Hacker News Reader

Comment by _zamorano_ | Hacker News Reader

It's not strange many interesting people want to visit Joe Rogan podcast.

First, he is willing to give a voice to many who won't be able to tell their stories on mass media.

Who other will let speak people like James Damore? What major broadcaster is willing to interview Jordan Peterson without protraiting him as a villain?

He respects his guest, when in disagrement. His interview to Jack Dorsey (not much of his liking, I presume), was criticised for not being aggresive enough.

The interviewed is not afraid of a headline out of context.

Given the current political climate, I'm not suprised a MMA guy is capable of doing what most journalists don't.

View on HN

The reason he can be "more independent" is exactly because he's not dependent financially on media, not his MMA bg.

But he is financially dependent on youtube, isn't he? I am not suggesting he auto-censors himself but he is not "independent".

Does the actual podcast, not the one that gets uploaded to YouTube, have Joe reading ads?

I assumed it did and they got cut out?

Podcasts can also be uploaded to services that intersperse advertising (or place them at determined points) on their own, even if the host doesn't read the adverts during the podcast. Midroll is the big name in that business.

Yes if you listen through other services Joe reads ads from several sponsors at the beginning and end.

No his podcast makes more money outside of youtube. I m pretty sure he makes "F U Youtube" money to not care about self-censorship

https://www.quora.com/How-much-money-does-Joe-Rogan-make-fro...

He is a world famous standup comedian. He does MMA coverage and podcasting as side gig for fun. I doubt that his life depends on the podcast.

I doubt he is making much money doing standups in LA clubs. vs having a podcast with an audience of about 10 millions, which is more than most TV shows can claim.

His standup shows on Netflix must have made him hundreds of thousands if not million I would think.

His podcast approximately makes 50 million USD per year.

He was also the host of a prime time game show for 5 years.

Also was an actor on prime time tv before even this

Not just Youtube, he gets paid sponsors on his podcast.

For example (in my case) if you listen on Apple Podcasts you can hear 5 minutes of him talking about brands. These brands probably pay him tens of thousands per episode to get a shoutout. Pretty sure YT may make a good contribution, but not so much that he relies on it.

I thought the Dorsey interview (and the round table with them, the legal/moderation lady with multiple titles, and that Pool or whatever his name is guy) were pretty good.

Not a fan of Stephen Crowder (sp?), but that interview was pretty uncomfortable. Generally though, yeah, I think he does well interviewing people.

I question the value of letting people like James Damore and Jordan Peterson speak on such a big platform.

Edit: The people downvoting me are hypocrites. The function of downvoting to make something less visible. Are you saying what I say has less value and should therefore have a lesser platform?

But to be serious, everyone acknowledges that what some people say is of more value than what other people say, and should be seen by more people. We just disagree on what the things that have value are. And your insistence on arguing about the former, rather than the latter is tiresome and dishonest.

Yes, we should selectively filter people whose ideas we don't like from being able to speak them to any audience. In fact I question the value of letting people like <person whose ideas you value> speak on such a big platform.

Surely you understand that what you're suggesting here is totalitarian? The value you mention is the strengthening of a society where freedom of ideas is considered a core value.

It's not totalitarian at all. I'm not advocating not letting them speak. I'm saying what they say has no (or negative) value.

Your "totalitarian" remark is such a shameless misrepresentation of what the person you're talking to is saying that you might as well be talking to yourself.

What's wrong with Jordan Peterson? I think he's vastly misrepresented.

All he has done is repackage some pretty basic self-help advice into a gross right-wing ideology. I don't think this has any value.

I strongly disagree. Have you actually watched his lectures, read his books, and formed your own opinion?

I'm sorry, where is the right wing ideology exactly? He's pretty passionate about his criticisms of the far left. That doesn't automatically make him right wing. Most of his views are more left than right.

>I'm sorry

You should be.

I have an open mind, show me the right wing ideology with some sources and I'll take your side.

I noticed you called out both Jordan Peterson and James Demore. So I'd guess you're a radical leftist with some kind of funny gender agenda. I find that just as distasteful as white supremacists on the far right.

Unlike you though, I think freedom of speech trumps everything. You should be free to espouse your unfortunate views, as should everyone else. When you deny a voice to people you just drive the thinking underground where they get stuck in an echo chamber like Nchan with no moderating or criticizing voices. That's the real danger.

I'd much rather have neo-nazis giving talks at universities where people won't take them seriously, boo them, and debate them than escalating in an 8chan echo chamber until someone does something radical like a mass shooting.

This is me pushing back against your ideology and hopefully providing a small check to the certainty with which you hold your views. Slightly more productive than trying to silence you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com