Joe Rogan, confined to Spotify, is losing influence
theverge.com
theverge.com
Podcasts for the most part were in the ideal state for consumers, almost always free and mostly client independent distributed w/ RSS. I don't think there is much of any argument that Spotify can improve that state for consumers by taking a podcast exclusive. These deals are just payouts for the hosts not investments that make the shows better. Most even very successful podcasts likely have low opex (some exceptions like NYT Daily) and don't benefit from a big pile of cash.
On a different note regarding the Rogan Deal, Spotify took ages to add video streaming support on Apple TV (main way I would catch Rogan) which basically caused me to quit casual watching. They also only recently added offline playback for Apple Watch and even then it's premium exclusive and requires manual downloading of eps. I don't understand at all why an enormous company like Spotify is so neglectful of the entire apple ecosystem.
Their UX is awful too compared to a simple web app, they should just clone a basic Youtube/Odysee/Rumble functionality for their video side.
Edit: and yes the album is available on Spotify in full.
the ads aren't fake.. well, not all of them -- they're included ironically -- and many aspects of that album generated legal issues for the band.[0]
See also: about half of the rap tracks on the platform, where every third line is product placement.
Does Spotify not support FF == skip 10 seconds forward that every other podcast player does? I have genuinely no idea, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Think how many people still subscribe and pay over ten dollars a month to listen to Howard Stern. I subscribe to a few podcasts on patreon at $5 just for the few bonus episodes. And I have trouble believing the ad revenue Spotify gets for this is anywhere close to what paying customers could be for them.
For example, there must be a lot of value in training people to use Spotify for podcasts at all, starting with the biggest podcast in the world. As more people use Spotify for podcasts, Spotify gets more and more power for future exclusivity negotiations.
Spotify was certainly just a music app for me until I had to start using it to listen to Joe Rogan, and it seems reasonable that the Joe Rogan move was to create this transition in Spotify users. They clearly don't just want to be a music app.
Then again, I haven't been able to understand his success.
I cringe when he calls himself a Comedian.
I cringe when he talks science. (Always felt someone should sit down with him and explain The Placebo Effect, and The Scientific Method, and what goes into a good Clinical study. I would be shocked if he ever even took Psy 101.)
Is it the upfront pot use that garners so many admirers?
He does know his MMA though.
I have enjoyed his interviews, but it's the guests I find interesting.
In saying that, I've stopped listening to him since he went onto Spotify. The only episode I've listened to in full since he switched was the recent Tarantino interview, which was great.
You haven't missed much. 9 out of 10 of his podcasts have him spouting the same one rant about covid responses. He does this no matter the guest or their field of interest.
It's that simple I think.
To each his own. He sells out comedy shows and has done so for years. People do enjoy his comedy.
He does know what the placebo effect is it appears:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE5k5UcEHj4
To me he seems reasonably informed for a autodidact-type person.
Eh, his relationship to MMA has been far more casual for years now, maybe in the aughts or early last decade, when he was more engaged by the sport this was true. His pod is still the highest honor media appearance for most MMA fighters though.
For Rogan, he could have tried to monetise his audience directly but probably couldn’t be arsed, or maybe thought people wouldn’t pay. Easier to take the $100m and keep focusing on content instead of commerce
Spotify is not powerful enough otherwise.
Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't aka Microsoft with their Twitch challenger and ninja, but every circumstance is different.
Part of this might be the legal friction between Spotify and Apple in the past. Here's an article that describes a coalition that Epic Games, Spotify, and others formed just last year to counter Apple's platform cut. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/09/epic-spotify-and-oth...
The rest of the world seems to think otherwise….
I quit Cable because of the ads. Great films chopped into mincemeat! Never going back. No RSS, no subscription. Requests for Patreon donations, no problemo.
Honestly I don't think Spotify bought podcasts to make money from it, they just want people to associate the word "podcast" with the app Spotify. And so far that works because no other app gained significant momentum.
The fact that less people watch the show is almost irrelevant
They bought exclusivity to as many top podcasts as they could in order to start centralizing podcasting on their platform. Eventually enough momentum shifts, and all the other podcasters have to go where users go, spotify. They may or may not succeed. Either way, it's not just "buying premium content." It's an attempt to seed a monopoly. I doubt that what they spent is even theoretically justifiable as a self contained business proposition.
The whole thing is quite sad. Podcasts are/were one the the free digital medias. No mediation. Standard protocol. The client is just a client. No one tells you what to say, or controls who listens to what. I wish FB and youtube were that.
We the geeks have done a terrible job of defining and promoting digital freedom. Failed to find a way that doesn't sound like a paranoid eff rant. I don't think Joe really understood that RSS is a Free (as in freedom) media, perhaps the last. He probably thought about it as Youtube-vs-Spotify, with Apple and other RSS clients being more of the same.
If you're interested in pushing back on this, the Podcasting 2.0 community welcomes you. Check out https://podcastindex.org/ for details.
Podcast 2.0 apps have more metadata, chapters, cover art that can change like a slideshow during an episode, etc.
Realizing that spotify was trying to "steal" podcasting in order to challenge youtube was a depressing thought to me. I always hoped that podcasting, as a free medium, would evolve to the point where it can usurp youtube... but not like this.
Luckily, perhaps, I don't think they're succeeding. I was a semi-loyal listener of most of Spotify's now exclusive content. Besides a select JRE episode that peaks my interest, I don't follow any of them currently.
It's not because Spotify's play is dirty. I'm just using different podcast apps, don't love spotify for podcasting and other such trivialities. As this article mentions, this is probably common. I guess a diverse selection of clients still counts for something.
These just sound like standard features of the MP3 spec and are hardly new...
The open Podcast Index is great - that's the one place where the "open podcast industry" is most centralised, on Apple's podcast index
Ironic considering the origin of the term "podcast".
Also, 15 20 years ago, smart people (me being the smartest of all) genuinely believed that "information wanted to be free." The explosive success of WWW demonstrated that open platforms and protocols are far more powerful than companies. Trying to control a medium was a recipe for failure.
That was before reality cracked her whip, and the borders separating one media from another became defined by the monopoly owning it.
It breaks trust, and makes the spotify app feel adversarial. Like I have to be vigilant when I play music in case I get tricked. In a paid product I don’t want that at all and if it isn’t resolved, I’ll probably cancel my subscription over it and move to Apple Music or something.
Used its API to build https://audile.app which has completely changed my relationship with music.
Spotify is going to hell.
Hey Spotify: since I haven’t found a good alternative to your service, if I can’t stop your monopoly giving my money to Joe Rogan, can I at least have a ‘hide podcasts’ option?
I’m a massive music fan and podcast listener.
Spotify had been my go to for music, but the combination of podcast and music has absolutely killed my experience.
I love both, but when I’m listening to music, I don’t want to listen to podcasts and vice versa. They serve different purposes for me, all audio is not the same.
I’ve recently switched to YouTube Music. I will occasionally use Spotify for podcasts.
It's not great for the customer... Yet. Maybe podcasting will continue to explode and we'll see a jump in quality, like we did with podcasts like Serial.
0. https://mignano.medium.com/podcasting-rss-openness-and-choic...
PocketCasts is FAR FAR better for Podcasts than the spotify app. The Spotify App has been getting worse for music as well, to the point where I am looking at other services.
Spotify is trying to be everything to everyone, and instead will end up being nothing to no one.
Now I have to drop that because Spotify want to play monopoly? S** that.
I wish YT-DL worked with their audio though...
I already have software that can play MP3s. I like it. Stop trying to make me use someone else's.
I'm a long time (since Startup) listener of Gimlet podcasts. Slowly Gimlet podcasts are moving to Spotify exclusives. When that happens, I just stop listening. I'm 100% not interested in using Spotify. In a crowded market it just makes room for something else.
I've been using Castro for around a year now and loving it. It reminds me of my favourite Android podcast app, Podcast Addict, with the reams of customization options, but packages it up in an Apple-y design.
> “There were a few episodes they didn’t want on their platform,” Rogan said, per DMN. “And I was like, ‘OK, I don’t care.'” https://www.thewrap.com/spotify-deletes-joe-rogan-podcast-ep...
I guess some do but I don't think I ever listen to past podcasts that I've already listened to...
Beyond bad faith concern trolling, I suspect not.
In other words, lying by omission is still lying.
Edit to add- just to show how unbelievably petty the reasoning can be- Tyler Perry threw a bitch-fit about an episode of Boondocks and had it pulled (as was an episode ripping on BET when they screamed). For something that was pure satire and a cartoon they not only had it pulled from airing, they now no longer list the episodes at all on Hulu/HBOMax, pretending they never existed at all, even re-numbering the episodes.
All because of Tyler Perry/Some BET exec's ego? GTFO.
We have Holocaust deniers while still having people alive that survived it. We have people constantly denying proven, recent history and some people think it's ok to censor shit and pretend it never happened and it'll be all roses and sunshine.
They should at least have a disclaimer about the missing episodes.
This isn't some new idea here.
> A memory hole is any mechanism for the deliberate alteration or disappearance of inconvenient or embarrassing documents, photographs, transcripts or other records, such as from a website or other archive, particularly as part of an attempt to give the impression that something never happened.
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-rogan-experience-podcast...
Because there’s so little cross pollination today everyone lives in a bubble. If your Facebook is full of right-wing stuff, you only watch Fox News and only listen to Larry Elder, you’ve got an echo chamber, breeding ground for radicalization.
Having a wide variety of guests actually fights that. You listen to Bernie Sanders, then Alex Jones, then Ben Shapiro, then Edward Snowden. Rogan breaks the echo chamber. People who might only listen to Alex Jones have a chance at listening to Bernie.
Everything is publicity. It's not achieving some important social need, its driving people towards new products. Interviewing Alex Jones isn't doing anything except making more people know what an Alex Jones is.
Is that why the kardashians are so famous, because their continued media presence is our opportunity to see if they make sense? No, they are just crap and giving them more sunlight just gives them more undue fame, money, and power.
I think the truth is the opposite: there are no dangerous ideas. "Sandy Hook was fake!" is stupid and wrong, but the way to defeat it is exposure, not erasure. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
It's very easy to pick up new conspiracies for a conspiracy-minded person. It's very hard to drop them.
Some people hearing a crazy idea might adopt it. Some might criticize it. Some might learn how crazy ideas work. Some might adopt it for a little while, then reject it, and be wiser through the experience. Someone who goes on a crusade to fix this one falsehood might be exposed to it. You cannot know what all effects the sum of a discussion has.
But I can certainly tell you this: censorship doesn't work. It didn't work in ancient Rome. It didn't work in the Holy Roman Empire. It didn't work in Soviet Russia. It doesn't work in Communist China. It's not working right now for vaccine disinformation. Driving crazy ideas underground does not make them disappear, and it does not make them unpopular -- it makes them spread without criticism. And in fact, telling people they can't do something generally makes them want to do it. It appears to work for a little while, but I cannot think of a single historical case in which this actually worked out. Somehow the banned ideas always seem to survive beyond the death of the regime that banned them.
We will always have crazy ideas. We will always have crazy people that buy them. Depriving them of respectability is perhaps a little helpful, but opens up a different danger: just who gets to decide what and who is crazy? I didn't vote for you, and I didn't vote for Spotify either.
You can't, and you never will. Culture evolves slowly, and humans even slower.
There is ample evidence since at least World War I, that both 'positive' PSA type information and 'negative' propaganda/counter information/psy ops absolutely have an effect.
Reminder that the Wakefield fraud in 1998, on M.M.R. vaccines and autism, started a negative sentiment towards vaccination and is directly attributed to the measles outbreaks (and deaths) across the developed world (Amplified by Oprah's platform). [1]
Reminder that still today many people will claim carrots give you better vision (they are indeed healthy). This was a counter-info operation from the British, claiming they were providing Air Control with carrots, in order to hide the existing of newly invented RADAR technology against German Bombers. [2]
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136032/
[2] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/a-wwii-propagand...
(Agreed btw that most humans are easy to manipulate. How interesting about the carrots, I like to eat, for the eyes partly)
Public Service Announcement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_service_announcement
I don't think you can win that battle. The 'Proctor & Gamble are satan worshipers' meme spread across the country before the internet existed. You can't stop people from spreading nonsense, but engaging with and ridiculing nonsense at least makes sure the counter-memes exist, when someone is ready to hear them.
You can do both. There is evidence that deplatforming works. It isn't perfectly effective, but not giving cranks access to the biggest megaphones and most virulent information-spreading engines in human history does in fact seem to inhibit their ability to spread. Doing so doesn't stop anyone from engaging with or ridiculing them.
But, point of order, we've been "engaging and ridiculing" for years now, it hasn't worked yet. Everyone says sunlight is the best disinfectant, but as far as I can see, this particular strain of infection feeds on sunlight.
'Works' in what sense? Does it make the sort of people who believe this stuff less credulous? Or does it just make them less likely to listen to the specific blowhard being deplatformed, and less likely to believe the specific conspiracy theory being peddled? It's not like there's a shortage; both conspiracy theories and con-men are fungible.
(And it goes without saying, that any deplatforming/censorship argument sounds strongest against something patently ridiculous like Sandy Hook not having happened, weaker against something controversial, and positively diabolical against something you personally believe to be true. If you assume the person in charge of the deplatforming is someone you politically disagree with, are you still as big a fan?)
It works in the sense that it deprives people of the power-multiplying capabilities of large platforms to spread disinformation. It doesn't stop the spread, but it does slow the spread. Yes, Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists would still exist without Alex Jones egging them on, but there would have been fewer of them, and they might not have been so invested in the meme that they decided to harass victims of the shooting.
>And it goes without saying, that any deplatforming/censorship argument sounds strongest against something patently ridiculous like Sandy Hook not having happened, weaker against something controversial, and positively diabolical against something you personally believe to be true.
Yes, that's why I'm making it against the first group, and not the second or third. I'm saying if you're spreading patently ridiculous nonsense like "Sandy Hook was a hoax," and that ridiculous nonsense is doing actual societal harm, it's perfectly legitimate for platforms to decide that you should take your big breadboard and tinfoil hat elsewhere.
>If you assume the person in charge of the deplatforming is someone you politically disagree with, are you still as big a fan?
I'm not supporting deplatforming in the case of simple political disagreement, so in that case, no.
What you're dancing around, though, is that you can't talk about why this particular piece of bullshit sticks if you're pretending it's apolitical. The Sandy Hook hoax idea, as I understand it, is the theory that there are forces within the US government plotting to restrict gun rights, and they staged a fake school shooting to gain support. Right?
Well, you can pin the second bit on Alex Jones, at least partly, but the other part, the "there are forces within the US government plotting to restrict gun rights" part, that's a meme that the mainstream right has been pushing relentlessly for something like two generations. And it is not a conspiracy theory; it's literally true (albeit often exaggerated).
So my point, the reason I think deplatforming Jones would be ineffectual, is that the damage is already done. A generation has been convinced that the anti-gun brigade is so powerful and pernicious that faking a school shooting is something they might realistically do. That is the problem. I don't know if that problem is solveable, but I don't think deplatforming people like Alex Jones really affects it.
The most livable societies I know are all open societies. Once you start censoring this you might also want to censor that and the misinformation here, and this doesn't sound right either... Maybe your own comment is misinformation. Maybe saying we need more restrictions on speech is a dangerous idea. Should I lobby for your speech to be deplatformed, as you call it?
If by "open" societies you mean societies in which no form of "censorship" is practiced by any entity, at any level, then no, you do not, because such societies do not exist. Even the United States has limits placed on speech at the Federal level (the level limited by the First Amendment) and elsewhere. Even public squares are regulated. And on top of everything else, society itself imposes "censorship" through cultural and social norms.
Certainly speech on private property can be regulated. You can't go into a restaurant and start campaigning or venting about the government. Platforms on the web, which are also private property, have always been likewise regulated by their owners. I guarantee this is the case in whatever livable societies you're referring to.
>Once you start censoring this you might also want to censor that and the misinformation here, and this doesn't sound right either... Maybe your own comment is misinformation.
Yes, the slippery slope argument, all forms of censorship must inevitably lead to arbitrary censorship something something Orwell something Stalinist purges. At this point it's been invoked so often that it's become something of a thought-terminating cliche. All I can say is I don't believe that the ability of site owners and moderators to police and control content - an ability they've had forever mind you - will somehow inevitably lead to the boot stomping on our heads forever. If you disagree we'll have to agree to disagree.
After all, as stated earlier, there are no societies in which no form of censorship occurs. If the slippery slope argument were valid, all societies would currently be dictatorships. That societies exist which you consider "open" suggests that
>Should I lobby for your speech to be deplatformed, as you call it?
Lobby whom? We're talking about the policies of specific private entities, you're the one who predictably brought up CCP style authoritarianism despite no one actually arguing for governments to "deplatform" anyone from society. But sure - if you think my speech is doing real world harm in the same way as Alex Jones or anti-vaxxers, feel free to "lobby" the mods about it. That would, after all, be your free speech right would it not?
>feel free to "lobby" the mods about it.
Sure, we both know they won't remove you. If I were an elite and actually had the power to have your voice removed from all popular platforms, as well as access to Visa transactions and banking etc. like it happened to Jones, you'd still support it, right?
It's of course known these Silicon Valley corporations aren't really multi-billion dollar businesses, but collectivized people who have personhood and free speech rights. By creating oligopolies and controlling what information we view, they only exercise their rights as citizens the world.
Hasn't everything about the past ~5 years proven this to be completely fake?
This quip implies two things.
1. Is that all publicity is equivalent. Rogan is no James Randi. He's much more likely to nod along with anything a guest says than debunk it. His podcast is entertainment, not a crucible for the truth.
2. Is that every time we broadcast nonsense that fewer people believe it and society as a whole becomes wiser. If this were true, then when the ex-President talked about drinking bleach you'd expect bleach ingestion calls to 911 to decrease. In reality they increased at least on a short timescale. On a long enough timescale, maybe the anti vaccination population will fall below the level it was when Dr. Wakefield published his infamous anti vaccination paper. Given the last few decades of suffering, I'd guess there are better ways to educate the public.
1. You seem to think that Joe Rogan is not very reliable or trustworthy. How do you know that? Because of past interviews where he nodded along with a crackpot, right? Isn't that valuable information? Doesn't that help you evaluate new information you get from him?
2. The choice we are faced with is not, "Should we allow nonsense to be broadcasted"; it is "What should we do in response to it." In each of these cases, I think it's pretty important to be aware of what happened.
If you could time travel back to, say, 2000, and you had a choice of either trying to "bury" Wakefield's work to keep people from hearing about it or to promote the idea that his work was bunk, which would you choose? I think the latter would be more effective, wouldn't it?
This sort of hyperventilating moralistic fear of certain people makes me laugh, in its similarity to Victorian or conservative Christian communities. You cannot possibly want anything to do with that vagabond! I don't know, he has some vices, but he also has some perspective I am enriched by hearing. You don't have to fear sinners. Don't imitate them, but your life will be richer if you're less of a prude.
Milo is a gadfly. He offends me sometimes, too. And sometimes he has stinging observations I don't hear anywhere else. I don't want to listen to him every day, but I would be poorer for having never made the acquaintance. Alex Jones is energetic and occasionally unhinged, and when he says something completely insane that also happens to be true, I find it a comedy experience like no other. But he can also be a wakeup call to some of the naive views I hold. I don't want to listen to him every day, either, but I would again be poorer if I never had.
But at the end of the day, I really resent gatekeepers who want to make these sorts of decisions for me. I read history -- which means I read lots of things lots of very evil people have written. I would actually rather have the opportunity to read and study Hitler's words than have them banned on the assumption that they are too dangerous for me. I would like to think I am wise enough to judge evil for what it is, and I would like to be able to prove that to myself against real villians of history. The versions I was given in elementary school hardly illustrate the dangers. Goodness knows I can't avoid encountering dangerous ideas in the real world anyway, so what is the point of trying to protect me? I would rather be strong than safe.
People are not children. They can handle reading history's dangerous ideas, and they can handle hearing society's dangerous ideas. It is better to encounter those ideas on Joe Rogan with thoughtful and open questioning and discussion, than to encounter them quiet and unopposed in private. Strong people are better than safe ones. Victorian moralizing and shunning didn't really work out for them either.
Spotify is well within their rights to pick and choose who to platform. I, personally, think de-platforming is counterproductive. Conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones may be trash human beings, but I don't think Spotify having Rogan's interview with him -- which by the way is a lot of Jones looking insane, and Joe challenging him every step of the way -- is in any way equivalent to "Spotify supports Alex Jones." Censoring people just pushes them to echo chambers.
If you aren't offended by Alex Jones you got deeper issues, or perhaps are just ignorant to his white nationalist messaging.
Who talks like this??
The irony is that by moving to these liberal employees' platform, he's losing influence :)
By creating a crappy podcast platform they've ensured they get what they want and he ends up diminished.
Unless Spotify publicly disclosed which employees said something along with their political beliefs, I think the best we can do here is describe them as Spotify employees.
Arguably there are reasons to dislike Joe's podcast for people all over the political spectrum.
Also, it's Silicon Valley, liberals outnumber conservatives 10 to 1 so he's probably spot on with how he described them.
What he lost with YouTube is their algorithm which kept recommending bits and pieces aligned to what the user was already watching. With Spotify he's just there as an author/podcaster - nothing on the subject of what I am currently listening - he lost the context.
I placing his growth on YouTube and its recommendation engine more than anything else.
Having an algorithm filtering the feed is a god send, hopefully both for me and for the author, who in theory gets more leeway to try different kind of stuff and see what sticks.
One of the few recent times I've tuned in was the other day with Lex who I tend to listen to more often as his guests are way more interesting.
And Spotify's recommendation engine sucks for podcasting, most of the time it only suggests ones I've already listened to.
But other than that he is great.
I used to listen to him when he interviewed someone I was interested in. I even installed Spotify so I can access his podcast.
In practice, because I don’t use Spotify for anything else, I have simply forgotten about him.
If the deal lasts for more than 2 years, then he has made a serious error.
> Spotify doesn’t play or include ads that interrupt the listening experience of Premium subscribers. However, some podcast creators may include third-party advertising, host-read endorsements, or sponsorship messages in their episodes.
https://community.spotify.com/t5/Other-Podcasts-Partners-etc...
Annoying to both pay for spotify and get hammered with ads. Granted I pay for the music, but it's still annoying as all.
Since I still have to listen to ads, i'm thinking of just dropping the subscription and hoping there becomes a method to break this Widevine trash. I encounter a bug with their app on a daily basis and I am tired of it. From what I gather, there are different levels of Widevine encryption that limit video quality but the lower levels are crackable. I hope someone smarter than me tries the crack on the JRE podcast.
On Spotify not only he got some cash upfront, but also significantly mitigated this risk, since platform is way more aligned (i.e. it's important business for Spotify and a footnote for YouTube).
He cashed in before his expiration date. Brilliant move.
He also can talk to people he disagrees with without going into petty word fights. Despite his image he has a lot of humility, he knows and openly admits not to be the smartest man in the room. And to me comes across as a person eager to learn and hear new ideas.
I have learnt quite a lot about being good conversationalist by studying what and how he deals with guests.
He has casual (friends) episodes that are pretty repetitive but he also invites experts from all over. Those episodes are very entertaining.
(I dont use spotify so havent been following his podcast since the move)
Could being the operative word. We're talking about "blow a million dollars on random shit every year until you die and still have multiple millions left over" amounts of money. Why would anyone who doesn't already have hundreds of millions of dollars opt for that? The whole point of this tangent in the discussion is that he probably realized his time in the spotlight was limited, so any plan that assumes longevity is statistically unlikely to come to fruition.
But his influence dropping, I'm not at all surprised. I used to follow him until he moved to Spotify. Now I only catch the occasional clip on Youtube. And I've actually forced myself to endure the awful spotify UI for some special episodes like Dave Chappelle.
But otherwise I'd rather avoid that mess. It's truly awful.
I don't see how Spotify won anything, as some in this thread are saying. Youtube still gives you maximum exposure, and for just a little more than what Spotify charges you get essentially the same music catalogue, AND youtube premium ad free. I can't deny that's a good deal to me. I haven't watched TV since 2010, Youtube has way too much content in truth.
He has an incredible amount of influence but he at times has for example insane conspiracy theorists on with absolutely zero considerations about how him "appearing" like a good friend to them will influence his audience. He always ponders to his guests, which makes sure that they trust him and open up.
That might appear to be a good thing but it becomes a problem when you have people with insanely irrational and unscientific ideas on and don't put up disclaimers about their redderick. I'm not saying "cancel him", but I can totally understand why Spotify would want to remove some episodes...
Personally I think it's sad, because he does have the conversational and interview skills to really get a lot of information out of his guests but he let his platform become a stage for insanity.
Enforcing some sort of social responsibility on him is indirectly denying him his self expression.
Spotify also sends video even though I just need the audio. It's a waste of valuable bandwidth and CPU.
If there would an alternative I would take it.
Anyway I have definitely listened JRE way less lately...
I have Spotify and don't listen to podcasts much at all. When I have, it hasn't been on Spotify and I've always been able to skip through the recording to get past the ad (either with a "skip fwd 15 secs" button or by grabbing the slider and moving it manually). Does Spotify not offer that capability?
But Apple podcasts “skip 15sec” is still easier, I can do it without looking while driving.
The first time this happened to me (while loading up a Joe Rogan podcast), I legitimately thought Spotify was glitching out. There's no visual indication in the app that it's a temporary ad, or of how many ads you have to listen to before the episode starts. I made it to the beginning of the third ad track before giving up.
There is also a bug I experience pretty regularly where the podcast will restart when I resume it so I lose my spot.
Such a buggy piece of crap app.
Hey, let me download these so i can listen on the plane. Oh, the app just hangs on startup when you're in airplane mode. Well that's pointless.
And on and on.
It's a wonder anyone even can listen if they wanted to.
Sorry, this comment is probably not HN material, but every time I use Spotify it makes me angry from how it just doesn't work.
It certainly isn't perfect and there are aspects of the UI I find frustrating, but offline access and playback are the features that seem to work the best.
Edit: I also don't use Spotify for any podcasts and use other software since there are lots of great options for offline podcast listening that are way better than Spotify.
But it was also just an example of the many ways the app is broken here and there. Freezes up, crashes, etc... And this I've gotten across phones.
But that's just the bugs. As others have said the whole thing is not even close to designed for podcasts.
Podcasts are an entirely different use case, that needs to be RSS-shaped, not like music.
I still see clips of him on YouTube. How does that work given his deal with Spotify, anyone know?
There are these anecdotes about Benjamin Disraeli that anybody who ever talked to him felt like they were the most intelligent person in Britain, and at times if there were a bunch people around him, they felt like they took turns being the most intelligent people in Britain.
I won't get an account with a company just to hear what you have to say. If you require that, as far as I'm concerned your influence just waned a little. I'm steadfast and unflinching in this, it is a firm rule I have.
And, yeah, he has gone off the deep end since the Spotify deal. Somebody dumping a giant basket of cash on your doorstep probably does the ego no favors.
Can you explain? I’m genuinely curious by what you mean.
Frankly, I don't care that he talks about those things--some I agree with him on, some I don't--but, in the past he did a good job of balancing those things out with guests who offered a different perspective. After he made the Spotify deal, it seemed like he went all in on his beliefs and didn't seem interested in exposing himself or his audience to opposing views anymore.
The best part of youtube is that one could search through and get excerpts of the video. I could easily find JRs tidbits without the need of going through the entire interview. I still see some of the older excerpts in youtube, but less so in spotify.
I don't think Spotify is good for podcasts in general. I much prefer to consume podcasts with my own clients and workflows. Even youtube is better since it actually works well unlike the spotify app in my experience.
Feels like these kind of personalities, while they can have long careers, growth / reach isn't infinite or sustainable.
I duno. It's a weird world.
Rogan is probably the most successful podcaster in the world by a variety of possible metrics, and I'm not sure what a reasonable expectation of how that plays out would be. Does he transform into a being of pure light and ascend into space, or, does he just do a job he likes until he doesn't anymore, and moves on to something else?
The Verge should just say what they mean, which is that Rogan talks to off-brand people and you shouldn't be tempted by how good the conversations are because it will not align you with crumbling mainstream narratives, and instead you should spend your time engaged with their clickbait talking points factory deciphering their adolescent purple sophistry.
I live in a rural area where network connectivity is poor at worst and intermittent at best. I spent years watching Rogan on YouTube with nothing but network problems. Watching Rogan was a chore in the previous scenario, and YouTube did not make it easy.
Once Rogan moved to Spotify, I never had a single problem with network connectivity. I could use the app to seamlessly switch between audio and video, and it was easy to both find and browse previous podcasts and quickly queue them up to play or watch. I could never do this before in a poor connectivity environment, but Spotify made all of this possible.
I used NewPipe to download the YT vids ahead of time. It has the option to download only the audio streams, so a lot of bandwidth can be saved that way as well.
That said; Jocko Podcast is good, though the subject matter can be very heavy at times.
Lex Fridman podcast is good. Some people don't like his somewhat monotoned voice but he has interesting guests.
Literally! With Rob Lowe is fun.
Though I mostly went deeper into podcasts related to software engineering and since most of them include a lot of off-topic some are quite fun: Soft Skills Engineering, The Bike Shed, Indie Hackers Podcast, Talk Python to Me, Unnamed RE Podcast.
So there is always more interesting podcasts than time I have for listening. Might be you can't replace Rogan with one show, but you can always diversify.
What? AM stations tend to have larger ranges (FM is limited by line-of-sight). There tends to be more talk on AM because the audio quality is lower (and more susceptible to interference); I would assume that talk radio (where opinions are actually being discussed) would naturally have more "extreme" content than music, where the opinions are diluted by the presence of other content.
If he’s trying to deliver specific messages now, that would certainly affect who wants to listen to him.
That said, Spotify gave Joe written guarantee of creative freedom and dollar amount up front. With YouTube, every episode was subjected to demonetization or down-rank roulette, which understandably made him really nervous to be on the platform. As long as Spotify respects this creative freedom (despite complaints of some Spotify employees), I can respect Joe's choice to move.
I'm even a little happy that he left YouTube for this reason. A media platform should be accountable to consequences for its repression of speech.
Haven't heard Joe's voice in my ear since mid 2020.
I wonder how much just the discoverability of content on YouTube, and pictures of people, lends to actionable interaction. How about merely just the audience size, bringing in both new listeners, but also those of us who might have thought we were 'listeners' but really we just consistently came across the content, and listened to it, more like interested random action than conscientious 'following' of a podcast.
Or the various other issues with Spotify UI, or even just it's more or less audio vs. video focus (maybe people really do like seeing Joe and guests).
Or the visual snippets that made nice tweets.
Or possibly just a natural change in popularity not driven by anything other than a decline of a big meme.
It'd really be interesting to see more comprehensive breakdown it would tell us a lot about content in 2021.
Keep in mind, Rogan said multiple times on his show he would never sell out because he wanted to do whatever he wanted to do... then he sold out to a platform that immediately cut off a large portion of his viewership.
if (iLetSpotifyGiveMeMoney) {gain50millionDollars()}
Not anymore. Shopify experience is so inferior. The thing pauses for couple of seconds every time you open it as it switches from audio to video even if you don’t want to. The new studio looks claustrophobic - not Spotify fault though. To get back to Spotify, even if you pay for premium to get rid of ads, it doesn’t! I thought something wrong with my account and never looked into it for months until I reached out to Spotify support and been told that Joe Rogan is not included! Very disappointing. Spotify also started removing controversial old podcasts from the before time! Now I have switched my routine to listen to audio books which is more random in term of content quality but at least you don’t fight the platform.
My unsubstantiated take: audio has to be ubiquitous to work. It’s somehow more commoditized than video or other mediums.
If it’s a radio show / podcast, you already have your “player” of choice (AM/FM radio, or a particular mobile app) and you expect the audio to work like tuning a radio station to your syndicated show, or putting in a CD, and the player just plays it.
For some reason with video streaming, we equate services like Netflix with TV networks, so exclusivity is ok.
But audio apps and services don’t feel like different stations or CDs, they feel like different mediums entirely. So while Netflix is to Hulu as NBC is to HGTV, Spotify is to Apple Music as CDs are to MiniDisc.
Now I don't even read the name Joe Rogan if I'm not watching UFC.
It's sad because I really enjoyed some of his content.
I understand if content creators want to earn money, but podcasts are made for RSS and musicians didn't really exactly gain from the move. If you are on spotify in addition to the RSS feed: great. If you are on spotify only: You are going to regret this.
What I like about the German podcasting scene is that they recognized this for the most part, and yet they live quite well from donations. They don't need spotify and this is fine.
If Joe wanted to make more money and build influence, he would be much better off doing that by staying on YouTube; he'd have infinitely more options. Now, all he can do is Spotify. "Exclusive", in this case, is not a good thing.
The other dilemma is that the short clips still shared on YouTube (to entice you to come over to Spotify) are by definition already the best parts of the interviews. They wouldn't use the worst bits for that.
This is based on post show Twitter following of the guests. What if his loyal listeners are not into Twitter and are leaving.
The Economist has daily 45 minutes, Conan O'Brien is on audio only etc..
And he might actually have a broader audience than before, does it matter that much that guests 'new follower' metrics are down?
I think there's a broader context to consider here.
A quick google search seems to contradict this. Can you point me towards a source that backs these claims?
I heard that Joe Rogan got a serious money for his exclusive from Spotify, so his mission is accomplished, deal is done and all he has to do is to follow the letter of contract.
When he needs more money - he will figure something out. Until then this is what his audience got.
I listen to the Rachman Review on geo-politics and China Talk. But i dont think anyone else has as wide a range as Joe. Tim Ferris is ok but he's way more niche.
- It assumes Twitter use is constant and its not losing users (I've deactivated my account, even though I hardly used it).
- It assumes Twitter hasn't improved bot detection since before
- It assumes that the issue is with Rogan rather than the guest (maybe it could be argued that Rogan is getting 'uninteresting' guests because of a waning influence)
There's a reason Spotify paid him one hundred million dollars (or whatever it was) - he thought he was getting the better side of that deal, but he was wrong.
What Spotify is doing is worse for users, but also worse for content creators in the long run. Giving up control of your distribution is a mistake.
Some centralized group i restricting his rights like the music industry used to bury albums and bands in the 80s?
Meanwhile: https://www.rap-up.com/2021/08/10/tory-lanez-sells-1-million...
For me there's no legal way to listen to Joe Rogan. Not that I care too much. But I'm sure there's a lot of people out there who simply can't.
On another note, Spotify is so buggy an application I am surprised how/why anybody is using it. The most common thing is that it crashes on my iPhone. I was considering buying it, but not after discovering how bad/buggy it was.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/551210-tv-news-ratings-on...
Spotify is awful to use.
Not live anymore.
Haven't done the fight companion since the Brian Callen allegations.
Too afraid to be cancelled.
So many more podcasts now. Especially Tim Dillon and Flagrant2.
His show is just one of many in my queue. I won't go through the troubleshoot of using two apps for podcast just because of him.
That quote is Joe Rogan's shtick in a nutshell.
There's nothing wrong with listening to two regular people have a conversation regardless of their qualifications for the topics they're discussing. They don't pretend to be professionals. (Hence why that quote can be said and why they can laugh about it.)
I have friends I have lost because of this, whom I have no idea how to respond to their messages anymore; Intelligent and educated ones.
Regular people argument doesn't apply in here.
He made $30M last year.
Yeah, I think it does. Has he been cancelled? Nope. Does he stop making jokes about almost anything? Nope. Do you listen to his podcast? Nope.
You know how he became so popular? From talking and being open minded. That's _all_ he does. He ain't doing it to be an influencer yet "journalists" actually waste time writing articles like this. I guess the haters need something to read too?
If you're listening to a comedian then your mind should not be open to any scientific statements that person makes or medical advice they give.
“Mind opening leads to compassion.” -Lao Tzu, Tao te Ching, 16
“The sage deters those who know too much from going too far.” -ibid, 3
Imagine drowning: If we were talking about expert lifeguards vs. some random beach goer and you had to choose which would try & save you, would you choose the expert lifeguard or the random person?
And sure, Lao Tzu may be right about compassion. It's also irrelevant in this discussion.
Society has always had court jesters who poke fun at authority. If you take health and epidemiology advice from a comedian then that's on you.
And every person you infect.
"Visit the covid 19 information center to learn more"
These are all over and post on Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, etc whenever certain keywords trigger it. I think this is not enough. We need to replace all right of center entertainment with videos of Dr Fauci reminding us to wash our hands, wear masks, get our shots and do the right thing by staying home. Not enough people are getting this message.
Like someone else pointed out, Bill Burr is exactly what you describe. He's a comedian that discusses these topics but never gives the illusion that he is somehow qualified and someone that should be listened to. Joe does.
The overwhelming majority of his content is along those lines, to the point wherein you really have to scrape to find scare quotes. I mean, it's easy to Google because of supposed controversy, but really disagreeable stuff would be hard to find lest you to have to actually sit down and listen to him.
I wish he took a slightly different tact on vaccines (i.e, at the end of every show say 'Folks, it's 100% choice, but vaccines are safe, I've taken, everyone I know has, make the choice for you, your family and community, that's all, goodnight' kind of sign-off), but I don't think he's in condemnation territory either.
All of this said, I'm not sure how he is received in different cultures around the world where he might have influence we're not aware of.
I think that would be fair, if he didn't constantly insert himself into these culture battles and debates we are having as a society. If he just hosted guests to get their perspective, that would be one thing. But he actively pushes his own ideas. He's established himself as not only a source of news, but also a "voice of reason" for many of his followers.
Saying that he gets a pass because he's just there for entertainment is a cop-out. That's the same excuse Fox News uses for their "opinion" segments (most of what they air).
I also think you might be underestimating how many people base their opinions off of Joe.
If you want high-brow stuff there's Lex Fridman's channel.
It’s a common pitfall for a certain type of nerd to think that expertise in one area allows them to make claims in completely unrelated fields.
That and he didn’t challenge Rogan’s mostly unfounded claims about the COVID vaccine among other things. I understand that it must be difficult I do so as a guest, but for someone who fancies himself “rational” it was disappointing to say the least.
> “Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
due to rampant downvoting, I will respond to individual replies here:
"This worked perfectly basically anywhere people actually complied. "
Italy had among the strictest lockdowns in April but saw a huge resurgence at the end of2020
" Largely it did happen, we just don't see the counterfactual. It could have been a lot worse. "
That is moving the goalposts. The claim by the experts was that the vaccines were 95% effective at stopping the spread. It seemd that way until a few months ago when Deltacame along.
How do you know the curve wasn't flattened? I don't know whether it was or not. It seems the only way to find out for sure is to compare the curve to what it would have been in an alternate timeline.
This worked perfectly basically anywhere people actually complied.
Second, those predictions were made ahead of a year of mutation— delta in particular.
[1]: https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/health-and-wellness/posit...
Israel has an epic Delta outbreak and Britain's Delta outbreak keeps rolling on. So no, they're not crushing it at all.
Israel's weekly Covid counts have soared back near record highs.
Britain's weekly Covid counts are not dropping. They're at 200,000+ weekly cases and sustaining. They've been up there for about a month now.
The vaccines are primarily changing the mortality rate, which is of course critical. The current vaccines can't entirely stop Delta even if you vaccinate 100% of the population.
It should be fully intuitive that anything that reduces the r0 value for spreading the disease flattens the curve compared to what it could have been. That somehow it is not obvious to you suggests your sense making apparatus has been hijacked by something. Take a good hard look at yourself.
To the downvoters, you are retarded. Sincerely.
No, vaccines are not expected to prevent infection or spread, and almost none do. For example, flu vaccines don't keep you from from getting infected, and the virus still spreads successfully even when vaccination rates are high. What the flu shot does is (hopefully) cause you to have less severe symptoms.
Vaccines are designed and tested to prevent disease in spite of infection. This is a universally understood principle in the field of immunology, regardless of the CDC's confusing messaging.
The current evidence indicates that the vaccines are doing a good job of preventing hospitalizations due to covid.
No, the expectation is that a successful vaccination campaign will end the pandemic, by making the burden on healthcare systems manageable. Nobody serious thinks we can eradicate the virus like we did with smallpox. It will always be with us, causing infection.
This is how all vaccines work, with the exception of HPV and possibly measles. Vaccines are not expected to provide sterilizing immunity, and they don't need to as long as they prevent serious disease due to the infection.
Within the field of immunology this is common knowledge, and I wish the CDC would message it more clearly.
Last week tonight is quite credible.
Meanwhile Fox News continues to mislead Americans with active disinformation on a daily basis.
Except Rogan is actually this: https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/8xofvi/joe_rogan_...
> The worst sort of rap is the pet peeve. Pet peeves manage to smuggle their way into every conversation, no matter what the topic. Marty is hung up on America's foolishness in not imposing tariffs against the Japanese. It's not clear why he takes this so personally, but he's definitely obsessed with the problem. The topic of conversation is Monday-night football? Marty contrives a quick segue to the state of television in America, orchestrates a smooth turn to the subject of the future Japanese control of the entertainment business, and— presto— tariffs. Marty's rap is boring for the same reason the preacher's is— it's predictable— but it's also an imposition. He uses friends as a sounding board for his venting.
- From the book Everyday Ethics by Joshua Halberstam
"In every man sleeps a prophet, and when he wakes there is a little more evil in the world."
- Emil Cioran
I just looked up this story and the apes in question were regular eastern chimps with some regional variation. They've been studied for nearly two decades. The whole 6 foot lion killer thing was a few sensationalized articles from 2003 or 2004 due to a member of the research group making excited claims. The member wasnt even a primatologist and was kicked out.
Joe Rogan's research was literally some popular articles from a decade and a half ago... And he dares tell the person on the phone they aren't "current" and to do research.
FTFY
Side note, on /r/Math the other day I saw a great joke.
People in real life: Ops, I'm bad at math. I need a calculator to calculate a tip.
People on the internet: Allow me to demonstrate to you why I'm bad at statistics but confident I'm right and all the scientists are wrong.
Some really petty schoolyard grimes here.
(EDIT: I mean there are link to reddit caricature / joke lists etc. since when do we do this here?)
I don't think Joe Rogan is very interesting ... but the 'haters' say more about themselves than anything, it's a bad look on them.
Rogan is what is he is. He has a variety of guests, he entertains them and let's them speak, he popularized a fairly new format where people can come on and actually make their case for as long as they like. Turns out it's very refreshing and frankly 'important' thing.
All of these podcast/celebrity etc. people take themselves probably a tad to seriously, but I don't think Rogan lacks the self awareness to not recgonise he's not an intellect, that seems apparent.
For those screaming about his subtle wavering on vaccines, first, he hasn't really, and second, our beloved Lex Friedman has gone a bit into the weeds on that one as well so you'll have to throw him into the cauldron as well.
The possibility of a 'dude bro' who's broken the mould and is more influential, and in most ways legitimately so, than many others who are supposed to be more deserving ... seems to bother a lot of people. I don't care that much one way the other about Joe, but I'm annoyed by those people.
Some of the criticisms of Rogan are legit, a lot of it seems to me like something else going on under the surface.
In particular, the CDC recommended against the use of masks early in the pandemic, which may have caused many thousands of cases and deaths.
More recently, they've been wishy-washy on masks again. Backflipping repeatedly on whether vaccinated individuals should wear masks.
There was no new information. There were only lies.
Hospitals were in danger of running out of protective equipment.
The public was panic buying anything and everything. Remember empty grocery store shelves? Price gouging people who were hoarding all the hand sanitizer?
When those circumstances changed, so did the advice.
There's no one on earth who gets everything right first time, and thus never needs to change their mind. Not one single person.
Why do you value an opinion or advice that never changes?
This false narrative persists even today.
How many thousands died because they were told by an authority masks don't work?
Your point of view seems to suggest that the ends justify the means. I ask you how many deaths are an acceptable amount of collateral damage to protect the health system's access to masks. 1,000? 5,000? 50,000?
In sum, of the 14 RCTs that have tested the effectiveness of masks in preventing the transmission of respiratory viruses, three suggest, but do not provide any statistically significant evidence in intention-to-treat analysis, that masks might be useful. The other eleven suggest that masks are either useless—whether compared with no masks or because they appear not to add to good hand hygiene alone—or actually counterproductive. Of the three studies that provided statistically significant evidence in intention-to-treat analysis that was not contradicted within the same study, one found that the combination of surgical masks and hand hygiene was less effective than hand hygiene alone, one found that the combination of surgical masks and hand hygiene was less effective than nothing, and one found that cloth masks were less effective than surgical masks.
N95 are better, but those are not generally available to civilians.
[0] https://www.city-journal.org/do-masks-work-a-review-of-the-e...
But early in 2020, they disappeared off the shelves. Amazon, in particular, only sold them to medical professionals. Same thing, if you went directly to 3M.
I was able to buy a few more at about ten times the usual price.
A few are available at reasonable prices now, but it's still very limited. When I wear a mask, it's an N95. You can dry them out and reuse them - SARS2 is very fragile.
That's what's making people lose trust in institutions.
That's not at all what GP said. Try re-reading it:
>> health authorities told people not to use masks at first because ... Hospitals were in danger of running out of protective equipment.
That is in no way lying.
This opinion piece in New York Times says there was lying going on.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/opinion/coronavirus-face-...
> Hospitals were in danger of running out of protective equipment.
They said: "We need the masks for hospitals. Please don't use masks, because they don't work for you, they only work for us in the hospitals".
Why would anyone take from that that masks don't work? How/why did people believe that? They literally say that masks work. This is one of the greatest mysteries for me.
Could you maybe also pull this off in some other context, too? "We want the good stuff. But it doesn't work, so please don't buy it. Leave it for us"? Could it be made to work?
But this is too contentious an issue. I shouldn't have commented.
We pay the CDC. Not the reverse. And we don’t pay them to give us socially engineered advices depending of the politics or economics of the day. We have other federal organizations to screw up that part of our life already. And it always ends up badly when you don’t tell the truth to people. Never in history we never came to conclusions “What a relieve we lie to the people.”
But Rogan's not that. He likes to hear himself talk, throws his opinions at experts as if they're equally valid, invites charlatans on and equates them with experts, rarely changes his mind, and comes out of it just as dumb as he came into it. Then people emulate him and end up in a state where they're less able to learn, and frankly, bigger assholes.
It's barely even a shtick, it's the same old pseudo-intellectual machismo that has always plagued society.
When someone tells you who they are, listen. But I'd add this: When someone lets someone else speak for them, pay attention to who is in that group.
[0] https://www.biolayne.com/articles/research/paul-saladino-on-...
He may actually believe what he's pitching, but he's so drowning in financial conflicts of interest and personal brand-building that I don't think he could accept contradictory evidence from anyone. He only sees what he wants to see because that's how he makes his money and builds his fame.
It's fascinating to see him cited by the grandparent comment because Saladino is a notorious quack among the actual nutrition communities, including keto communities. He presents himself as a doctor but conveniently forgets to mention that he's a psychiatrist. He cherry-picks citations from papers that he knows listeners won't actually read and then presents them out of context.
And most of all, he sells his brand and products hard, which should be a huge red flag for anyone being delivered this uniquely contrarian information that defies mainstream medical science. It's fascinating that this person concluded he's an expert in the field simply because he was on the Joe Rogan podcast. I suppose that is the problem with the JRE podcast: Too many of the listeners think they're equipped to identify the real truth, while Joe Rogan serves up a steady diet of convincing quacks interleaved with actual experts.
Hell, I'm sure if this Saladino guy just completely made up a study and presented it as fact, the vast majority of the users will never bother to check if that study even exists, let alone verify the claims. Most listeners are just there to reaffirm their preexisting beliefs.
Personally, I just don't trust people that push such narrow solutions to complex systems (nutrition in this case).
As far as trying it, I have no need. I eat a balanced diet and I feel, and look, great. Glad it worked for you, but I've heard the same about dozens of other diets.
“Moreover, the current western lifestyle is characterized by high fat intake”
Which is stated as fact when it’s not even true. Fat has been stripped out of everything. Even milk has the fat taken out of it. Look anywhere and you will see “fat free”
And while I agree that a lot of what saladino says doesn’t have enough evidence to be totally sure, what everyone always ignores is when saladino points out that there isn’t enough evidence to be sure of the lipid hypothesis of heart disease. There has never been a randomized, interventional study that proves anything anyone says about meat, fat, heart disease and health. Not one proper study. Meanwhile, him and other people have zero CAC on a diet that should have killed him according to the current model. And there are many other people who have done this. I can’t dig into the “debunk” right now but that’s the value I take out of saladino
This is a common, but lazy, trope trotted out by people like Saladino. It's the same "It's just a theory" argument that climate change deniers use.
There is a lot of evidence showing that things like elevated LDL cholesterol has a cumulative (area under the curve) negative effect on heart health, and that saturated fat consumption is directionally negative for heart health. You'd be hard pressed to find an actual cardiologist or researcher who believes these things aren't true. So why do you choose to believe a known salesman with a conflict of interest in promoting his expensive supplements and books on the topic?
You seem to be assuming a specific conclusion is true and cherry-picking the single person who wants to sell that conclusion to you. There are plenty of citations to the contrary, many of which are in the article linked above.
It’s funny you say there’s a lot of evidence showing LDL is bad etc, ok then show me the randomized interventional study regarding animal fat. Regarding carnivore. You can’t and so whenever you say “there’s lots of evidence” you also have to say “but it’s still unproven.” And yes, there is a difference between me and people who deny gravity or global warming because in my case, the study is absolutely trivial to perform! But it never happens because the academic community refuses to put people in (hypothetical!) danger by feeding them animal fat. It would be immoral and most importantly very unfashionable to perform a study like that.
Here’s the rub: nobody I know or have seen has experienced a decline in their health from carnivore. There’s no hard evidence that it’s bad for you. That guy from the grateful dead did it for 40 years and never had a heart problem. I want a randomized controlled and interventional study that simply shows us what difference it makes to be carnivore rather than something else. I will happily shut up forever if we did that and I was wrong.
Carnivore Diet wasn't really a thing until about 2018, aside from scattered anecdotes ( https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=c... )
Heart disease develops over decades.
It's very disingenuous to declare that "there's no hard evidence that it's bad for you" when the vast majority of experimenters have barely been doing this for about 3-4% of their expected lifespan.
And I disagree anyway. Heart disease might take a long time but your CAC score wouldn’t stay 0 for a long time. Two years in two cases and CAC of zero. That’s not anecdotal, that’s two clearly measured examples of something that shouldn’t exist under the current model. And you continue to keep your head in the sand. All you have to do is openly support some kind of real interventional study. Not agree with me, but just acknowledge that fact that it isn’t settled and that something so fundamental should be settled. The study will cost a pittance. So are you in favor of that or not?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010529071125.h...
(I'm not recommending that anyone eat a carnivore diet, just pointing out that it's hardly novel.)
Stripped of everything including pizza, burgers and fries?
As someone who has been listening to Joe (on and off) for ~5 years, it's hard to believe that you haven't noticed a trend in the type of guests Joe has on in past year. I really feel it used to be that Joe would have on a wide range of people but now it seems that he's created an echo chamber. For example, at the start of the pandemic, in March, he had Michael Osterholm on his show - a top epidemiologist. He took it seriously at first, but once he was tired of lock downs, he has had several more "alternative" scientists to appease his world view and is pretty much antagonistic to anyone else.
I was listening him talk to Rhonda Patrick this morning (who's been on the show multiple times) and I was completely flabbergasted about how incredulous he seemed to be then Rhonda talked about vaccines. Think about that - this is one of his most credentialed friends and now he's incredibly skeptical as he's gotten even more dogmatic in his views.
And I'm sorry, diet fads are as old as America. You can pull up medical papers justifying almost anything when it comes to gastronomy. I hate this idea that has creeped further into the American psyche that people are pushed out of the mainstream because of the liberal boogeyman. You have quacks that are backed up by as much data as Saladino saying that going vegan will give you super powers. Some people are just wrong, and I'd be critical of the praise Joe gives a guy like Saladino given that Joe also has a vested interest in Saladino being correct as well.
To me Joe comes across as someone who's figuring it out as they go and doesn't have a filter. I personally find this refreshing compared to zealots who are certain they have all the right answers on very nuanced and complex topics.
Edit: Ok downvoters, what is Joe Rogan's "dogma"? Honest question.
FWIW, Merriam Webster defines dogma as a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds. That's the definition I was using, that I thought was more colloquial. Simply holding a strongly help opinion on shaky grounds is dogmatic. I don't believe that definition is at odds with what I'm describing.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma
1a. something held as an established opinion, especially a definite authoritative tenet.
1b. a code of such tenets.
1c. a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds.
2. a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church.
Also, when has Joe Rogan ever claimed, or even implied, that his beliefs are "authoritative"? He constantly does the opposite.
>Also, when has Joe Rogan ever claimed, or even implied, that his beliefs are "authoritative"?
If you literally watch JRE today he does with regards to keto.
You seem to be reading a different definition than I am, but ok /shrug.
Many of us have tried to listen to Joe Rogan for the former category. When I catch an interview with someone I already know and respect (e.g. John Carmack), it's not bad.
But Rogan is also notorious for bringing on over-confident "experts" who present their pet theories as done deal research. Saladino is a perfect example of this over-confidence. Citing papers and having a medical degree doesn't automatically make someone infallible or even correct.
> And he’s an MD.
Saladino has a medical degree, but did you know he's a psychiatrist? Perhaps a good degree to have for manipulating people, but I prefer to get my nutrition research from nutrition researchers, not psychiatrists who have webstores selling $60 supplements.
Saladino profits by building his brand: He sells books. He sells coaching. He sells extremely overpriced supplements. He has a branded web page with his Joe Rogan interview as the background and a "Join my Tribe" link at the top.
Saladino is a salesperson who is pitching you on his theories to sell you products and extract money from you. Joe Rogan is unqualified to push back on it, so he gives these people a huge audience with which to push their agendas.
And it works! Here you are, completely convinced that everything he said is true and accurate, while it's trivially easy to find fact checkers showing how he made incorrect claims all through that podcast ( https://www.biolayne.com/articles/research/paul-saladino-on-... ).
That is the problem with Joe Rogan's podcast.
White supremacists and Crypto Fascists.
He just lets them talk unchallenged.
Bill Burr is a comedian. He's telling a joke. A joke something someone says to cause amusement and and laughter.
Everyone should question and seek information on issues they care about.
Putting all your faith in the CDC and choosing not to allow yourself to form your own opinions is an interesting strategy. It absolves you of any responsibility. Do you vote? Choosing someone to make decisions on things you are not an expert on would seem like a huge responsibility you wouldn't be qualified for. Do you leave those decisions for others?
He doesnt talk over his guests - he never pontificates to them, and lets them have their piece...
Additionally - he is actually really well read, and has a great memory and can recall how things he had read in the past relate to the conversations at hand.
You put joe rogan up against literally any television "interviewer" in the history of television, and you will see they are all hacks. Soundbyte driven hacks.
Ill take joe over ANYONE on television today.
Also - there are far too many podcasts, and its great to have very interesting people on his show - where they talk openly about anything for 3 hours.
as opposed to a 1 minute sound byte on complex world affairs where reporters are interviewing reporters about what some other reporter said and then claiming that "experts" "officials" and "sources close to the matter" say... and then every single person on their cast is "Senior correspondent this or that" - with zero creds shown as to why they are senior...
News is FAKE.
At least the interviews on JRE are uncut, there is only ONE other staff member in the room whos only job is to switch cams and look up something if either the guest or joe have doubts about what they are saying.
I find it funny how people can bitch about someone if there is something they dont agree with, as if one must have a 100% ideological map to anything they watch/see/listen to or else its all 100% fake.
Joe Rogan never started the podcast for influence. It was just him shooting the breeze with friends.
It just turned out that he was also one of the best interviewers on the planet.
Good on Joe. Make that money. YouTube will always be waiting.
I have no idea why covid is such a popular topic on podcasts. Do people actually like hearing more about it, don't they already hear about it every day?
Sorry, Joe, but that was a bad move. Let me know when you start podcasting again.
The turf war over the commercialization of podcasting reminds me of the Internet - designed to be free and open, destined to be walled off from free use and exploited to death.
Ain't singin' for Pepsi, Ain't singin' for Coke, Ain't singin' for no one, Makes me look like a joke.
Spotify has also demonstrated that they cannot be trusted, neutral stewards of information ecosystems like podcasts. They've censored/deleted lots of Joe Rogan's interviews, and their left-biased progressive employees have repeatedly protested against Rogan and asked for him to be booted off the platform. There is absolutely no way I will patronize podcasts on Spotify since I don't want to hand such a group the keys to the castle.
Not a personal attack on the guy, I just think maybe all the influence is going to his head a bit.
This further cements the fact that IPO is a near certain death sentence for a product.
The increased friction has resulted in stopping me from consuming two things that I should have been cutting down on anyway.
Edit: Added “some of them”
also wonder if podcast listening could be down if people aren’t commuting
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Out of sight, out of mind.
This is also the dilemma writers face when putting their content behind a paywall. The conversation just moves on without you.
Downgrade with video integration. Downgrade with search ability on audio. Buggy resume feature for both AV.
I get why he did it. YouTube was doing some weird speech shit at the height of Trump and COVID. It's wasn't like the minions at Spotify didn't try. Seems like the higher ups at Spotify is giving Joe more freedom.
I definitely consume less of Rogan's podcasts since the switch. But I do seek him out whenever a clip on YouTube pops up and strikes my interest.
It's reminding me of the gay frogs. Some truth, with an annoying presentation that distracts from the point.
I’m not sure that’s distinct from the internet commentariat here or elsewhere.
He often has leading scientists and subject matter experts on his podcasts.
>> Joe is an "average dude"…
Average dude who:
- Created one of the largest English language podcasts.
- Is a leading martial arts commentator and holds black belt himself.
- Made $30M last year plus made $100M from the Spotify deal.
I am not sure what is your metric that makes him average.
I lost interest too.
"People say, do you think it's safe to get vaccinated? I've said, yeah, I think for the most part it's safe to get vaccinated. I do. I do," Rogan said on the podcast. "But if you're like 21 years old, and you say to me, should I get vaccinated? I'll go no. Are you healthy? Are you a healthy person?"
"If you're a healthy person, and you're exercising all the time, and you're young, and you're eating well," Rogan continued, "like, I don't think you need to worry about this."
If this is what you are referring to, is that really anti-vax?
Yes that's anti-vax. We get vaccinated not just to protect ourselves from death, but also to protect those around us by reducing the transmission of disease.
> Vaccination only protects you
False. Vaccinated people can still get sick, and vaccination reduces the spread of disease, protecting people that aren't you.
Based on evidence from clinical trials in people 16 years and older, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 95% effective at preventing laboratory-confirmed infection with the virus that causes COVID-19 in people who received two doses and had no evidence of being previously infected.
Based on evidence from clinical trials, in people aged 18 years and older, the Moderna vaccine was 94.1% effective at preventing laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection in people who received two doses and had no evidence of being previously infected.
The J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine was 66.3% effective in clinical trials (efficacy) at preventing laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection in people who received the vaccine and had no evidence of being previously infected. People had the most protection 2 weeks after getting vaccinated.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different...
The calculus with delta is different, as it does seem that vaccinated people can spread delta. But the severity of that spread, as well as the amount of time a vaccinated person can spread it, is certainly lower than that of an unvaccinated person.
The main purpose of getting the vaccine isn't just to protect yourself -- it's to reduce the chances of you transmitting it to others. It's about herd immunity, not personal immunity. Whether you're young and healthy is irrelevant.
You can make the argument that getting vaccinated reduces the risk of you being hospitalized, which keeps a bed and a nurse available for someone else. Thats a much more valid argument to make.
[1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00728-2
Edit: for those downvoting me, I’ve added a reference for more information
This is my understanding as well, which was why I decided to get vaccinated. If avoiding infection is impossible in the long run, I should help my immune system prepare for it.
I wonder how differently things would be going if the campaign was "Covid is here to stay. You will get it. Get vaccinated."
Maybe it would help, maybe not.
I actually heard someone say that today, but I don't remember where. Maybe Breaking Points, but not sure.
I was certainly rattled when I saw amateur video of hospital workers stacking bodies in a freezer truck in NYC. They should do more like that. As morbid as it is, it gets the point across.
https://nypost.com/2020/03/30/disturbing-footage-shows-dead-...
This wasn't the one I saw but you get the idea.
Not about personal immunity? Why did we roll it out by age group then?
It wasn't about saving the most lives per se. It was about reducing the load on the medical system. I suspect those outcomes are strongly correlated.
How can you think it was about anything but saving lives? The cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics in this thread is incredible. The vaccine offers personal immunity thats why we gave it to the most at risk groups first.
EDIT: Downvoted for pointing out smearing/bullying and dropping factual information. @dang - is this what HN is about? This has got to change.
He's also spoken about the whole point of him having FU money is that he is able to say whatever he wants and not care about the blowback.
I'm not anti-vax, but ultimately, my body, my choice. People who are risk averse are free to self-quarantine for any duration they please. Us, the unvaccinated, are happy to live freely and face any associated risks - just like people who decide to ride motorcycles, play combat sports, or eat homegrown food.
And do not be silly: healthy food is way more expensive per calory.
The VE is reduced with delta, but its still nonzero (most of the studies of what it really is are still incredibly poor though, but nothing has show it to be below 50% VE against infection).
The initial comparable viral load studies are also all bad. All they did was compare Ct of RNA loads. We now know that there is less infectious virus in vaccinated individuals, and that Ct values themselves decline faster, which indicates they're producing more viral debris -- we expect studies of transmission to show that they transmit less. Older studies from earlier this year against Alpha found that 80% of vaccinated breakthrough infections produced zero transmitted secondary infections with the other 20% only infecting 1-3 other people.
That is sufficient enough impact on infection and transmission to end the pandemic if everyone was vaccinated.
Unfortunately, everyone, including many scientists are panicking in the face of uncertainty over the delta variant and assuming the absolute worst and spreading worst-case messages which are portraying vaccines as not being worthwhile, when they're still effective enough.
It is scary what some societies throughout history have defined as "perfectly reasonable".
I think you've got the wrong analogies going there. You, the unvaccinated, are principally putting yourselves at risk but you are also, and more importantly, putting others at increased risk of transmission from yourself.
Adjusting your content for accuracy: you, the unvaccinated, are not allowed by society to do anything you want. Just like you cannot drive drunk, shoot firearms inside city limits, urinate on the street, sell poop sandwiches as a food product, etc.
I know. We, the vaccinated, are also not free to do whatever we want. If the chance of transmission between vaccinated & unvaccinated ever equalizes, there would obviously be no reason for different treatment. But just because vaccinated people can transmit doesn't mean they are as likely to.
What an interesting choice of examples.... Can't help but thinking one of these things is not like the others.
So, no -- I do not have to accept the hypothetical, strawman consequences that you fantasize about.
So I assume you agree to not come running to the hospital when you get infected, taking away beds for other patients who shouldn't have to suffer because of your ignorance?
Oh, and getting COVID and needing hospitalization absolutely does not mean that I will be taking away a bed from someone who needs it. You're so desperate to spew your hate that you actually made that strawman assumption; that's laughable. If you were actually honest, you would know that after the shortage of beds and ventilators, hospitals are now much, much better prepared to handle spikes in hospitalizations.
It appears the only ignorance here is yours, buddy.
Agree?
This is the same way John Stewart and Stephen Colbert hid behind, "I'm just a comedian." It's a great strategy if you can pull it off.
What's scarier are the persons who for the law are considered entertainment, but conduct themselves on Fox as if they're real journalists, and lie and deceive with impunity. If Joe Rogan could disrupt the right media with that, the same way John and maybe Stephen did on the left side, the world would be a better place for sure.
I’d say a special mention in the first amendment is notable.
https://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/journalists_privil...
Rogan feels like he wants it both ways. He wants to pick the people for his show and get credit when he picks well, but if people dislike one of his picks he would suddenly like to be seen as 'mixing it up' or a "cage fight commentator." He won't really own a view (or the idea of wanting to expose people to particular thinkers), but he would rather bring people on in a way where he's seen as minimally responsible for the uncomfortable content he produces.
I lean more towards he’s looking for affirmation to be contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian.
If he was looking for the best ideas, he would of had a completely different set of guests.
Then how can you honestly believe he's just looking for the best ideas?
If he was just some random dude none of this would matter. But with 11 million followers, sometimes this "my youtube research is just as valid as your scientific research" attitude can do real harm, as it did with vaccines.
The more you claim to be the one to take seriously, the less serious anyone will want to take you. Especially if you do it in a negative fashion blocking others rather than putting out your own message. There's far more to influence, trust, and authenticity than claiming you're right or deducing everything to some rational puzzle, and perhaps that's the biggest lesson of all.
I listen to his show sometimes, and while I've heard him have guests on from all sides of these issues, at no point have I heard him be anything less than a thoughtful, critical interviewer.
If that's "drivel", we need more drivel. I'll certainly take it over everything I see on cable news, which is laser-focused on advancing a particular narrative, and demonizing anything and anyone who might deviate from that narrative.
1. I interview a handful of people who have differing opinions on what it takes to lead a SaaS startup who have all had successful exist, but have differing opinions on key issues. Maybe throw in a few people who have experience working in that type of environment, but maybe not leading, if you want a little more variety.
2. I interview someone who has led a successful exit like in (1), but I also interview a full time commission visual artist who has never worked at a SaaS startup. I give both their ideas on how to run a SaaS startup equal weight, even when the visual artist isn't making any sense in the context of the conversation or is spewing nonsense in the context of the conversation.
Joe does (2). They are both "free speech", but only one is actually useful.
Lol.
Having some people not appear on a given podcast is not a "free speech" issue. Choosing to not be a dangerous idiot by having dangerous idiots on your show during a pandemic is not "censorship" or anything remotely close to censorship as it is commonly, and correctly, understood.
Conflating criticism with calls for government censorship is a dishonest rhetorical tactic.
I'm not confused.
> Choosing to not be a dangerous idiot by having dangerous idiots on your show during a pandemic is not "censorship" or anything remotely close to censorship as it is commonly, and correctly, understood.
When someone decides for me that "dangerous idiots" should not have a voice -- for whatever justification -- I'm against them having the ability to act on that impulse. The wonderful thing about free speech is that if you don't like it, you're free not to listen to it.
Every censor has started from the premise that they're doing good. I don't agree with your opinions, and I'm not so feeble-minded as to be unable to decide for myself what I see.
Let me just reiterate this, on the one-in-a-million chance that you actually don't get it: Joe Rogan can restrict the speech of whomever he fucking wants, for ANY reason, and that does NOT constitute any actual restraint on anyone's "free speech" rights.
Ha ha.
Notably, free speech absolutism is impossible to refute if everyone is arguing in good faith. Since quite a few influential political actors are demonstrably not, and are following well-defined tactics dating back to various fascist regimes such as those who produced WWII, it is insane to pretend everyone is arguing in good faith.
And it is both instructive and dismaying to see that the people most obviously arguing in bad faith have a tendency to insist, and get others to insist, that free speech must be absolute and that everyone must be taken with the assumption that they're arguing in good faith.
Tactically, it makes perfect sense, but it's a hell of an exploit.
There is no workable censorship regime that does not devolve into ideological warfare.
Also the absolutist position ignores the limited capacity both in raw time and cognitively to take in information and that pushing people to do better about not spewing out or supporting bullshit is also free speech..
The whole "both sides" thing is the _worst_ of cable news and why I signed off years ago. Does the Sun orbit the Earth? Let's get a crazy person on and see. It's okay because we'll give an expert a few minutes too.
OP doesn’t claim Rogan should be de-platofrmed. Just that pushing batshit theories is an explanation for his declining influence. I enjoy watching flat earthers from time to time. But I’m not going to make it a part of my information diet.
Some Polio vaccines were contaminated with SV40 for years, and it does, in fact, alter human DNA.
For COVID-19, there have been at least 2 major cases of live virus vaccine contamination and recall. In the case of the Sputnik vaccine in Brazil and South Africa, there are claims that at least some made it into patients.
And then the "Baltimore Factory" testimony before Congress included company executives admitting to making ~100 million contaminated doses, more than the number of safe doses they had produced.
So this "don't mind him, he does conspiracies" attitude isn't doing anything except getting nods from those that don't need convincing, and proving to skeptics that you have a knowledge gap, whether it's ultimately relevant or true (or not).
I don't think it's currently happening happening here (at a minimum, adenovirus doesn't alter your DNA), but I also think it's just as reckless to imply that any concerns aren't legitimate or that it's impossible.
>>polio vaccine administered from 1955–1963 was contaminated with simian virus 40 (SV40). The virus came from the monkey kidney cell cultures used to produce the vaccine. Most, but not all, of the contamination was in the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). Once the contamination was recognized, steps were taken to eliminate it from future vaccines. There have been many questions as to the effects on people who received the contaminated vaccine. SV40 has biological properties consistent with a cancer-causing virus, but researchers have not conclusively established whether or not it could cause cancer in humans. Studies of groups of people who received polio vaccine during 1955–1963 provide evidence of no increased cancer risk.
>>However, because these epidemiologic studies are sufficiently flawed, the Institute of Medicine's Immunization Safety Review Committee concluded that the evidence was inadequate to conclude whether or not the contaminated polio vaccine caused cancer. In light of the biological evidence supporting the theory that SV40-contamination of polio vaccines could contribute to human cancers, the committee recommends continued public health attention in the form of policy analysis, communication, and targeted biological research.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221112/
That sounds like a load of nonsense?
>sciencebasedmedicine dot org
>> This one popped up at that online repository of all things quackery, NaturalNews.com
lol, pot, meet kettle.
Why can't you trust the science?
Simian virus 40 DNA sequences in human brain and bone tumours
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9776221/
Sequence analyses of human tumor-associated SV40 DNAs and SV40 viral isolates from monkeys and humans
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9584955/
Human cytomegalovirus major immediate early gene product can induce SV40 DNA replication in human embryonic lung cells
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2173262/
Phylogenetic analysis of polyomavirus simian virus 40 from monkeys and humans reveals genetic variation
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15308725/
SV40 DNA in human osteosarcomas shows sequence variation among T-antigen genes
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9311596/
Natural simian virus 40 strains are present in human choroid plexus and ependymoma tumors
> That sounds like a load of nonsense?
"Based on these limitations, the committee concludes that the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between SV40-containing polio vaccines and cancer."
There is literally no reason to bring this up in relation to COVID vaccines. First, this was a contamination issue with polio vaccines between 1955 and 1961, long since fixed (and unlikely to happen again, as it is now much easier to detect this kind of contamination). Second, there has never been any good evidence that the 'contaminated' vaccines ever did anyone any harm.
>In light of the biological evidence supporting the theory that SV40-contamination of polio vaccines could contribute to human cancers, the committee recommends continued public health attention in the form of policy analysis, communication, and targeted biological research.
>long since fixed (and unlikely to happen again, as it is now much easier to detect this kind of contamination)
Multiple vaccines have already been recalled due to contamination, after they passed initial qaqc.
How does that make it unlikely that contaminated products don't go undetected?
My point isn't that vaccine's shouldn't be taken.
It's that the same people that constantly complain about pharmaceutical companies taking shortcuts and behaving unethically, suddenly decide the same companies are infallible when it comes to a rushed development of a product, from which they are fully shielded from liability.
>There is literally no reason to bring this up in relation to COVID vaccines
When someone suggests a concern is scifi conspiracy theory nonsense, and that concern has actually historically happened, then it's absolutely relevant.
The scare tactics are bad enough, but don't try to trick people with lies and outright manipulation, and there won't be anything to call out.
Come on – this is just the standard ass-covering language in a scientific paper. "Further research is needed." By the nature of the case it's very hard to conclusively show that no-one has ever had a cancer caused by a 1960s Polio vaccine. But at present there is no good evidence that this has happened, as the paper that you linked to states very clearly.
Any medication can contain contaminants. I do not understand why you think that the mere abstract possibility that any given vaccine might contain contaminants is relevant to COVID vaccination efforts. This is like cautioning against people taking Aspirin because any given Aspirin pill might contain contaminants.
That's not a standard "further research needed" statement.
>the mere abstract possibility that any given vaccine might contain contaminants
Because other medicine isn't mandated, isn't developed in under a year, and isn't given statutory waivers of liability.
My point isn't "don't get vaccinated",
but that claiming "a vaccine altering human DNA is conspiracy theory nonsense" is a bad take, because it's factually wrong and has actually happened.
Right, and the Harvard Mark II had a moth that caused it to malfunction, therefore we can't trust the Apple M1.
This is the level of reasoning that anti-vaxers have sunk to. It's deliberate ignorance and sophistry.
Anti-vaxers aren't "asking questions". They aren't curious about actual reality. They are very confused people who want to maintain a simplistic (maybe naturalistic, who knows?) worldview and are increasingly twisted in knots and therefore filled with cognitive dissonance.
I personally don't like hunting down morons, but when they step on stage and refuse to yield, the should absolutely be mocked, shamed, and embarrassed, maybe even more so that they risk the health and safety of others with their idiocy. They didn't reason themselves into their positions, so I see no reason why we should try to reason them out.
Done.
Just like the chair you're sitting in is stationary according to your frame of reference, while from another it is hurtling through space.
There's no such thing as a "normal" frame of reference.
> the geocentricists tried to build mechanical models but the increasing number of epicycles was a big clue that the system was in fact heliocentric.
Not exactly, it was a big clue that the planets did not move in perfect circles. The mechanical models did not provide any evidence of heliocentrism. It was Galileo's observations of Venus that torpedoed the geocentric theory.
The Sun has a certain mass, the Earth has a certain mass, the center of the point of orbit of both (barycenter? That seems to be the right term) is inside of the Sun no matter what frame you hang out in. What am I missing?
Such as the word "sunrise" is very geocentric. We don't even have a word for the heliocentric term for the same thing. We also use geocentric phrases like "jets chasing the Sun" and "sundials track the movement of the Sun", etc.
Yes. It's what I've been talking about in this thread. You could always, of course, demand that the local TV station change the word "sunrise" to "when the Earth rotates until the Sun shines on the TV station", but I suspect that won't be successful.
A rotating reference frame is different. A local experiment can tell you whether you're rotating and how fast you're rotating.
[1] http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smac...
I bet you have. From your frame of reference, the Sun revolves around the Earth.
I also bet if I asked you "which direction should be a rocket be launched into earth orbit to minimize fuel consumption" you'll have to stop and think about it.
Props to Bernie for taking the battle to the middle ground though and not preaching only to the choir. He kind of got shit on for that as well.
Whether you like him or not, or agree with his views, is entirely subjective. But it's interesting to see how much control people want over others by the topics and conversation they want to prevent and suppress, and those actions speak far louder than words.
> When you have extremists on and don't challenge what they're saying, that _is_ pushing a narrative.
This is in spite of his politics.
There are plenty of people who are exposed to (far)left perspectives from his show - do you take issue with that?
You are evidently very unwilling to accept the claim, so I don't think anything said here will convince you otherwise, but perhaps it is meaningful that so many people are convinced of it.
Very few people have such trouble with his massive variety of guests, topics and politics; otherwise it wouldn't be the most popular podcast in the world.
An obvious example of this in action, is Jordan Peterson, who the left almost universally detests. He's neither alt-right nor far-right, and yet the left tries to slander and control him with that label constantly (bury him under fake labels). If you're not in total agreement with them, you're the enemy; that's widely the ethos of the intolerant left today. Rogan has given people like Peterson a large platform to speak through. That's the sort of thing the left hates Rogan for.
The biggest social media site is Facebook. Facebook is very right leaning.
The biggest cable news/punditry channel is Fox. Fox is _very_ right leaning.
The rest of cable news is mostly centrist, certainly not left. MSNBC is vaguely left, that's about it.
Radio is dominated by right-wing blowhards.
Where is my 95% exactly?
> They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words.
would you consider biden left?
By US standards, he's a moderate. So no, still not left. And that's why he got elected.
It used to be the best when there was regulation that made sure equal amounts of attention were devoted to both sides of an issue with proper research.
What we have today are ideological echo chambers with some caricature of an opposing side, not actual debate.
I used to listen when there were an interesting guest just to hear them talk at length about their profession/passions, but it's no longer worth it if the cost is giving rogan a podium for his self-proclaimed-moron-disclaimed pot-stirring efforts.
He is the least critical interviewer you can imagine. Being uncritical and hyped up is his trademark. He is Mr. Softball to the extent he is made of fun for it.
He is not thoughtful. He has talent of speaking endlessly and keeping it going endlessly.
Also, there seems to be a lot of judgement of the kind of person Joe Rogan is (conspiracy, etc) in the comments. I have never once listened to Joe Rogan to listen to Joe Rogan. The fact of the matter is he gets fantastic guests doing long form conversations. I only ever showed up for the guests. Generally also the case for many other podcasts, Lex Friedman, Tim Ferris, etc.... the value they bring is more the guests they attract and the space they create for the guest.
I guess it would be interesting to deep fake the voice of the host and see how many people actually cared about the host.
The Life Scientific
Ted Interview
How I Built This
TWIML
This Week in Virology
Freakonomics
The Changelog
And Lex Fridman and Tim Ferris have their own shows
Coincidentally, around the same time he went to Spotify, I started getting really annoyed at his butting in and his opinions on matters that his guests know a lot more about. I've caught a clip or two on YT in recent months and I skip over any parts where the camera is on Joe, so I can just hear the guest.
I wonder how good GPT would be at generating questions to a guest based on their work and interests. Having a GPT driven interviewer could be quite interesting as a gimmick.
That being said, I've lost interested mostly because his guests have been less interesting (lately, mostly his comedian/fighter friends).
BTW, anyone has good podcasts in the same vein to recommend?
Rogan is against wearing masks but demands all of his guests to be tested for COVID-19 before going on his show which is kind of contradictory.
I guess that's interesting to some, from a sociological standpoint, but for me, there's more than enough of this on literally every other social media platform.
I'm interested in a discussion about the actual dynamic of spotify vs youtube dissemination and whether the claims made in the article are valid. Because the entire premise is backed by the "secondary metric" of how many Twitter followers a guest's account grew by -- this seems pretty ripe for confounding variables, like the appeal of the guest, auxiliary appearances elsewhere, the news cycle at the time overlapping with the guest's subject matter, and other things.
Curious what others think of this.
At the end of the day, Spotify isn't a Podcasts platform, and nobody I know associates Spotify with podcasts. Surely somebody on Rogan's team knew this, but I suspect the money was simply too good to pass up. Imagine starting a FinTech SaaS with the sole purpose of being acquired, and then being offered $100m by a Biotech company. I'd probably take it.
Spofity seems to have modeled its Rogan acquisition as a platform crossover event. Lots of loyal Rogan listeners had never installed a Spotify app, and now a certain percentage of those people have. However, the way Spofity have structured this, as a one-time thing in which Rogan no longer reaches other platforms in comparable ways, seems to limit the potential benefit of this maneuver.
The reason I no longer listen to Rogan's podcast is that it is no longer an actual podcast. My players are still pointed at his RSS feed, but that thing is dead. I have no interest in using special apps published by Spotify to listen to something that used to be available in the normal way. I realize that is a fairly odd preference, but it satisfies the categorical imperative. I'm not the only person who strongly prefers to listen in a particular way. Spofity's strategy is different from that of many patronage-supported podcasts, which publish e.g. half of their episodes publicly, with ads encouraging people who would like more episodes to send money. Those podcasts are marketed in a more open way than Rogan's.
It's just that we're currently in the middle of a moral panic and the self righteous authoritarian hall monitor types are having their day in the sun. Just as we saw in the 80s/90s with Howard Stern who was offending similarly delicate sensibilities. Although today's empowered puritans are not the same group that went after Howard, they are of the same cloth, merely rebranded to the time. It's an unfortunate recurring bug of America.
Frankly I find it incredibly boring, anti-intellectual, anti-curious and absolutely stifling. The sooner we all get back to ignoring them the better.
But then I heard an anti-vax rant he did that was completely ill-informed. Made me a bit sad. https://youtu.be/tiwsv51Il4k I think he gets a bit too high sometimes.
But I still like listening to him.
This article produced data to back up their assertion, I would be curious to see the data you're looking at that helps you make yours.
https://investor.siriusxm.com/investor-overview/press-releas...
Sirius XM (nasdaq:SIRI) and Spotify (nyse:SPOT) are two different companies.
Sirius XM bought pandora in 2019.
In what way was Stern's audience narrower at all than Rogan's? Stern narrowed his audience when he moved to Sirius, but so did Rogan, apparently. When Stern was in syndication and on E!, he had as general an audience as any radio personality (back when people listened to the radio.) Rogan has a very narrow demographic as far as I can see, and virtually that entire demo is a subset of who listened to or watched Stern during what was something like a 15 year long peak.
really? I was under the impression that Rogan skewed much younger. (at least compared to the Stern audience when he made his platform jump.) and sure Stern narrowed his audience when he moved to satellite, but wasn't he already a bit past his prime at that point?
There was a marketing study of influencers from Rakuten Marketing that indicates that advertising through influencer channels produces positive sales results. But again, it's not clear that the influencer actually drove the purchases, versus just drawing an audience that was predisposed to make those purchases in the first place.
https://www.iab.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Rakuten-2019-...