Price started accusing AP reporter Matt Lee of disloyalty a few days ago is pretty shocking and gross. But that's our reality right now. > We can't have a free press without self-censorship I think I very much disagree with this, but may not be understanding the statement. When you say "self" censorship, does that mean you and I showing restraint (systemically unreliable), or (industry collaboration with) a centralized institution (as in the royal "We") which would not be 'self-censorship' by definition? I think you can have free press without institutional censorship as long as we aren't speaking in complete absolutes and are acknowledging a place for the rule of law. Why? We've been modeling it pretty well for a while, and while everyone imagines the times they are living in are unprecedented, this country has faced far worse crises and managed to hold on to some bedrock principles unique to its model of government (delegated powers and inalienable rights of the people). What's really changed that requires a new call for censorship? I know of a few reporters making the case that we can never compete with China unless we become effectively more 'totalitarian' ourselves. I dismiss the reasoning out of hand entirely. I've heard some other reasons revolving around danger and offense but very wooly and inarticulate definitions/constraints that makes me think risk outweighs reward by a large margin.
  - tablespoon 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. I think there's a gray area: minority scientific position that's being hyped by a faction for political reasons (e.g. a faction that's cherry picking outlier studies for the sole reason that they support their pre-existing policy preferences). Now some might argue that "both sides" do that, and to a degree they might be right. However, I think there's another heuristic that helps avoid paralysis due to that: if both sides aren't trying to solve the problem in good faith, pick the one that is, and reject the one that's just reacting against proposed solutions.
  - ComradePhil 5y ago
    > That’s why you’d only label the absolutely worse horseshit as “misinformation”. Joe Rogan is primarily being attacked for bringing in Dr. Peter McCallaugh. Name one thing that he has said that is "misinformation".
- okl 5y ago
  > Experts in any field disagree. Why are opinions of some experts "misinformation" and "disinformation" Find out if/why the experts are justified to hold their respective opinion, evaluate the facts and come to a conclusion. Just because someone says something does not make it true. Regardless if that person is an expert or not.
  - aksss 5y ago
    I agree with your approach if it's us as individuals making the evaluation, but if it's some centralized authority (even the private/public censorship arrangement as we have now) "clearing" allowable conversation in the public sphere, then would completely disagree. Free and open dialog is a hill to die on. One of those political principles that is, for me, more important than any 'safety' or conformity benefit claimed from censorship. I confess to being a bit gobsmacked that this is even a debate in the U.S., for as many times as it's been had and litigated in the past.
    - okl 5y ago
      Oh sure, I don't support that. I would love to see people reward quality information instead of sentational infotainment with their "clicks" but alas that's not the world we're living in. -- What to do?
jimmyjazz14 5y ago
I don't know if that's true, attempts to censor information tends to lend credibility to those being censored.
redisman 5y ago
What impact? He’ll literally peace out with his $100M back to YouTube and free aggregators like Apple with much larger reach. He’s also the most popular podcast! So he wont have any problems finding a new network if need be. These people are delusional if they think they can change anything
aksss 5y ago
Does that include governments? Or is there no objective standard -- the mis/disinformation is whatever the (local/state/federal) government is not currently supporting? It's obviously a slippery slope approaching censorship this way. Mis/disinformation should not be conceived of as skeptical questioning that may lead to dumb people making bad choices. That's a level of second-guessing and faux-benign concern that cannot guide policies of censorship. Skeptical questioning, dialog, and debate is more beneficial for society than it is dangerous to dumb people (who are high-risk even without overhearing the speculative conversations of others). There is some level of acceptable risk, whether it's vehicular traffic, or allowing people to speak their mind. Think about the societal product of ten years living where skepticism of government is effectively outlawed vs a government routinely subjected to open skepticism. I think the latter is a stronger society.

tombert 5y ago

At the risk of starting a flame war, if people see something bad, even if it is {popular to hate thing of the month}, should nothing be done about it?

pcan77 5y ago
Pretty sure racist remarks on the podcast and use of n-word casually isn't {popular to hate thing of the month}, so I respectfully disagree heavily with you here.
- tombert 5y ago
  I don't think we actually disagree here; I totally think that racist remarks and casual use of the N-word is pretty bad, more than just a cringy thing to hate in a month. I was trying to say that, using the parent comment's framework, even if it was the {popular thing to hate of the month} (which it isn't), if it is sufficiently bad, something should be done about it regardless.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  If you listened to them in context they weren't racist. I listened to at least 5 of them in context, and they weren't racist and mostly portraying the opposite, so I'm satisfied he's not racist and this is a made up out of context attack as is typical of extremists. They post sound bites without context to enrage weak-minded people who won't seek out clarity on the situation. It's a tactic as old as propaganda.
ytNumbers 5y ago
People consider misinformation to be bad. The problem with censoring it is that I can think of many important instances in my lifetime where accepted narratives were later debunked and misinformation later became accepted fact. Since our understanding of COVID-19 has shifted quite a bit over the past two years, it seems to me the proper thing to do is to let people have freedom of speech.
exdsq 5y ago
I think it depends on so many things. In this particular case there are far worse problems in the world than Joe Rogan quoting someone and using the N word. I completely disagree with his stance on vaccinations but I also disagree that he's some sort of major source of disinformation. In the general case, I think it's bad that the socially expected thing at the moment is to be angry at {something}. It is both bad for peoples mental health and in general and it detracts from more serious issues in the world. Take for example the situation in Ukraine. Wouldn't it be more effective to be vocal to our politicians to say we don't want to start some catastrophic war there than to try and force a tech company to remove a podcast host? If Joe Rogan isn't removed, will people even remember this discussion in three months? Probably not, because by that time {someone} will have said {something} and everyone will be tweeting angry thoughts at them instead.

gkoberger 5y ago

Right or wrong (I think right, personally), a lot of people have a lot of time on their hands because they're sitting at home due to a pandemic (while loved ones are getting sick). This is different than normal "cancelling" over a bad joke; it's about being tired of misinformation being spread that is elongating this virus and causing countless deaths.

LoveGracePeace 5y ago
Not a big fan of Rogan but he isn't spreading misinformation, he's speaking his mind, voicing his opinion. There was a time only a few years ago when this was a time honored concept called Freedom of Speech.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  I agree. I think he has some dumb takes on things, but I actually signed UP for spotify as a result. Before I was just using a combination of adblockers to block 90% of spotify's ads.
- redisman 5y ago
  It’s pretty crazy how anyone talking outside of the party line is now a racist and a anti-vaxxer and god knows what. You can’t stop people from thinking differently from you unless you’re willing to instate a China-level state
dgfitz 5y ago
> sitting at home due to a pandemic People are still sitting at home? That is not my experience even a little bit.
- agilob 5y ago
  >People are still sitting at home? That is not my experience even a little bit. In a company I work for not a single person came back to our local office, in fact, many people decided to move further away from the city and we said publicly that forced coming back to the office will mean changing jobs for us. That's coming from ~150 developers and testers. Even my neighbour who works in a call centre works 4 of 5 days from home... Like is anyone coming back to your fancy cubicles or dirty openspaces?

nextlevelwizard 5y ago

I haven't really followed Rogan's show since it became Spotify exclusive, but unless stuff has really went off the rails I don't recognize the qualities people are painting on him. I don't know if this is some 4D chess move from Spotify, but I actually had to take a look at the two "antivax" episodes and neither had antivax message. So either this is all very clever marketing from Spotify or people try to make Rogan look bad for whatever reason and they don't realize that if you out right lie about things that are easy to verify it makes everything else you push less credible.

weeblewobble 5y ago
“If you’re, like, 21 years old, and you say to me, ‘Should I get vaccinated?’ I’ll go ‘No,’” - Joe Rogan, 4/23/21
- exdsq 5y ago
  This was almost a year ago when vaccines were still new and the death/hospitalization rates of healthy 21 years olds from COVID is basically zero. I’m 27 and have my jabs, and suggest others get theirs too, but I totally understand this perspective. In fact you couldn’t even get your vaccines in the UK last April at 21.
  - weeblewobble 5y ago
    This is a bit of kitchen sink argument-- it was a long time ago! young people actually don't need the vaccine! he's just sharing his perspective! British people couldn't get vaccinated in April! None of which addresses the claim in OP that people calling Joe Rogan "anti-vaxx" are "outright lying". It is anti-vaccine to encourage young people not to get vaccinated. Simple as that.
    - lamontcg 5y ago
      > young people actually don't need the vaccine! SARS-CoV-2 causes much higher rates of myocarditis in kids than the vaccines do: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7035e5.htm Kids should still get vaccinated. They are at low risk from SARS-CoV-2, but risk of the vaccines are still even lower.

furgooswft13 5y ago

> Direct your energy at something important Like paying musicians reasonable amounts of money per stream? People have been complaining about this since the very beginning of Spotify. But as usual woke nonsense takes up all the air in the room because it's fiscally irrelevant.

Johnny555 5y ago

removing a podcaster from Spotify is very low on any rational list. Direct your energy at something important If someone is really offended or disagree with what he's broadcasting, then why do you think that removing him would be low on any rational list? His podcast reaches 11 million listeners, so getting him off the air seems like it would be pretty impactful.

exdsq 5y ago
Let’s assume what he’s said is awful and needs to be removed because it’s dangerous. I disagree with this, but I’ll assume it’s the case. Spotify removes him. He goes to YouTube or something. His fans go there. Zero tangible impact. This can actually go far worse - after the Trump subreddits got taken down they moved to another domain which is a clone of Reddit but only about Trump and now you have a smaller echo chamber with the same people attending but less counter-information or moderation. So it’s possible that you can make things worse this way too. It could make an impact if he was banned from Spotify and then quit podcasts entirely, but that’s not likely because it’s so popular. All the time we discuss this we aren’t addressing truly horrific issues like Chinese persecution of Muslim minorities or the mobilization of troops in Ukraine or other things that people will actually remember in a few months or the UK government doing all sorts of interesting things.
- Johnny555 5y ago
  His fans go there. But will they all follow him there? If 10% of his fans don't, then he's talking to a million fewer people than he used to. And, of course, if he says the same thing on Youtube, they'll start the same campaign to drop him from there too, until all that's left are niche providers where it's harder for people to find him. Like you, I don't agree that he's said anything so bad that he deserves to be kicked off spotify or any platform, but if someone is passionate about it, doing so would reduce his reach, at least temporarily.
  - bmelton 5y ago
    Arguably, Joe has done more for Spotify than Spotify has done for Joe (ignoring the $100 million deal) Him moving to Youtube or somewhere that isn't paywalled likely increases his availability to those who aren't willing to pay to listen to him