JRE Missing (Rogan episodes removed by Spotify)
jremissing.com
jremissing.com
Still wondering why this is on hacker news :)
;)
Considering censorship ... not sure if it is, seeing that Rogan also seems to condemn some language he used in those episodes now. Maybe it's just a change of heart :) How do you know?
The link was just a slight quip, about what the biggest, recent news about censorship for me was: if you are a school teacher in McMinn County, Tennessee, you are not allowed to use "Maus" anymore in class. There are really worse things going on than a couple of old episodes with profanity being taken down by spotify or by Rogan himself.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/02/the-inside-stor...
I'm glad that Joe Rogan got vast amounts of money out of this; it makes the situation a bit more tolerable. But Spotify are not behaving like a responsible editor.
Makes me question the accuracy of the rest
I don’t know why it would be cancelled. I seem to remember they discussed Alex Jones in the interview so that could be the reason.
Edit to add: Reddit suggests it was taken down due to copyright issues as they used clips from Theroux’s documentaries. I would think this would be obvious fair use but I guess they don’t want to risk it.
If they want to censor, fine - but don't lie by omission about it.
Is a movie/show season is no longer listed on Netflix because of some rights issues also censoring in your opinion?
There are some albums not visible in some countries on Spotify. For the longest time, i could not listen to the metal versions of Ghibli songs in Japan (they are offline, online several times already, potentially due to rights issues): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXB35-cYVMU&list=PLmsGXAySkD...
My spotify playlist was suddenly empty /filled again.
Is that censorship?
As a result, I payed for the albums and canceled my spotify account.
Edit: clarity + totoro example
Edit: To elaborate: To suppress a work, government censorship is simply not necessary. If Amazon refuses to list it, Youtube removes it and Google downranks it, Spotify and Netflix drop it, or Twitter or Facebook ban it, then it'll reach 1% or less of its audience than if it were treated generically (ironically this doesn't apply so much to Joe Rogan, since he already has an established audience. But it does for less known creators).
Notice I've only listed 6 companies.
But that doesn't make it not censorship, or morally justify concealing it.
*In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called "alarmist" for pointing this out [..] In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth. - https://www.corporations.org/media/
To answer your question - if it was my article? No. But suppose I wasn't a random person on the internet, but a journalist, and, after spending a lot of time investigating and writing a story on, lets say, the health risks of bovine growth hormone, my employer makes me go through 83 rewrites over 8 months, then fires me, and never airs the story [1] - is it censorship then?
Or what if I was hired to make a documentary on child abuse, but my employer decided that, "as a responsible broadcaster", they would censor it (sorry, delay publishing until after the election), to not inflame racial tensions [2]?
Can we call either of these "censorship", without also calling the NYT's refusal to publish a random unaffiliated nobody's arbitrary article also "censorship"?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin#Lawsuit_ag...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/20/channel4.broad...
Spotify imho is not in this category.
Here's a take down from the decoding the guru's podcast about some of those ideas you mentioned:
https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/robert-malon...
https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/patreon-prev...
Decoding the gurus should get 100 Million Dollars and a deal from Spotify in my opinion.
How do you know? This is about Spotify's intentions, do you know them? Do they follow orders from, or are they pressured by gov't(s)?
And what about the eps that were removed, do they show a pattern as to what could by Spotify reasons for removing them?
If Spotify censors Joe Rogan's speech, it would mean they suppress or prohibit him to speak about a particular topic /content etc. They made a couple of episodes unavailable on their service (that happens all the time with other content as well, and Spotify didn't even touch the recent ones dealing with COVID). I cannot see how this constitutes to censorship.
Which ideas/concepts are censored in the episodes taken down?
Also, the episodes and clips are still available if you search for them, and Joe Rogan can say anything he wants on other channels ... Or did I miss something?
If I can boil it down to a UX maxim, it would go something like, "The absence of a positive is no substitute for a negative".
If you cant play it then don't bloat up the GUI with it, it's as simple as that.
These just stuck out to me as it seemed the removals are focused on people rather than guests considering repeat guests had all episodes removed.
Maybe it has to do more with what was said rather than who said it.
It’s not hard to figure out why some of the more controversial figures might have been removed, but it seems like this was definitely targeted at people, not content.
Some are, some aren't, pay closer attention.
They are. I remember laughing so hard at one, but then I remembered I'm probably laughing at the lunatic and that made me sad.
Easy for me to say, but he should have stayed independent and tried to avoid dependence on one platform. He could really have put a dent in the MSM model, probably ultimately made even more money and not be answerable to anyone.
Eg, there was the Pizzagate thing where he apparently claimed that there was a child sex trafficing ring with political involvement in some pizza shop, but the actual child sex trafficing ring was Epstein. Or the war in Afghanistan was a disaster because it was an inside job when it turned out to be a disaster for more mundane reasons.
So on the one hand he's wrong about everything, and on the other hand it is entertaining trying to keep score of which bits of the madness turn out accurate. There is a hilarious argument that someone starting from his position and then taking a levelheaded approach to policy could get a better outcome in many instances than what actually happens.
But none of the bits in your example turned out to be accurate? Afghanistan was a disaster for a long time, and child sex traffiking rings involving the powerful have been around for a long time (Dutroux). He just adds conspiracy nonsense to these old stories?
Something that seems incongruent to me might be a product of those intuitions. Intuitions I can't build from reading alone.
Alex Jones served a function.
Apart from exposing the global alien-reptilian-humanoid conspiracy to enslave man/woman-kind in a prison planet mined for loosh--
he made amazingly entertaining content. Bring Back BadAlex!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect
This is why platforms still try to cater to both sides as much as possible. Watch how uncomfortably the giant platforms handle political squabbles. They don't know how their actions will be taken, so they try to come across as inoffensive as possible.
In that way, I respect Ricky Gervais way more and his policy of not apologizing for a joke just because someone got offended. Unless you said it in a totally wrong context and time, then it's the other's person job to figure out context, subject and the target of the joke.
Is it because of the lack of monetization ?
Also on the content producer's side, server administration is scary and/or biz-admin overhead.
If that is indeed the case, it's a big shame though.
Joe Rogan is not quite an employee of Spotify, but he does now have an exclusive agreement, and can't publish anywhere else, and so his show and any other show he might like to make is essentially controlled by Spotify for the length of the contract and published at their pleasure. It would be extraordinary if Spotify agreed to publish anything he wants.
Spotify paid Rogan a tremendous amount of money for the privilege.
So there's not really a need to 'save' them.
Also if you want to crowdfund something there's much better ways to do it than an NTF, though in this case it's unclear that you need to do any kind of funding because people are can just donate time.
It is possible to store the content of the audio files in the blockchain, but it will be very expensive. Storing the transcript would be expensive, but not so expensive.
I'm not sure how a NFT would be useful here. If you split the talk, perhaps someone can buy the NFT that point to the fist minute, and then only listen to it???
No doubt. But do I need an app to read the information delivered by the website. I use the web as an information service.
curl -s -A "" https://jremissing.com/api/episodes|(tr \{ '\12';echo)
Of course, the Ads by Google component of the page does require Javascript. For ads/tracking, one does need to enable Javascript.
From the guidelines.
But I really don't get the point of your comment. It's 2022. If some people publish work that visualizes information for all of us, I'm glad they have Javascript helping them do it.
That's not "javascript helping them do it"
The issue however is not the use of an Javascript app framework (I have no issue with their use), the issue is that people falsely pronounce Javascript to be "required" and users are shown a blank page or some other ungraceful failure when they turn JS off. Clearly, JS is not required to retrieve the information, as demonstrated above. The web developer is intentionally hostile to users retrieving the information with clients (user-agents) that do not cater to advertising.
Everyone knows how easy it is to detect whether the user has Javascript enabled or not. The question is what web developers say and do when they detect it is not enabled.