Rogan's schtick is that he lets his guests explain their ideology without directly attacking it. Instead he has an assistant fact-check any claims they make, and Rogan is also very forthright about calling them out on logical inconsistencies - "you said x just before, now you're saying !x, can you explain how that makes sense?"
The spirit of open curiosity and honest discourse is important. It also gives some ideologues enough rope with which to hang themselves, eg the Milo Yiannopoulos incident.
They google things up and Rogan call people on BS when they contradict themselves, but they are not always right and they fall for some BS themselves.
You have morons out there saying corona is fake and mask are tool of enslavement + the whole Q mess.
Rogan is saying to wear masks and stay healthy. Only think that he is saying wrong is the amount of vitamins to take (he is actually taking too much).
And he has no "I'm joking bro". As a matter of fact he is quite humble and admits when he is wrong. I don't know what you expect him to do? Fact check every minute of 3h conversation?
Look what you did, you roped me into defending podcast I listen to few time a month...
My biggest criticism is the new format of recording multiple episodes per day. I totally understand the logistics, but I find Rogan gets tired and interacts less with the guest and the episode falls flat. The best part of JRE is Rogan's engaged curiosity.
I'd rather have one high quality episode per week than gambling on how tired Joe is. I've actually stopped listening regularly because of this format change.
Same here, the casual comedian/friend guest are usually cookie cutter episodes with small rants about their current lives (AND obligatory 15 min segment on how crazyup Comanche were and how badly they are mis-treated now - Empire of the Summer Moon - :) ).
https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-rogan-podcast-forest-fir...
Also it's worth pointing out Antifa did go around starting fires. Mainly in cities, burning down businesses and police cars.
He used to go around saying the moon landing was fake but did a 180 on that. So he might yet retract his claim.
(Oregon, arsonist, forest fire) https://thepostmillennial.com/arsonist-arrested-after-using-...
I haven't found the trifecta of ('Oregon', 'Left-wing activists', 'forest fires'). But I wouldn't have written an article making a claim that it definitely didn't happen. "falsely claimed" and "debunked" are unjustified claims themselves.
We are living in a strange time where many people think they know more than they do.
The article just says it was a streamer
Our venerable grandfather, of course, is smart enough to recoil from wrongthink; it's the human masses out there he's aiming to keep fed with the Correct Opinions.
If you think that somebody is spreading misinformation and is not arguing in good faith, why on earth would you discuss things on a platform where that person controls the editing? That sounds like a recipe for giving somebody the air of legitimacy while having no chance of convincing anybody.
Have they even accused JR of bad faith? Presenting their case to a friendly JR on JRE is not the same as a kangaroo debate against a Ben Shapiro type.
On the matter of free speech, Spotify isn't a public square. Facebook isn't a public square. A masonic fraternity isn't a public square. One of the key things about public squares is that it's funded by public money and administered by public officials.
How are people so keen on asking private companies to behave like public institutions... without asking for the other critically healthy pillars of public funding and public administration? It's sad, but I think it's because in some ways, people have come to actually TRUST big corps to be more morally responsive and deliberative than their own government. As in, would you rather Facebook own your messages, or would you like to see what concept of digital town square the UK or the US government would produce?
Spotify wants to corner the market on popular podcasts. Of it’s very nature — anyone with anything or nothing to say can start one - podcasting might be the best modern example of free speech, and I believe podcasters know this. If they see Spotify as an entity that will require editorial modification or will refuse to post “certain episodes” then podcasters won’t make deals with them. This isn’t a political point, it’s a business point. If Spotify can’t achieve their goal of being THE SOURCE for the best podcasts which are exclusive to their platform then their shareholders will demand changes.
Basically what I'm saying is that cornering podcasting isn't going to work. But inverting the market to be cornered to the syndication/creation side and not the distribution/consumption side there might be a more effective way. I'd suspect that eschewing both publicity and censorship would be critical to cornering that market. After all, Disney+* and Pornhub have content made with the same tools and sometimes the same people, while both retain their image.
+ if you want to see what I mean, turn on your adblocker and go to open.spotify.com and start browsing podcasts from ESPN, APM, and others and open the developer console. There are a number of interesting failures when ads are resolved, and a lot of little companies you've never heard of writing some cool networking infrastructure to distribute podcasts.
\* well maybe not Disney+. They might have a policy for this exact situation.
It's ironic to see the same people turn around and say that the internet is a public utility and service providers shouldn't throttle content or filter content.
> people have come to actually TRUST big corps to be more morally responsive
That is a pretty outlandish statement to make without something to back it up. I'd love to see an actual poll if people trust Google and Facebook to police what is moral. Last time I checked there was a poll that said people are more afraid than ever to say what they feel in public. https://www.cato.org/publications/survey-reports/poll-62-ame...
> would you like to see what concept of digital town square the UK or the US government would produce
This is a straw man. US Government struggles to build a basic website - they aren't going to build a "digital town square". On the other hand, I don't think it's unreasonable for the government to have clear policies on a person's legal rights to use large platforms to discuss what they want without fear of being de-platformed.
Does Spotify market itself as those things?
We have lost our minds: the ability to freely and discuss literally any topic was an American staple. Now you don’t dare say something that could potentially offend someone.
I could be fired if I said what I really think about some controversial issues and linked it to my identity. That’s not a world I enjoy living in.
Make of that what you will.
Now what I've been wondering after hearing that advice multiple times is: What do Americans talk about at dinner and other occasions? Because here political issues is about half of a typical dinner conversation, the other half being recounting recent news and events. Even most of the jokes we make are political... I probably wouldn't know what to talk about.
Here's a post about it: https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/nev...
This advice is more about protecting Europeans from an uncomfortable experience on vacation because of exposure to political views they will find objectionable, than about some fundamental inability to talk about politics in the U.S.
Though calling political views you disagree with "objectionable" as in "offensive" is starting on the wrong foot already. You can't convince someone of your POV by acting offended.
I have a few fun colleagues that tell jokes all the time. If they get fired for this, I'm instantly quitting.
I'll grant you that social media and current climate created a new phenomenon of "mob justice" for inappropriate opinions or comments, but in the opposite direction people are less afraid of management/ownership than they were before (the victims of which are sometimes today's mob).
I'm genuinely interested to know what the net result is.
I'm not trying to negate your experience. I'm just adding context about other people's experience in a recent past.
Here's my anecdote. I look back at films from the 80s and 90s where free speech was discussed or otherwise a component of the plot. It was unthinkable to censor thoughts, or allow the government to spy and collect data on the citizens.
Both of these notions seem to have disappeared.
Regardless, information is shared as such a rate now that comparing them to anecdotes from the 80s isn't even applicable. I'd have trouble believing a radio talk show host from the 80s would host self-proclaimed neo nazis like Joe Rogan has. If anything, speech is so free now that we see opinions that wouldn't have seen the light of day a few decades ago. Which is why content hosters are having to tackle the question of what they allow, and hopefully they make the right decision.
BTW, who are those millions you want to protect? Are you afraid otherwise sensible people will be infected by some opinions expressed on media? Isn't this a bit paternalistic?
It's better to fight the enemy in the open field; let's have people talk and show who they are and what they actually mean by what they say. Let's criticize what is wrong with what they say and not just said by somebody that got lumped together in the same camp. Let's have an open a tolerant society, in which intolerance itself is exposed for what it is openly and not given ammunition by being intolerant of any people.
You're coming at this based on the idea that everyone is rational and sensible and (re)evaluates their views based on logic. Our brains don't work like that; literally all it takes for someone to warm up to an idea is being repeatedly exposed to it [4], and that's before you even get into things like confirmation bias/pleas to emotion/peer pressure/etc.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/11/study-finds-reddits-contro...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/04/technology/alex-jones-inf...
[3] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-ba...
And yeah, it sucks that people on the margins of that such as sex workers get hurt, which is why we need to push to change those stigmas. But the alternative is letting open pedophiles teach your kids, or asking Jews to defeat their genocide-preaching Nazi coworkers in the “marketplace of ideas”. So all things considered it’s a fair trade.
Of course not. Media and narratives matter. Fascism has succeeded in the past at murdering millions of people. There is no fundamental reason why it couldn't happen again.
Letting people talking about things even if we don't like them, doesn't mean suddenly you have to bend to their narrative and make them control all of the media. But you should return the favour and not fully control the media too.
And I'm saying you should speak to some historians about this claim.
Always interesting that stifling the fascists and Nazis is so popular* but no one ever mentions the ongoing need to silence the communists, who are in the same "ideology with a 7-figure body count" category. Why is that?
*Also in thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24515338
> "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers".
This fear of saying the wrong thing seems to say a lot more about the expanding reach of both corporations and individuals (and for individuals, the growing scale of memetic behavior) rather than some change in attitude towards free speech.
> We have lost our minds: the ability to freely and discuss literally any topic was an American staple.
On Spotify specifically, though? I don’t remember a time in America when I was getting paid to post whatever I felt like saying into a microphone to Spotify.
He has that. He's free to post whatever he wants on his website where many people will see it.
Sex, breasts, swearwords? As far as I can remember the American staple was and is to bleep every fucking thing that could potentially be connected to a nipple.
I mean, Joe signed the contract and choosing what to exclude was more than likely discussed in negotiations, or even written into the contract. He opted to take this route.
Now, I don't know what you actually believe, but it's worth noting that you currently have all the free speech you want and have always had. What you're arguing for is free speech AND no consequences, which isn't and was never guaranteed.
I don't really disagree with your specific example (or that there have always been things that you can't really say in america), but in general it's a shitty way for the world to work. we should seek to change it.
If somebody's going to commit an act of violence based on a radio host's statements then they already have serious issues, and it's only a matter of time before something sets them off.
At various times in the history of the US specifically, but analogues exist in most other places, you could have been fired or otherwise pariah'ed for:
Freely discussing the conditions and rights of laborers
Discussing political ideologies like communism
Discussing various sects of Christian belief
Discussing Non-Christian beliefs
Being for or against political popular movements
Being against police authority
Discussing or demonstrating opposition to wars
Simply being one of a set of ethnicities
Being, or discussing, being gay
Being, or discussing, being an atheist
While I personally think that Joe Rogan's podcast, the conversations of a pedestrian comedian and self-professed moron who sometimes lands interesting guests, is a strange hill for Spotify to be fighting on, there was no time in US history that such "unfortunate and unacceptable" events weren't happening.
McCarthyism and the blacklisting of many otherwise wealthy entertainers is usually the textbook case of this and that is within living memory. This sickness is rooted deeply in American culture, and we only think there was some reprieve due to the academic freedoms and immense prosperity of a post-WW2 boom era that ended 40 years ago, followed by a brief period of online semi-anonymous expression that lasted until around 2000 when the great masses finally found it and brought it back to the baseline awfulness of the rest of the culture
He does. Nobody forced him to choose a contract with Spotify.
He does: he can put up his own website and host his videos. No company is required to host and promote his content if they don't agree with it.
It baffles me when people think it's acceptable to throw freedom of speech out the window just because someone is offended.
We have to keep pushing back on this. "I am offended that you don't respect someone elses opinion" ;)
Freedom of speech and expression is the bedrock of the civilized world, an important part of modern culture and is indeed defined as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Joe will talk to people but probably not people trying to destroy his business through their employer who he has a contract with.
Honestly I expect that as time goes and people wisen up, the more serious and legit a personality is the less likely they will be to accept an invite to that show until it is just bro-ey comedians and controversial personalities that need a steady flow of more supporters so they will say yes to the opportunity to expose their ideas unchallenged. Controversies sell well and Rogan is aware of that, at the end of it he only cares about growing his wealth and not freedom of speech.
BTW, I believe almost no one wants to change the amendments and remove freedom of speech. Those characters will still have the means to communicate their ideas and will be protected by the law, matter fact I myself have donated to ACLU who have defended the KKK in the court of law for the higher purpose of defending freedom of speech and rightly so. See https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-em-defends-kkks-rig...
I'm assuming fans of Rogan will be happy to read my comment since as Rogan promotes, we should give a platform to anyone or any idea and let people decide by themselves. Or that doesn't apply to his dissenters?
Those are literally the same thing. Free speech means ideas compete on their merits in a marketplace of ideas and no central authority gets to decide which ideas are worth considering. You can be against free speech --- many people are these days --- but you don't get to claim to be in favor of free speech but not this speech or that speech.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> The protection of freedom of expression is premised upon fundamental principles and values that promote the search for and attainment of truth, participation in social and political decision-making and the opportunity for individual self-fulfillment through expression.
There is a legalistic sense of free expression/speech in various countries, yes. But it is also a philosophy and worldview that goes far beyond a legalistic sense. One that emphasizes toleration of dissent and competing views as a process to find truth, and one that recognizes the inherent importance of expression in human actualization and dignity. In that broader sense, the state/non-state distinction starts to fade away.
I think you mean tortious interference. Or maybe you were right the first time.
You are conflating speech with the actual censorship of speech.
Is this a George Orwell parody account?