[HN Gopher] Spotify continues to remove Joe Rogan episodes
___________________________________________________________________
Spotify continues to remove Joe Rogan episodes
Author : danso
Score : 222 points
Date : 2021-04-09 18:09 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.digitalmusicnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.digitalmusicnews.com)
| glonq wrote:
| Ironically, I stopped listening to JRE around the same time that
| spotify picked him up. The guy's just too much of a dumbass.
| gherkinnn wrote:
| Well that's silly.
|
| Spotify knew exactly what they bought.
| zero_deg_kevin wrote:
| And Rogan knew exactly who he was signing with (a risk-averse
| media company). Two parties voluntarily decided to do business
| according to some mutually agreeable terms. None of this should
| be surprising or outrageous to anyone...but, here we are.
| gherkinnn wrote:
| Also true.
|
| It's a source of outrage that keeps on giving.
|
| Though I wish that more people were outraged at the fact that
| video podcasts are not done well in Spotify. Now that's the
| real problem.
| cicero wrote:
| So they appear to have mutually agreed to remove content to
| conform to the prevailing pressure to restrict public
| discourse to only politically correct content. While it is
| certainly their right to make any business arrangement they
| want, it is distressing that open conversation continues to
| shrink in our world, whether it be through unilateral
| cancelation or mutual agreement for the sake of money.
| markdown wrote:
| > it is distressing that open conversation continues to
| shrink in our world
|
| Are you sure about that? When has talk about Bigfoot, moon
| landing conspiracies, the government turning frogs gay, and
| other such nonsense been welcome in "open conversation"?
| nbardy wrote:
| Since the dawn of time.
| [deleted]
| kjakm wrote:
| >> Rogan, on the other hand, has confirmed that Spotify removed
| certain shows as a condition of their $100 million agreement with
| him. "There were a few episodes they didn't want on their
| platform, and I was like 'okay, I don't care'," Rogan shared in a
| recent interview with guest Fahim Anwar.
|
| It's part of their deal. Nothing to see here.
| sn_master wrote:
| > It's part of their deal. Nothing to see here.
|
| Nothing to see here from a legal viewpoint, yes. Ethically it's
| very much looking into how a big platform is using its power to
| hide certain kinds of content from its viewers.
| knorker wrote:
| It's embrace and extinguish.
|
| From the articles linked it's almost as if half of Spotify went
| "yes! Finally we'll have the power to reign that monster in,
| and silence him. We'll make him our PC puppet! Muhahahaha"
|
| I think it's new. It was intended as a business deal, but the
| activist-firsts are seeing their chance to silence an enemy.
| aksss wrote:
| The thing to see here (literally, or listen to), is how Joe,
| despite his assertion that there are no limits from Spotify,
| makes decisions on guests and talking points while someone at
| spotify holds a hammer over his hand vis a vis killing old
| episodes. He knows the hosting party doesn't like certain
| content, and will eliminate episodes that violate some murky
| line of political correctness - it's impossible that such a
| dynamic doesn't affect his decisions going forward.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| Was Joe Rogan forced to sign the $100M contract with Spotify?
| If the answer is "no", then he willingly accepted this
| contractual arrangement, and all the benefits and
| consequences of it.
| HKH2 wrote:
| Right. The GP is talking about how Joe has been pretending
| that nothing has changed.
| mpfundstein wrote:
| in the end, everyone sells out for money...
| shoulderfake wrote:
| you'd be stupid not to
| [deleted]
| hoka-one-one wrote:
| It's understandable. He's routinely allowed right-wing radicals
| such as Abby Martin and Gavin McInnes and Dave Rubin on his
| show. I personally would stop using Spotify if they started
| promoting such hateful content. Paradox of tolerance, etc.
| HKH2 wrote:
| If they're what you consider 'right-wing radicals', I have
| some bad news for you.
| luckylion wrote:
| > right-wing radicals such as Abby Martin
|
| > In September 2015, Martin launched The Empire Files, an
| interview and documentary series. She has hosted guests
| including Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Richard D. Wolff, Ralph
| Nader and Jill Stein.
|
| I can't tell whether you're running a satire account.
| CivBase wrote:
| If people are worried about Spotify mistreating Joe than, no,
| there's nothing to see here. But there is absolutely something
| to see here for those who are worried about preserving content
| and the precedent for censorship in future episodes of Joe's
| podcast.
| toshk wrote:
| He often stated that nothing will change and no censorship
| would take place because of the move to spotify.
|
| For many he was one of the last credible places that would give
| a place to more extreme voices, even if he might not agree. For
| years he actively advocated free speech and integrity.
| Commercially it might be part of the deal, but it's
| understandable many of his listeners feel like he sold out.
| paxys wrote:
| Sounds pretty hypocritical to sign a massive deal with a
| censorship clause included and tell users "don't worry
| nothing will change".
| [deleted]
| patorjk wrote:
| Wait, you left off the next sentence, which is very important:
|
| > Whether Rogan understood that several dozen shows were being
| removed -- and may still be getting removed -- is also unclear.
|
| 42 of his shows have been removed. Even out of 1631 shows, that
| seems like more than a few. For $100 million he may not care,
| but for general listeners its a little unnerving that Spotify
| would be doing this. I'm a grown adult, I can decide what I
| want to listen to - why are they getting in the way? One of the
| main of appeals of his program is that he's having interesting
| conversations with interesting people. He's willing to talk to
| people with wildly different view points. When Spotify's
| editors start removing shows they don't like, they also remove
| part of the appeal of the show. If they find so much of the
| show unpalatable, why did they make the deal in the first
| place?
| alkonaut wrote:
| > I'm a grown adult, I can decide what I want to listen to
|
| I'm also a grown adult. I can stop paying money to those that
| host content with Alex Jones (and indirectly basically pay
| Alex Jones). Not sure I'm representative or part of a larger
| group than those that want to pay Spotify to hear Alex Jones.
| Hard to say.
|
| > If they find so much of the show unpalatable, why did they
| make the deal in the first place?
|
| Completely agree. That said, this is 2% of the content. There
| is some fraction of the content that makes sense to cut out.
| It could be zero or one episode, or 2% or half of them. But
| there is a point where the trouble they get into on some
| level is just larger than the gain. And I think they just
| played it safe here.
|
| Also, when other outlets (Twitter, Youtube, Facebook,
| whatever) ban something or someone, it becomes even less
| comfortable to keep them on. So it's pretty understandable I
| think.
| [deleted]
| jonas21 wrote:
| It's unclear... to the author of the article who seems not to
| have actually talked to Joe Rogan or Spotify.
| ta20210405 wrote:
| >I'm a grown adult, I can decide what I want to listen to -
| why are they getting in the way?
|
| Just wait, someone will come around and inform you how
| deciding what you want to listen to is "whiteness", and
| you're "white supremacy adjacent" for not supporting the
| removal of this racist, transphobic hate speech that's
| violence against BIPOCs and minorities.
| dang wrote:
| We've banned this account for using HN for ideological
| flamewar. Would you please not create accounts to do that
| with? It's off topic, regardless of which ideology you're
| flaming.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| paxys wrote:
| He signed a $100M contract. It's pretty clear that he
| understood.
| bunfunton wrote:
| When the deal first happened he came out and insisted that they
| had no power over him whatsoever.
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| Well put. He even passively admitted to allowing the censorship
| in a recent episode https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3to9t3r9ZQ
| minimuffins wrote:
| I am totally baffled as to why that makes you feel better.
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| It doesn't make me feel any specific way. I'm just
| referencing information. What do you mean exactly?
| minimuffins wrote:
| > It doesn't make me feel any specific way.
|
| I think it should!
|
| It's disconcerting to see the expansion of platform
| censorship even if the censored party is aware of it,
| "doesn't care," and was in on the deal. That "it's just
| business" doesn't make it a neutral development. Spotify
| gets to decide what ideologies are acceptable for Spotify
| listeners. This is just one point on the graph. The
| overall picture is more and more of this stuff, with
| little or no resistance.
|
| You like that? You feel nothing either way? There is a
| moral and political valence to this stuff.
| CyberRabbi wrote:
| I don't use Spotify and frankly >= 80% of the content on
| Spotify is for morons. In any case I do respect your
| commitment to freedom of speech and liberalism.
| syntheticnature wrote:
| I think the division line is you see this as ideological,
| but to the rest of us it's all just business. Publishers
| will always be free to choose what they place on offer.
| On my bookshelf I have a copy of the old Linux Device
| Drivers book from O'Reilly. The book is no longer being
| published by them. Could it use an update? Yes, severely,
| the 3rd edition is over a decade old. Why hasn't it
| gotten one, is it censorship? No, they don't see a return
| on investment in it.
|
| Spotify only cares about the episodes because of concern
| about injuring their brand via giving offense, which is
| as close to an ideology as any large corporation gets, to
| the point where folks (such as you, in this case) get
| offended by their clumsy attempts to avoid offense.
|
| Rogan doesn't care because it's always been about money.
| He doubtless took a haircut on his audience by moving to
| Spotify, all in order to get money up front for less
| effort on his part.
| Pfhreak wrote:
| I think a lot of folks, myself included, see what you are
| pointing at and think, "That's not novel. That's the way
| media works, and has worked, for generations."
|
| What makes Spotify different from, for example, radio
| stations deciding which music I should listen to in the
| 50s? Or TV stations deciding which shows I should see in
| the 80s?
|
| Media companies have _always_ cared and deliberately
| curated the ideologies they present -- whether that 's a
| political ideology or a marketing one. (I know that a
| whole lot of the TV shows of my childhood were aimed at
| selling me toys, for instance.)
| minimuffins wrote:
| Are you being ironic? Of course there's something to see: the
| latest glacial shift in the accretion of content control by
| tech platforms.
| akiselev wrote:
| _> Of course there 's something to see: the latest glacial
| shift in the accretion of content control by tech platforms._
|
| The other side of the coin is that everyone is selling out.
| We're just returning to the patronage ( _clientela_ ) model
| where everyone parrots the patrons for a cut of the profit,
| legal contract and everything - except Joe Rogan isn't at
| risk of dying destitute if he doesn't comply and his patrons
| are faceless corporations.
| SllX wrote:
| As opposed to content control by publishers, network
| television, the FCC, and studios?
|
| Spotify is not above criticism, I think it is entirely
| legitimate and called for to criticize Spotify without
| overstating your case.
| theptip wrote:
| This. Content producers have more freedom now than at any
| point in history. Previously you had to find a radio/tv
| station to publish your show. Now you can record it and
| broadcast it on YouTube or any podcast platform. (Repeat
| for "newspaper=>blog,twitter,substack", etc.)
|
| The story here is that Rogan took his show off YouTube and
| onto Spotify as part of a huge licensing deal. Nothing was
| stopping him from controlling his work prior to that deal.
| Pfhreak wrote:
| > latest glacial shift in the accretion of content control by
| tech platforms
|
| It's weird that folks are pointing to a phenomena that's been
| going on for generations as if it is something novel. There
| have always been winners and losers in who controls the
| message. While tech companies seem to be aggregating control
| over some of the message, it's not like corporate America
| hasn't had control for a long, long time.
|
| Whether it was print, radio, television, cinema, blogs,
| podcasts, music, or some other media, there's a
| centralization tendency. We've had breakout periods of
| democratization along the way, and today I think we're more
| democratized than we were historically. I'd wager that
| diverse views are more available today than they were in,
| say, the 80s.
| drcongo wrote:
| These people have never seen Network.
| Pfhreak wrote:
| Honestly, most of them probably haven't. Network is
| almost 50 years old now.
|
| "All I know is that first you've got to get mad. You've
| got to say: 'I'm a human being, god-dammit! My life has
| value!'" is as relevant in 2021 as it was the 1970s,
| apparently.
| skohan wrote:
| That may be true, but we're also witnessing one of those
| periods of consolidation of control _right now_. We could
| resign ourselves to history, or we could try to do
| something about it
| rsynnott wrote:
| Eh? Rogan is a podcaster. He is one of very few with a
| publisher/distributor; the vast majority are independent.
| 30 years ago (apart from pirate radio, I suppose) there
| was nothing like podcasts at all. Media has never been
| less centralised than today.
| Pfhreak wrote:
| The thing that makes me less worried is that we're
| probably at one of the most open periods in history.
| Don't like Spotify? You've got about a million other
| options. Rogan freely chose to accept some limits in
| exchange for a truckload of cash. He was already doing
| quite well without Spotify, from what I understand.
|
| I think the framing that he was somehow unable to succeed
| without accepting censorship is a little off the mark. He
| made what appears to be a deliberate choice to limit his
| speech to make more money. Is that a failure? I dunno. It
| seems like part of freedom of speech should include the
| freedom to make the decision to stop talking about some
| things in exchange for cash.
| skohan wrote:
| I'm not that worried about Spotify and 40 odd episodes
| from the Joe Rogan catalog, but it does fit into a larger
| narrative. I am somewhat concerned that a hand-full of
| companies can effectively remove someone from the public
| discourse. Nobody was too upset when Alex Jones got
| deplatformed, but there is something a little unnerving
| about the fact that Twitter was allowed to basically kill
| certain news stories leading up to the election.
|
| The current state of social media and online discourse is
| causing some serious problems, but I am not so convinced
| we are going about fixing it in the right way.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > I am somewhat concerned that a hand-full of companies
| can effectively remove someone from the public discourse.
|
| Large companies are least able to remove someone from
| public discourse today than at any other time in the
| past. The internet is wide open for people to shout into,
| although it requires work and money to host content. But
| it's still far cheaper and easier than its ever been to
| reach basically anyone around the world.
| Pfhreak wrote:
| > hand-full of companies can effectively remove someone
| from the public discourse.
|
| How do you today compares to historical American freedom
| of discourse? For example, I look at things like the
| House Committee on Un-American Activities, where stating
| pro-socialist/pro-communist views might get someone fired
| or imprisoned in the 40s-50s. [1] Or the 'Comics Code' of
| the 60s-00s, where comics publishers agreed to self-
| censor. [2]
|
| Or the Hay's Code from motion pictures in the 20s-60s,
| where things like 'Ridicule of the Clergy' were strictly
| forbidden? (The Supreme Court even deciding that Freedom
| of Speech did not apply to motion pictures in 1915.) [3]
|
| Or the Parents Music Resource Center who applied the
| 'Parental Advisory' sticker to music? [4]
|
| You could be murdered or beaten for being pro-union in
| the 1900s-1910s.
|
| I bring out these examples not to try and add some
| whataboutism, but rather to try and connect the
| Spotify/Tech company case to a broader historical
| context. Yes, these things are bad, and it may also be
| bad that we're seeing that consolidation today. It's
| important to be educated about historical precedents,
| about who had the authority and who was silenced, about
| which groups held power of which others, and about how we
| should holistically look at the problem of limiting
| public discourse.
|
| Far too often I see people narrowly focus on the now,
| focus on specific recent events and say, "This is an
| unprecedented shut down of discourse." (And to be clear,
| this comment is not aimed at you, skohan, but more
| broadly.) Or, "This is not who we are as a nation!". When
| in fact, looking through the historical record, we've
| absolutely been disallowing certain discourse in pretty
| much every decade for at least the last century.
|
| It may be that it's a different group this time, it may
| feel novel to folks because they are young and haven't
| experienced it firsthand, it may feel different because
| the underlying technologies are different, but
| fundamentally there is a throughline of shutting down
| discussions when 'the powers that be' dislike it, and we
| should be, imo, discussion that broader trend as much as
| the moment now.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-
| American_Activities_C... [2]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority [3] h
| ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Co
| de [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Music_Resour
| ce_Center
| BryantD wrote:
| This is a much better, less snarky version of my point
| elsewhere in the thread.
|
| I do think that tech control of discourse is an important
| thing to watch. I don't yet believe that it's impossible
| for people with extreme views to find a host; I am right
| now looking at a Google Podcasts page hosting an
| unquestionably white supremacist, Holocaust-denying
| podcast. When I was younger, you had to go find yourself
| a dingy mimeographed snail mail catalog of books to get a
| copy of Ragnar Redbeard's book. It's way easier these
| days.
|
| But yes. Even if you think that the danger of conspiracy
| theories is such that it warrants restraints on free
| speech, it is also true that you should be extremely
| concerned with how those restraints are determined and
| enforced.
|
| That said, if you're not looking at trends over decades,
| you are likely to overreact to the short term.
| tayo42 wrote:
| If Twitter was actually killing stories effectively, why
| do you know about it?
| rhizome wrote:
| The Statute of Anne is over 300 years old.
| [deleted]
| BryantD wrote:
| Do you maybe have a graph of what the overall picture of
| content control by a handful of companies looks like over,
| say, the last 50 years?
| minimuffins wrote:
| No, do you?
|
| If there's an implicit argument in that question I'm not
| able to discern it.
| neolog wrote:
| It's probably that Spotify has less control than the big
| record labels did.
| hkt wrote:
| $100m? Is there a source for this? I'm amazed.
| aksss wrote:
| http://www.just-fucking-google.it?s=rogan%20100m&e=finger
| paul_f wrote:
| Joe is not building "art". His podcasts are ephemeral, they are
| for now. Creating a large back catalog is not the goal, it aint
| a sitcom
| nitrogen wrote:
| One year's ephemera is the rest of time's history.
| themolecularman wrote:
| > It's part of their deal. Nothing to see here.
|
| That's not true. When Joe moved to Spotify his entire catalog
| didn't move, that's what he "didn't care about".
|
| This is a new wave of canceled episodes. And there's no telling
| if these "activist" employees will find future episodes or more
| past episodes "problematic", in which case they may also be
| removed.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| The fans care.
| insickness wrote:
| More loyal than the king.
| [deleted]
| colllectorof wrote:
| Gotta love the constant movement of goalposts and gaslighting
| around this. As in many other cases it started with claims that
| nobody intends to censor any content during the move. Then when
| deletions actually took place the narrative radically shifted to
| the claim that content removal was always the obvious, natural
| and reasonable course and there should be no controversy, because
| it was inevitable all along.
| luckylion wrote:
| Sounds like they took a page from Ulbricht (Walter, not Ross!):
| "Nobody has any intention of building a wall", then shortly
| after starting construction of a wall to imprison the citizens
| of East Germany, and calling it "the antifascist bulwark". The
| GDR soldiers that shot fleeing citizens in the back were
| praised as heroes that defended the glorious Soviet Republic
| against traitors.
| c06n wrote:
| Another great quote: "It [the installation of a socialist
| government in East Germany] has to look democratic, but we
| must control everything."
| paxys wrote:
| Don't know why Joe Rogan is treated like some free-speech messiah
| and Spotify the villain. If he was really that adamant in getting
| his message out there he would have kept his podcast free.
| Instead he chose a $100M payday (and the associated censorship
| terms), and here we are.
| Gravyness wrote:
| If paper is so cheap, how come books be so expensive?
| paxys wrote:
| Books are free. Marketing is expensive.
| k_bx wrote:
| Off-topic but still makes me sad: Spotify removed all episodes of
| Joe Rogan for me by removing podcasts feature from Ukrainian (and
| not only) users. I'm a paid user btw. Worst part is that since
| JRE is free for such large part of internet users, it's
| impossible to find on torrents unless it's Elon Musk or similar.
| Sigh.
| layoutIfNeeded wrote:
| https://pastebin.com/s9JupqqD
| mindslight wrote:
| This. This is the answer. Political whining is mainly due to
| the disempowerment of users in favor of these centralized
| gatekeepers. Being able to _just act_ is the antidote.
| weaksauce wrote:
| you can't use a vpn?
| k_bx wrote:
| I tried, but it just thinks I'm travelling. To get podcasts,
| you need a US credit card.
| sn_master wrote:
| This is one reason I hope BitCoin gets more adoption.
| k_bx wrote:
| I would rather move towards less discrimination based on
| person's nationality not because it's impossible but
| because it's not great morally.
| tartoran wrote:
| Can you find it on Youtube?
| k_bx wrote:
| No, only short clips are uploaded there now.
| sn_master wrote:
| He stopped uploading full episodes since beginning of this
| year. Only select clips get uploaded now. Good amount of
| comments is about lack of comments in Spotify. A lot of us
| come to a video mostly to interact with the comments, as we
| already are familiar with the content.
|
| Different channels have entirely different comments. e.g.
| same piece on CNN will have VERY different view points vs the
| same video posted on Fox News.
|
| Channels like Joe Rogan are good in that you can find a more
| balanced comment section with both opposing viewpoints being
| respected or disrespected, more or less equally.
| mikece wrote:
| I wonder how much longer Spotify will continue to delude
| themselves that they can take successful podcasts and put them
| into their walled garden -- turning off legit, public RSS feeds
| -- and that it will somehow work out for them. Rumor is that
| Apple is going to launch premium podcasts and turn off access to
| the iTunes podcast directory in order to have their own walled
| garden for select, paid podcasters. Eventually these companies
| will figure out that OPEN is the only way to go but they will
| lose money on their walled gardens in the mean time.
| tootie wrote:
| Premium podcasts already exist in the wild, but there's no way
| in hell Apple could just shut down a market as big as free
| podcasts. The next player to arise will be Google who is going
| to press their products for programmatic advertising.
| gsich wrote:
| Podcasts without RSS feeds are not podcasts anymore.
| danjac wrote:
| Spotify has basically invented this new thing called "radio".
| ipsum2 wrote:
| Why do you think so? Almost all TV shows are exclusive to their
| platforms, and they're doing fine. What makes audio different?
| TrevorJ wrote:
| Streaming services are still significantly more frictionless
| than what came before it. Moving podcasts into a walled
| garden makes them _harder_ to access than what we have now.
| throwaway3699 wrote:
| Podcasting is talk radio but born in internet form. Copying
| and widespread sharing is part of its DNA, much like YouTube
| videos.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Existing podcast ecosystem is already entrenched. I'm in the
| process of disentangling myself from all tech monopolies and
| people are wiser to it now more than ever.
|
| TV shows began on network TV. The whole point of podcasting
| was anyone can start one. Unlike TV shows, it's quite easy
| from a technical perspective to host a podcast. Audio talk
| shows don't have to be high bitrate.
|
| Honestly I think stranglehold on video will similarly fade
| away when high speed internet is highly available everywhere.
| gizmo385 wrote:
| > I'm in the process of disentangling myself from all tech
| monopolies and people are wiser to it now more than ever.
|
| I don't think most people will go through the hassle of
| disentangling themselves from tech monopolies. What's the
| benefit? For most people, having everything managed by
| Google/Apple/Facebook is a benefit rather than a bad thing.
|
| > The whole point of podcasting was anyone can start one.
|
| Has this changed?
| mikece wrote:
| TV didn't start out as an open standard using RSS.
| pharke wrote:
| It started out as syndicated broadcast media that you could
| subscribe to for a one time purchase of a receiver.
| akiselev wrote:
| The point is that you couldn't publish without an FCC
| license, which required deep pockets. Publishing an RSS
| feed requires a host and a domain, which can be had today
| for a grand total of $70/year if one goes with the
| cheapest DigitalOcean VPS or under $20/year if one does a
| little research.
|
| Hosting a few MP3s and a text file that can be downloaded
| in a few seconds is a lot cheaper and easier than a video
| streaming setup (or a 10-20 kilowatt broadcast
| transmitter).
| [deleted]
| ohples wrote:
| Hosting audio is a multiple orders of magnitude easier then
| video, which means platforms don't have as much value to add.
| IneffablePigeon wrote:
| They don't need to add value for the end user if they can
| control the scarce resource (content) by buying it up and
| providing more lucrative monetisation options for creators.
|
| Their play is a hybrid of a streaming service and an adtech
| giant, and I imagine they're keeping their options open to
| see whether it pays to keep both sides of that model open
| or to pick one. Either way, one of the reasons I don't like
| what they're doing is because I can see it working.
|
| Besides all that, there is some value to having all of your
| audio in one app.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Assuming enough listeners put up with it. I don't see it
| lasting though, the barrier to entry is low and I bet
| talking to other people is a talent that many people
| have.
| Spivak wrote:
| This completely ignores the fact that hosting costs don't
| really matter. If Spotify can make more money on new
| subscriptions than they paid some content creator for
| exclusivity then it's worth it to them. And if the content
| creator gets more money by selling their exclusivity to
| some platform than they got for ads then it's worth it to
| them too.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| And if listeners don't cancel their subscriptions in
| response, then Spotify bet correctly. But it's nearly
| trivial to record audio of yourself talking to someone,
| so if a sufficient number of people want to consume the
| content Spotify doesn't want to host, I'm betting they
| will be able to find it elsewhere by a different podcast.
| xadhominemx wrote:
| Why wouldn't it work out for them?
| S_A_P wrote:
| I wonder if/how much the move cost his listener ship. I see in
| the comments pleas for Joe to come back to Youtube.
|
| I dont know why this happens but Spotify does not work with
| UConnect on my Jeep. It plays for 1-2 seconds and then mutes.
| Spotify is the _only_ music /audio platform that doesnt work with
| Uconnect, but that immediately removes it from being played in my
| car. Long car rides are where I consume podcasts, so no Joe
| Rogan.
| nitrogen wrote:
| Check if your phone has a per-app setting for "optimize battery
| usage" or "sleep background apps" or something like that.
| Spotify was stopping 2 seconds after I turned my phone's screen
| off, and disabling the battery optimization fixed it.
| S_A_P wrote:
| Thanks nitrogen- Unfortunately it has been a consistent thing
| across phones with the common link being my 1 year before
| apple car play UConnect receiver. Pretty sure that is the
| culprit. It will works with an iPhone cable connected(but I
| hate cables in my car), but bluetooth audio does not(spotify
| only) I dont see any preference for battery usage for spotify
| and I have background app refresh enabled.
| notional wrote:
| I don't listen to Rogan anymore but I'm knee deep into MMA and
| I constantly see complaints about spotify by other people in my
| young male demo. Even people who have a spotify sub hate it
| because their video player is terrible compared to yt. Then
| there's tons of people who don't have spotify so they mostly
| stopped besides clips that get posted to yt. Could be just a
| thing of a mad vocal minority, but every time his mma
| interviews pop up it's filled with massively upvoted comments
| complaining about spotify.
| Yoofie wrote:
| I used to listen alot more before the Spotify deal. The podcast
| listening experience in the app is hot garbage.
|
| I am a paying premium paying customer. Why do I get ads in the
| beginning and middle of the podcast? And there was a bug where
| to if you skip too fast, it jumps back to replaying the ads
| again. Super frustrating.
|
| I don't ever watch the podcast video stream but the few times I
| did, it was super buggy, sometimes jumping forward/backward in
| time or simply not responding to input.
|
| Luckily a random redditor posted a URL where you can listen to
| podcast using traditional RSS [1][2].
|
| [1]: https://spotifeed.timdorr.com/4rOoJ6Egrf8K2IrywzwOMk
|
| [2]: https://spotifeed.timdorr.com/
| willhinsa wrote:
| Anecdotal, but post-Spotify, I have probably watched less than
| 10% as much as I used to--paying Spotify customer as well. The
| Spotify video/podcast UX is awful.
| txsoftwaredev wrote:
| I was a big consumer of JRE on youtube. I enjoyed the content
| and the comments. I haven't watched a single episode on
| Spotify and I have a paid family plan.
| prepend wrote:
| I used to listen to maybe 20% of his podcasts before Spotify.
| After I listen to 1%.
|
| It's a combination of the Spotify app being really bad and
| being different than all my other podcasts. I browse new
| episodes from all my subs through my regular player and rarely
| open a separate app just to see what's new with JRE.
|
| I hope he doesn't renew the Spotify deal.
| brown9-2 wrote:
| The opening lines of this article are a great example of how to
| write alarmist copy:
|
| > Just last week, Digital Music News first reported that 40
| different Joe Rogan Experience podcast episodes were found
| missing from Spotify, now the exclusive platform for the show.
| Now, that number has quickly grown to 42
|
| It quickly grew by 2!
| snurfer wrote:
| This seems analogous to Howard Stern moving from terrestrial
| radio to satellite radio. Big financial win for the star, but
| ultimately less accessible content for the casual listeners.
|
| That being said, I think every show has been pirated and is
| available for download somewhere.
| dkdk8283 wrote:
| When the deal was announced, and before the videos were pulled, I
| archived everything
| marsrover wrote:
| You should upload it all to https://ipfs.io/
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Where can I find an archive online? I am really disappointed
| that Spotify is removing all these episodes, and have refused
| to give their podcasts any attention as a result.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > Where can I find an archive online?
|
| If there was one, Spotify would sue to have it taken down.
| The goal of censorship isn't to remove "offensive" content
| from Spotify: the goal is to remove it from existence,
| completely, as though it had never been.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| I don't know why there are downvotes. Spotify holds the
| rights to the episode, and would absolutely file a takedown
| request. There's no "but they aren't making it available!"
| copyright exception.
| yakubin wrote:
| This website breaks scrolling (it's jumpy). For others
| experiencing it: this issue (and the floating top bar) can be
| fixed by disabling JavaScript.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| I think it's because they have anti-adblocking tech.
|
| Imagine being media in 2021 and denying access to your site
| based on adblocking? I instantly close the site. What are they
| providing that I can't get elsewhere? What are they providing
| beyond the headline?
| danso wrote:
| I've never heard of the digitalmusicnews.com but I submitted
| it as the URL for this story, because all other mainstream
| news sources cited it as the site that first noticed and
| broke the news:
|
| https://www.thewrap.com/spotify-deletes-joe-rogan-podcast-
| ep...
|
| https://www.huffpost.com/entry/spotify-deletes-
| controversial...
| tartoran wrote:
| I am happy to close the site too. If they want to feed me
| abusive advertising they're no friend and wouldn't trust
| their info anyway.
| bibinou wrote:
| Seems like it's regulars getting nixed.
|
| Maybe they asked for a cut of the money?
| txsoftwaredev wrote:
| Just being on the show was some amazing free advertisement for
| your book/show etc. for the guests. I really don't see why they
| would ask for money.
| aksss wrote:
| Or maybe Joe has less idle cycles, or maybe some of them are
| actually put off by the sell out. many things could be at play
| there.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| I would like to cancel my Spotify because of this. Does anyone
| know of any suitable alternative that isn't so heavy-handed with
| moderation and censorship? I found an app
| (https://freeyourmusic.com/) that lets you transfer playlists
| between different music services, but I am not sure who the
| 'least evil' provider is.
| drcongo wrote:
| I really hope this continues until I no longer have to hear the
| words "I heard on the Joe Rogan podcast..." followed by some
| fully anti-science nonsense from the overly credulous. That show
| has a lot to answer for.
| snurfer wrote:
| Look on the bright side: people are talking about (and thinking
| about) topics they might not normally be exposed to. The blame
| for lack of critical thought skills might fall more upon our
| parents and educators than Joe Rogan.
| drcongo wrote:
| Rogan talking about vaccines causing autism, faked moon
| landings, 911 conspiracies and whatever other nonsense falls
| out of his empty head gives it enough of a whiff of
| respectability that other people give credence to this
| rubbish. He's dangerous and I find his popularity among the
| mostly very smart HN community completely baffling. David
| Icke isn't given the same pass, so why is Rogan?
| claaams wrote:
| He has conservative conspiracy extremists (and white ethno-
| fascists) on his show, amplifying their insane ideology,
| and he avoids any responsibility or blame for it.
| snurfer wrote:
| Those sound like topics worthy of debate. Hopefully you
| take advantage of the opportunity to provide counterpoints
| to Rogan's "nonsense" when it presents itself.
|
| What's "dangerous" is the intolerance of thought that
| permeates society right now. We seem to have lost the
| ability to listen and then respond.
|
| I always thought Joe Rogan might be more of an Art Bell-
| type personality. Personality, not authority.
| anonu wrote:
| This sucks for Joe and I can't say i didn't see it coming.
|
| What would you do: take $100 million and get silenced? Or refuse
| the money and remain independent?
|
| Also the listening/viewing experience on spotify is horrible. I
| used to get podcasts on my app of choice and have the YouTube
| videos running in the background. I've definitely stopped
| listening as much
| motohagiography wrote:
| The tech platforms have a meekness problem. Rogan's payday
| secures his family's future for the next few generations because
| he did some funny fancy talking to some weirdos on the internet,
| so good for him. On the censorship issue, meh, there's nothing to
| add, it's not a discussion or rational discourse. We can only
| hope the alternative is entertaining.
| klyrs wrote:
| What do you mean, "meekness"? They got flak for hosting rogan
| in the first place. Now they're getting flak for taking down a
| small fraction of his content. Outrage, engaged! Are they
| "meek" because they're doing something you disagree with, are
| they "meek" for doing something you agree with, or is choosing
| a middle path necessarily meekness?
| motohagiography wrote:
| To be precise, Spotify and other platforms have been cowed
| into dropping episodes and people because they are afraid of
| the anonymous histrionics from small mobs. The same goes for
| every other platform. They directly enable and reward the
| very people they seem to fear. Do the platforms think these
| mobs can be appeased, or that they will relent once you
| satisfy them? They've negotiated with terrorists and
| compromised everyone else in the process. This is their
| meekness problem.
| AzzieElbab wrote:
| One day I will also buy something for 100M just to slowly nullify
| its value
| jordache wrote:
| The 10 mins of ads preceding every JRE episode (which is PIA to
| skip in 30sec increments on my apple watch) is one reason i
| stopped listening.
|
| Oh and the fact that almost every guest is a comedian or MME
| fighter.. two categories that are barely compelling to me.
| sn_master wrote:
| > almost every guest is a comedian or MME fighter.
|
| I always skip both, yet sure spent many many hours watching
| JRE.
|
| Top viewed videos guests are (just pulled it right now from
| PowerJRE channel, in order of view count)
|
| https://www.youtube.com/c/joerogan/videos?view=0&sort=p&flow.
| ..
|
| * Elon Musk
|
| * Alex Jones
|
| * Edward Snowden
|
| * Ben Shapiro
|
| * Neil deGrasse Tyson
|
| * Michael Osterholm (Biden's top COVID advisor a year before
| he got that position)
|
| * Bernie Sanders
|
| * Kanye West
|
| * Robert Downey Jr.
|
| * Dr Phill
|
| And the list goes on. All comedians and MMA fighters are at
| the bottom of the view count, easy to skip if you just sort
| the views.
| boringg wrote:
| Thats how you show that you have real power.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| akiselev wrote:
| By the time you're in a position to buy 100M of anything, the
| way you extract and calculate value fundamentally changes.
| Spotify is a public company with a market cap of ~$50 billion
| so even a 1% movement in stock price can mean hundreds of
| millions of dollars of extra capital through stock sales or
| credit lines and easier recruiting. It can mean meeting
| contractual obligations on existing credit lines or stock heavy
| acquisitions that make or break other, more important deals. It
| can mean that one big media story they need every quarter to
| maintain brand awareness and maintain an intangible mote or
| keeping a well respected exec around longer by scratching their
| ego, delaying the possible depression in the stock price when
| they leave. Hell, their original content department might be
| really good at their job and so they had to fill a 100M hole in
| their budget so their budget grows instead of shrinks the year
| after.
|
| Usually though, it means empire building and millions in
| bonuses for executives who won't be held accountable for the
| long term effects of the move.
| tootie wrote:
| Can I interest you in a slightly used Tumblr?
| cjdell wrote:
| Joe should get on to LBRY / Odysee. It would be the tipping point
| in moving to decentralised platforms. He'd probably make a
| killing too as LBRY makes it really easy to tip content creators.
| tootie wrote:
| Why would he do that when Spotify gave him $100M and he isn't
| upset that they're doing this?
| staticelf wrote:
| He probably is upset, but then he logs on to his online back
| and see the numbers, then he calms down.
|
| It's only human, I would gladly do a lot of shit against what
| I believe in for even $1 million USD.
| GhostVII wrote:
| I don't know why Spotify removes Joe Rogan episodes, but keeps
| homophobic songs like "Where the hood at" (particularly relevant
| today) on the platform. Pretty sure that song is far worse than
| anything said on Rogan.
|
| I guess that song is older than Rogan's podcast episodes, and
| music isn't usually as serious as a podcast. But still kinda
| funny they remove Joe Rogan episodes, but allows songs talking
| about how they won't be friend with gay people.
|
| Still enjoy the song though.
| golemiprague wrote:
| Their political opinions are pretty clear, it has nothing to do
| with principles, just which team you choose. They chose the
| "progressive" and that means certain content done by white
| people is taboo while whatever black people do is ok. No
| surprises here
| idownvoted wrote:
| Whom does Spotify try to aquisice here?
|
| Their users? Their content creators? Or rather their staff?
|
| All 3 groups _could_ be possible reasons. But given how little
| median content creators matter to the organization, users and
| staff are more likely.
|
| But if it were the users, then why buy Joe Rogan's users at all?
| Especially at a record braking price?
|
| This makes me believe it's more likely staff.
|
| If that is the case one has to wonder: is this generally the sad
| mental state of tech workers? Or is it rather a few employees
| who, emboldened by cancel-culture, will toss their political
| agenda around the office while other employees, intimidated by
| cancel-culture, shy away from calling out the obvious BS?
| nickysielicki wrote:
| It's been reported in the past that it is staff.
|
| Spotify has 5,000+ employees -- I wouldn't assume for a second
| that it's the tech workers doing this, I suspect it's probably
| HR and marketing and so on. It's a big bureaucratic
| organization.
|
| I like to think if I was at Spotify, and I saw people holding
| the company hostage like this -- threatening to quit (or
| whatever) if they don't get their way -- that I would stand up
| and threaten to do the same if they _do_ get their way.
|
| If the only way to remove the ability of these people to make
| threats is to create a lose-lose situation for your employer,
| then you have a responsibility to do that. If enough companies
| see this happen and are forced to navigate a needless lose-lose
| situation, maybe we'll see companies take a harder position
| against advocacy and activism and politics in the workplace. If
| all else is equal, hopefully they'll be forced to take the
| position that they would have taken if nobody threatened
| anything; they'll fall back to their actual principles.
| warent wrote:
| Politics are going to exist in the workplace no matter what
| because workplaces are made of humans. Advocacy and activism
| are a bad thing?
| bootwoot wrote:
| Is there a source for this? Seems way more likely to be
| monetarily pushed by either investors or advertisers (as
| other poster said) or at least pre-emptively done to appease
| those groups.
| nickysielicki wrote:
| Source: https://www.vice.com/en/article/xg8jq4/spotify-joe-
| rogan-tra...
|
| > One of the submitted questions was "Many LGBTQAI+/ally
| Spotifiers feel unwelcome and alienated because of
| leadership's response in JRE conversations. What is your
| message to those employees?" Another was "Why has Spotify
| chosen to ignore Spectrum ERG's guidance about transphobic
| content in the JRE catalog?," referring to a group of
| Spotify workers who focus on related issues.
|
| > At the meeting, Ek also told employees not to leak to the
| media, noting "If we can't have open, confidential debates,
| we will have to move those discussions to closed doors."
| sky_rw wrote:
| "LGBTQAI+/ally" at some point we are going to need an
| abbreviation for this abbreviation.
| mssundaram wrote:
| I've heard it called "the letters community" though I
| don't know if that can be used positively
| [deleted]
| throwaway0xa wrote:
| Surprised they're still using acronyms at all, since
| "acronyms are a symptom of white supremacy culture."[0].
|
| https://abc7news.com/sfusd-renaming-schools-board-
| meeting-sa...
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| Although it should be noted that the main episode at
| issue in that controversy, with Abigail Shrier, wasn't
| one of the ones removed in this recent wave and is still
| on Spotify.
| temp667 wrote:
| What is Spectrum ERG? Most corps do follow guidance from
| legal / HR etc to a degree - it's weird if that was being
| ignored.
| sethhochberg wrote:
| "ERG" in this context is probably an Employee Resource
| Group - a pretty common construct at larger
| organizations. Think of them as a formal way for
| employees with some kind of shared set of goals or
| concerns to organize and support each other, usually
| completely distinct from their actual job function.
|
| ERGs often have some kind of liaison from HR, especially
| since they are often associated with diversity programs.
| But the ERG itself is usually just advisory if they're
| consulted on something the company is doing.
| fleshdaddy wrote:
| I don't know from an advertisers perspective it seems like
| JRE is pretty mainstream. I don't recall them having
| trouble getting sponsors in the past.
| nradov wrote:
| Most JRE sponsors were smaller companies targeting niche
| markets. He didn't have any mass market brands like
| Starbucks or Chevrolet.
| themolecularman wrote:
| Honest Q, but do any mass market brands like that
| advertise on podcasts?
|
| It seems like all I hear are the usual suspects: Me
| Undies, Blue Apron, etc.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Why would they? They got enough money and reach to go
| directly on platforms themselves...
|
| On other hand, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the
| companies marketing on things like pod casts... Some
| pretty famous ones don't seem to be too special products,
| see Raid Shadowlegends, Raycon and all of the VPN
| providers...
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I'm curious where the line is for you. Is there any legal
| content where it is permissible that Spotify doesn't want to
| host it?
| nickysielicki wrote:
| Definitely, but Joe Rogan is nowhere near that line.
|
| I don't have a problem with the platform restricting
| content. I have a problem with the behavior of the
| employees reaching outside of their role to forward their
| political goals. If your job is to curate content, and you
| disagree with the content of JRE, you would have stopped
| the deal from happening in the first place.
| qqqwerty wrote:
| > employees reaching outside of their role to forward
| their political goals
|
| The vast majority of executives in the corporate world
| are conservative, and in addition to personally
| supporting conservative movements, they frequently direct
| company resources towards furthering right leaning
| agendas.
|
| Is it really that offensive that a handful of employees
| are at a handful of tech companies are trying to steer
| the ship in the other direction? Are you similarly
| offended when oil companies lobby the government to
| further the oil industries interests? Are you offended
| when corporations successfully push congress to pass tax
| breaks largely targeted at corporations and the rich?
| gizmo385 wrote:
| Many employees at Spotify _did_ object to signing Joe
| Rogan.
| snicksnak wrote:
| always pay attention who you hire, especially in HR. Woke and
| activist HR hires woke and activist people, woke and activist
| people will cause you trouble and can wreck your whole ship.
| This is true for every industry but especially for media,
| just look what happened to the once so prestigious news
| outlets, all taken hostage.
| vladTheInhaler wrote:
| One of the major political parties in the United States
| denies that it lost the last election, sent goons to storm
| the seat of government, and is actively trying to deny
| people the ability to vote.
|
| But the real problem is "woke people" bumming you out by
| being all self-righteous.
| rorykoehler wrote:
| I don't see how both can't be problems at the same time?
| vladTheInhaler wrote:
| If you look at the commenter's history, it becomes clear
| that they are much more concerned with one than the
| other.
| aleister_777 wrote:
| Were you speaking about yourself?
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Did we read the same parent comment?
| benchaney wrote:
| A country can have more than one problem. It is deeply
| foolish to suggest that only one of them can be the "real
| problem".
| dumpsterdiver wrote:
| Is it "woke" to accuse a massive group of people for the
| actions of a very small minority? Because if you are our
| example, then it would appear so.
| asquabventured wrote:
| Cancel culture should be renamed cancer culture! It is
| TOXIC
| ethbr0 wrote:
| It should be named what it is, and has always been: anti-
| free speech.
|
| The line is when you take actions designed to prevent
| someone else from ever speaking, or people hearing their
| speech, instead of (as is your right) loudly calling them
| a *ist.
| asquabventured wrote:
| Absolutely correct.
| redmeatforchina wrote:
| The ironic part is that even the most liberal anti-
| republican types are made miserable by woke employees. I
| worked at a tech company that went through the exact
| process you described. Liberal Democrat types used to keep
| politics out of the workplace for the most part. Then they
| started hiring woke brainwashed college students who
| aligned with them ideologically but not procedural. Now
| instead of the daily chat at the water cooler, we have
| employees screaming at meetings about the latest outrage,
| taking days off because something happened in the news, and
| crying when being woke doesn't help their performance
| reviews. Everybody is miserable and managers are fleeing.
| themolecularman wrote:
| I agree with another poster that Spotify employees should
| stand up on principle in opposition to the internal
| employees that are now running the asylum.
|
| I listen to JRE on Spotify and am not happy about the
| decision. Actually the first episode I listened to was an
| Alex Jones + Tim Dillon episode (Tim being a comic I like)
| that is now gone. And while I don't agree with Alex Jones,
| I listened to it because I expected it to be controversial
| or nutty.
|
| There are people who say once you give in to the woke mob
| they won't stop there, I wouldn't be surprised if now they
| know they can get other targets canceled if those targets
| don't consume their orthodoxy.
| snicksnak wrote:
| The Alex Jones and Tim Dillon episode is one of the best
| ones ever, very sad they pulled it, at least it's still
| on youtube (for now).
| seriousquestion wrote:
| Smart companies have already been filtering them out. See
| Coinbase, who literally paid them to leave.
| ljm wrote:
| I heard second hand that the folks working at Spotify were
| _incredibly unhappy_ about this Joe Rogan deal, and one of
| the reasons for that was because leadership steamrolled over
| any concerns they had. And there were many.
|
| I don't really know who this guy is or why you'd spend 100
| million on him to secure a deal. But he's walking away with
| that money and Spotify is left with the infighting. They
| fucked themselves over with that absurd investment.
| bgorman wrote:
| It is not an absurd investment, Spotify is a commodity
| technology and taking away Joe Rogan podcast from their
| biggest competitor (Apple) provides much needed
| differentiation. Joe Rogan's podcast was the number one
| podcast on Apple Podcasts. Now it isn't available at all.
| ljm wrote:
| So you buy out Apple's number 1 podcast...and then Apple
| has another number 1 podcast. And you're sitting with a
| lame duck, as is evidenced by TFA.
|
| Is Spotify going to blow another 100 mil on that one and
| hope for the best?
|
| They messed up by betting large on a celebrity and
| ignoring the fact that Joe Rogan wasn't a cultural fit.
| aleister_777 wrote:
| > They messed up by betting large on a celebrity and
| ignoring the fact that Joe Rogan wasn't a cultural fit.
|
| He's a cultural fit for x hundreds of millions. You may
| not fall into that demographic, but there's no
| discounting that other cultures exist outside of your
| own.
| EVdotIO wrote:
| I don't think you understand the number of monthly
| listeners he draws, it was around 200 million or so. If
| you compare it to Howard Stern's contract of 100 million
| a year, it's really not a huge stretch for Joe Rogan to
| negotiate that price for a multi year deal and exclusive
| rights to the back catalog. You can't suddenly snap your
| fingers and generate a huge audience, extensive content
| and marque brand into existence.
| runj__ wrote:
| They tricked a bunch of users over to their (awful)
| podcast playing experience, playing (free) podcasts is
| cheaper than paying for music for your subscribers. I
| don't think they've made their money back on it yet but
| any user that plays a podcast is just free (or unspent)
| money for them.
| JPKab wrote:
| The only reason I have a Spotify account is for Joe Rogan's
| podcast. I'm a Youtube premium member, so all the music I
| need comes from Google, except for Joe Rogan.
|
| He's a pro weed, universal health care loving, self-
| described left of center guy big in the MMA and stand-up
| comedy circles.
|
| He now has the world's most popular podcast, but because he
| frequently has guests who are right wing, despite debating
| them about these things on the show, he is attacked for
| giving these folks a platform to spread their ideas.
|
| Due to his expertise in MMA and the fact that he's a
| formally trained fighter and martial artist, he was shaken
| by an event he witnessed: The fracturing of a woman's skull
| by Fallon Fox, a transgender woman who hid the fact that
| she had previously been a male, and had recently
| transitioned from the league. He commented on it.
|
| This put him in very hot water with the trans activist
| community, despite the fact that the vast majority of the
| American public has similar concerns.
|
| The reality is this deal made Spotify a lot of money and
| brought them listeners and advertising revenue. You don't
| know who he is, but you aren't the target audience, and
| your opinions and the opinions of the employees don't
| matter. Spotify exists to make investors money by creating
| value for the listeners. The employees shouldn't have any
| power over how it does that, because they own as much as
| the equity they've been given, and nothing more.
| ljm wrote:
| > Spotify exists to make investors money by creating
| value for the listeners.
|
| Okay, sure.
|
| > [...the rest of the post...]
|
| I don't see how this connects.
|
| > your opinions and the opinions of the employees don't
| matter
|
| But your opinion does? It must matter to you, since you
| spent a few paragraphs on it.
| trts wrote:
| > But your opinion does? It must matter to you, since you
| spent a few paragraphs on it.
|
| Guessing that what ljm meant was that those opinions
| shouldn't be important in their personal choice about
| what to listen to or not listen to.
| ljm wrote:
| I was (admittedly poorly) pointing out that the person I
| was replying to made some effort to share his favourable
| opinion, which comprises a significant part of the post,
| while also saying the dissenting ones (mine, Spotify
| staff) don't matter.
|
| Their logic dictates that none of our opinions matter.
| That's fine by me; we're squabbling over nothing.
| thekashifmalik wrote:
| > Or is it rather a few employees who, emboldened by cancel-
| culture, will toss their political agenda around the office
| while other employees, intimidated by cancel-culture, shy away
| from calling out the obvious BS?
|
| This is it. The intimidation is real; look at what happened to
| James Damore.
| gizmo385 wrote:
| What is your interpretation of what happened to James Damore?
| I would guess you and I have different opinions on what
| exactly took place, but I'm not sure either of us can presume
| that our opinions on those situations reflect the ground
| truth of what actually happened.
| readflaggedcomm wrote:
| Investors and especially advertisers may also pressure to
| remove content.
| Traster wrote:
| Spotify bought Rogan because they want his average listener,
| it's cheaper for them to stream a podcast than to pay royalties
| on a song. They also don't want to have to answer questions
| about why a podcaster they (quasi) employ is doing X
| controversial thing. So that's what they do, they buy him and
| drop the controversial bits. It's not really that hard to
| understand is it?
| anakaine wrote:
| Until you remember that his most popular episodes, and those
| that keep people coming back, are some of the most
| controversial. Talking about drugs, legalisation, smoking
| blunts with celebrities, hunting, and frankly being an openly
| right wing fanatic with some pretty intolerant world views at
| times are why he has a big audience. Securing both celebrity,
| tackling those taboo topics, and being a reasonably good host
| of conversation propelled him. Taking away the controversy
| puts him back in the group with nearly every other celebrity
| with a podcast.
| sn_master wrote:
| > Whom does Spotify try to aquisice here?
|
| YouTube always claims they're demonetizing videos for their
| advertisers. i.e companies threatening to either boycott
| advertising on the platform entirely, or ones who don't their
| products appear in videos with certain content.
|
| Maybe Spotify is doing it for the same reason?
| luckylion wrote:
| According to this [1] Spotify makes 91% of their revenue and
| nearly 100% of their profits based on premium membership, not
| ads. I find it unlikely that they're messing with their
| users' interests to make advertisers happy that make up a
| rounding error in the profits.
|
| [1] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/120314/sp
| oti...
| sn_master wrote:
| Interesting. Then perhaps its higher ups in Spotify who
| might be afraid of getting accused of hosting content that
| isn't in favor with the MSM and ruling regime in the US?
| alkonaut wrote:
| I (N=1) would seriously consider cancelling my Spotify
| subscription if Spotify kept pushing Alex Jones. It's not
| _that_ far fetched.
| xsmasher wrote:
| The threat of being dropped from the iOS app store for having
| offensive content would certainly motivate them.
| cercatrova wrote:
| Nitpicking but it's "who" not "whom". One tries to acquiesce
| someone, so "who" is used as it's the direct object, not the
| indirect object.
| minitech wrote:
| - "whom" is for all objects, no direct/indirect distinction
|
| - I've never heard "acquiesce" used with a direct object and
| dictionaries don't seem to have either
|
| - but they said "aquisice" anyway so who knows
|
| So yeah, it's needlessly flowery and incorrect (name a more
| iconic duo), but the "whom" isn't this time (although "who"
| would also be good).
| hkt wrote:
| Spotify acquiesces to a pressure group of some kind, not the
| other way around. If we are nitpicking..
| JPKab wrote:
| I worked for a tech company until recently that had allowed a
| relatively small group of activist employees to trigger HR
| policies that have been extremely detrimental to the morale and
| bottom line of the company.
|
| Cowardly HR departments who don't recognize that, by and large,
| the activist employees are mediocre at best, rather than
| remotely productive employees, has made things worse. Also,
| companies like Spotify seem to spawn an odd lack of self-
| awareness amongst many employees about how utterly replaceable
| they actually are. Spotify is a video and audio streaming
| service. There isn't anything novel about that anymore, as
| proved by how rapidly HBO and Disney were able to roll out
| platforms which do the same thing.
|
| Even worse, the HR don't recognize this either.
|
| I can personally attest to the fact that the new CEO who was my
| last straw at my last gig care far more about his personal
| reputation at his Marin County country club than the bottom
| line for the shareholders. He acted accordingly, and the board
| of directors also care far more about their reputations.
| gizmo385 wrote:
| > Cowardly HR departments who don't recognize that, by and
| large, the activist employees are mediocre at best, rather
| than remotely productive employees, has made things worse.
|
| This feels like you're projecting your opinion of these
| people and their political beliefs (which it appears you
| disagree with) onto their entire character and acting as if
| your opinion of them is the reality of the situation. Are
| there activist employees that are poor performers? Probably.
| But it feels more like you're trying to paint an entire
| subset of employees negatively because you disagree with
| their political stances.
| [deleted]
| softwaredoug wrote:
| This feels like a lot of speculation without evidence.
| According to the article, nobody knows what's happening and
| why.
| [deleted]
| nbardy wrote:
| > will toss their political agenda around the office while
| other employees, intimidated by cancel-culture, shy away from
| calling out the obvious BS
|
| This is why it spreads so fast. You have one person who is
| loud, assertive and aggressive. And most people just want to
| avoid politics so they nod their heads.
| nodesocket wrote:
| Completely agree it's coming from employees and staff who
| believe their political ideology is the gospel and implementing
| cancel culture until there is no opposition is their goal. This
| largely stems from the bubble and lack of diversity in
| political ideology in the bay area and Europe.
| fareesh wrote:
| Society in the west seems to not know how to deal with this new
| variety of bullying. By cloaking their bullying in the veil of
| righteousness, bullies are able to engage in self-
| aggrandisement to satisfy the tyrannical need to shape the
| world in the image that they desire, without engaging in the
| civilized discourse and debate that would preclude such
| decision making. The justification thrown around is that the
| cause is righteous and therefore the ends justify the means,
| which is pretty much the same justification that has been used
| by every tyrant in the past.
|
| Standing up to them comes at a high cost, but when has it ever
| been easy. Perhaps the rest of society has too much to lose
| now.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| >Society in the west seems to not know how to deal with this
| new variety of bullying
|
| Society in the West in contrast to... what exactly? Are you
| under the impression non-Western societies don't shape
| culture based on norms and expectations about what's proper
| or right? How is Spotify deleting episodes _from their own
| platform_ tyranny? Jesus people have become so dramatic and
| whiny. Here 's a crazy idea, if you don't want your episodes
| deleted don't sell rights to your intellectual property for
| 100 million bucks to another party
| montagg wrote:
| Every channel owner should be forced to host any speech
| anyone makes. That's what free speech means. /s
| slg wrote:
| > Here's a crazy idea, if you don't want your episodes
| deleted don't sell rights to your intellectual property for
| 100 million bucks to another party
|
| It is especially weird considering this was basically a
| foregone conclusion the moment Rogan signed with Spotify.
| Take a look at the HN comments when the news broke[1].
|
| Spotify has a policy that says they won't host certain
| content. Rogan and his guests have a history of saying
| things that don't fit that content policy. It didn't take a
| genius to see those two things were incompatible. I'm not
| sure there is any convincing argument that Rogan is being
| mistreated for walking right into this easily predictable
| situation.
|
| [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23239304
| imgabe wrote:
| > Spotify has a policy that says they won't host certain
| content. Rogan and his guests have a history of saying
| things that don't fit that content policy.
|
| _Citation needed_
|
| This is Spotify's content policy:
|
| https://support.spotifyforpodcasters.com/hc/en-
| us/articles/3...
|
| Assuming we're not talking about infringing or illegal
| content, we're left to conclude that Rogan "promotes,
| advocates, or incites hatred or violence against a group
| or individual based on characteristics, including, race,
| religion, gender identity, sex, ethnicity, nationality,
| sexual orientation, veteran status, or disability."
|
| Note, that does not mean "has an un-PC take on
| something", it very specifically says _promotes,
| advocates or incites hatred or violence_. Where and when
| has Rogan ever done that?
| kryogen1c wrote:
| > How is Spotify deleting episodes from their own platform
| tyranny? Jesus people have become so dramatic and whiny.
|
| to use the overlycommon parable of a frog slowly being
| boiled to death, you are the frog saying "jesus people, the
| water raised 0.5 degrees, no ones dying here"
|
| the problem is that youre focusing on one move that might
| be meaningless by itself, but is a part of a larger game of
| chess. the pieces are moving in the direction of the
| authoritarian left.
|
| > Society in the West in contrast to... what exactly?
|
| previous western societys. not saying the west is special,
| just that a lot of longterm cultures have suffered under
| leftist extremism (china, russia, various middle eastern
| countries) but its been a long time since the extreme left
| catastrophized in the west. we seem unable to cope.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Regarding boiling frog metaphor:
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2006/09/th
| e-b...
| ziftface wrote:
| Comments like the one you replied to honestly seem kind of
| silly. The "problem" you're describing is as old as time,
| it's not some new phenomenon the west bumped into.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| People across the world calling you a fascist /
| communist, with 30 seconds of effort, to their and your
| 1,000 closest friends, seems like a pretty new
| phenomenon.
| krapp wrote:
| "your 1,000 closest friends?"
| hattmall wrote:
| Removing random episodes offering no reasoning is
| tyrannical. It being "their platform" is a non-statement as
| that's the only place they can be tyrants.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| No, it's not. It's about as tyrannical as a chef deciding
| what meals she serves in her own restaurant. While we're
| on the topic of Western civilization, people deciding
| what they do with their own property in their private
| businesses is _actually the basis of Western
| civilization_ , in contrast to the apparently now
| mainstream take that they ought to be compelled to host
| something they don't want to host.
|
| A tyrant is someone who puts dissidents up against the
| wall and puts a bullet in their head, not a streaming
| platform deciding what they want to stream.
| dlp211 wrote:
| How is it tyranny? Under the most liberal definition
| tyranny is: "cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of
| power or control."
|
| It certainly is not cruel for any definition of cruel I
| am familiar with. It certainly isn't arbitrary, Spotify
| is not doing this on a whim and it isn't taking down all
| the episodes, it clearly is being very deliberate, though
| you may disagree with their process. The only one could
| be unreasonable, but what exactly makes this
| unreasonable? Again, you may disagree with their
| reasoning, but it is not an unreasonable position.
|
| Why don't we back off this extreme rhetoric that plagues
| our conversations today?
| roenxi wrote:
| > It certainly isn't arbitrary... [a]gain, you may
| disagree with their reasoning, but it is not an
| unreasonable position.
|
| Those are slightly incorrect interpretations of the words
| 'arbitrary' and 'unreasonable'.
|
| Reasonable doesn't mean 'has reasons'. Every decisions
| has reasons. If a king decides to chop someone's head off
| he had reasons - he felt like it. Being
| reasonable/unreasonable is about whether an opinion can
| be changed by evidence and argument. Almost all
| moderation is unreasonable, I've very rarely seen a
| moderator make a call and then not stick with it (being
| unreasonable isn't always a bad thing). Reasonableness is
| a judgement call on the quality of the reasons behind a
| decision.
|
| Similarly, arbitrary doesn't mean unpredictable. It is a
| judgement call on whether the reasons behind an action
| are reasonable. Being done on behalf of a policy doesn't
| make an action reasonable.
|
| It is quite an easily sustainable argument that any
| content moderation policy is arbitrary. Compare European
| vs American media norms around moderating sex - it is
| pretty easy to argue by comparison some of the standards
| floating around are arbitrary, because standards differ
| but both continents produce great media which involves
| sex.
| dlp211 wrote:
| arbitrary: "based on random choice or personal whim,
| rather than any reason or system."
|
| None of these are by personal whim, there is clearly a
| process/system in place to determine whether an episode
| should stay.
|
| unreasonable: "not guided by or based on good sense" and
| "beyond the limits of acceptability or fairness." Sorry,
| I just don't see how these decisions could be considered
| unreasonable. You may disagree with the moral sense of
| why they are doing this, you may disagree that that is
| good sense, but that would be best, your opinion, not
| some empirically correct point of view.
| alexc05 wrote:
| I'm not certain that tyrants pay their employees $100
| million.
|
| He is being more than fairly compensated. They don't have
| to host his white nationalist content.
|
| They pay him handsomely for the privilege of removing the
| episodes where he uncritically nods along with the likes
| of Stephan Moleneaux and Alex Jones.
| atat7024 wrote:
| > he uncritically nods along
|
| You'd have lynched every talk show host in the last 60
| years that had on a guest they didn't crucify at every
| point, ruining their interviews?
|
| Ridiculous.
| vladTheInhaler wrote:
| Is it tyranny to force a business to sell, say, a wedding
| cake, to a customer they don't like?
|
| Or is it tyranny to _not_ force a business to accept
| everyone, even if they don 't comply with social norms
| like, say, wearing a mask?
| Seasonwreckage wrote:
| If you pay for phone and you smash it against a wall, it
| is well within your rights even if it belongs to your
| kid. Extremely shallow argument on my side, but still
| stands true within the confines of this censorship
| argument.
| galuggus wrote:
| A good contrast is China. China is very careful not to have
| another cultural Revolution. The solutions they use may be
| unpalatable to many westerners.
| alkonaut wrote:
| What's the "bullying" here exactly? Removing Alex Jones
| episodes?
| krona wrote:
| Presumably Spotify employees bullying their colleagues and
| employer with sanctimonious moralistic arguments such as
| harm avoidance.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Society in the west seems to not know how to deal with
| this new variety of bullying_
|
| If by new you mean new to the Roman Republic, sure. But
| pretty much every politician from the first kings and village
| elders justified what they did, good or bad, as part of the
| fight for righteousness.
| bigmattystyles wrote:
| There's a another group - ephemeral online mobs - People not
| involved with the content at hand in any way, shape or form
| contribute to a reactionary admonition and I'm sure businesses
| just want to avoid the controversy altogether. I don't know
| about Rogan for instance, but Hulu removed 4 episodes of sunny
| because of racist caricatures. They certainly were racist but
| the joke was on the characters using the caricatures. It's a
| silly example but nuance be damned. I don't think Spotify
| thinks its censoring anything, they just don't want trouble.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| The Sunny in Philadelphia thing makes no sense at all.
| Supposedly, Tina Fey pre-emptively asked to remove some of
| her own 30 rock episodes and that caused others to need to
| look like they're doing something lest they be caught up in a
| PR storm. Makes zero sense in the context of comedies using
| it as the butt of jokes though.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| That was the canary in the coal mine for me that activist
| mob outrage is getting out of hand. Another case of Gell
| Mann amnesia. When it's a topic I'm extremely familiar
| with, the preemptive removal or outrage doesn't make any
| sense.
|
| Those episodes literally had a discussion about the
| problems of blackface, and the point of the show is that
| the characters are terrible people and that's why the
| characters did it.[0]
|
| Like you said, all nuance is lost in proactively defending
| against the online activist mob and we lose good discussion
| in the process.
|
| [0] https://youtu.be/-0L_oJMhcs0
| Nbbbi wrote:
| type in the N word to Spotify -- prepared to be shocked. on IG
| (soundcloud) I noticed some wildly racist old song. music is
| exempt from social justice but open discussion and bad jokes are
| not.
| txsoftwaredev wrote:
| Spotify employees seem to have no issue with songs about
| killing police, assaulting women, bashing gays etc. Just listen
| to a mainstream rapper like Eminem and there is plenty to get
| offended about, if they cared too.
|
| A tame lyric for example:
|
| "But I may fight for gay rights, especially if that dyke is
| more of a knockout than Janay Rice/Play nice? Bitch I'll punch
| Lana Del Rey right in the face twice, like Ray Rice in broad
| daylight in the plain sight of the elevator surveillance/'Til
| her head is banging on the railing, then celebrate with the
| Ravens."
| markdown wrote:
| Some art is supposed to offend. If you want your antivaxxer
| theories, bigfoot stories, and moon landing conspiracies on
| Spotify, sing a song.
| DC1350 wrote:
| What's special about podcasts that makes them so much more
| offensive than music? There's lots of songs that are so much
| worse.
| readflaggedcomm wrote:
| Podcast presenting problematic ideas seriously persuade more
| effectively, like non-fiction contrasted with fiction.
| snurfer wrote:
| What are some examples of "problematic ideas"?
| txsoftwaredev wrote:
| So you believe that a podcast episode that is listened to
| once by a user is more likely to have an influence and be
| "problematic" than a song that is listened to daily and
| memorized?
| tayo42 wrote:
| What songs have caused a problem? I've been hearing how
| music is dangerous my whole life, Eminem, Marilyn Manson
| even Britney spears yet society hasn't fallen. People are
| unable to think critically about misleading arguments put
| out by manipulative internet talkers
| admeyer wrote:
| I am a long-time listener, but I am highly selective. The
| majority of the removed episodes in this list are the type of
| episodes that I skip. If I am going to spend 3 hours, I like to
| spend it with guests of the caliber of Bryan Fogel, Moxie
| Marlinspike, et al. I feel JRE is at its best when Joe is sitting
| across from someone who is from a different planet.
| pharmakom wrote:
| Piracy is proving an important defence against censorship. Do
| your part by paying for and then torrenting that movie!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-09 23:02 UTC)