Joe Rogan episodes disappeared from Spotify today
twitter.com
twitter.com
Like if they're not up to standard, then they must have a paywall.
I'm not blaming JRE here, Joe Rogan has an entertainment show and people are free to watch it - or not.
I'm blaming Spotify, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, etc, that try to paddle their own view of the world by removing content at will. So if they want to have that approach, go for it, but they must be pay walled.
Idk, was just a random thought I had because I'm bored of the whole decentralization subject simply because some corporations abuse their power position built on free distribution of content.
Spotify is not abusing anything. They are simply exercising their freedom to choose what content they want to host and be liable for.
How can someone have a right not to be exposed to something they will have to willfully look for and have actions for such exposure?
That's why I say: if the problem is the possibility of exposure (the absurdity), just paywall the damn thing, then no one can "trip over" a 3 hour podcast and sit around to listen to it.
>They are simply exercising their freedom to choose what content they want to host and be liable for.
Well that content was published and had views/listeners, so at some point in time that content was up to standard. If they are going to be liable for it, they should be liable since the day it was published. That's why I thought of the idea of doing it under a pay wall, so only users that are actively paying for will be subject to that content censorship.
Or simply don't publish content until it's vetted and approved.
Another idea: have space for contrarian points of views within the video/podcast.
If you want the content and it is not available, well then you just can't have it.
2. Many humans aren't smart enough to critically think about all topics. This wasn't a problem in pre-internet era since the radius of influence was quite limited.
3. So, it makes sense for some kind of checks and balances to exist unless ofcourse we want the society to crumble under the idea of pure free speech.
4. As a member of the society, I would want experts to exist who are competent and want to help the people. Similarly I would want people to listen to the experts on their matters of expertise rather than a celebrity who has no incentive to help people.
5. Usually this isn't a problem in a society where people aren't antagonistic but US in this case has a very bad recent history.
Note that most countries in the world support sensible speech (i.e. free speech minus hate+mass disinformation speech).
PS: This is most likely the minority view on HN but hey not all of us are US citizens bred through 100s of years of 2-sided fights.
If that's your take, I admit I might have got it wrong, but it would be a recipe for disaster imo.
You have public broadcasts that have the objective to inform the people, it's called the "News", with journalists that have an ethics code. Remember journalists are not copywriters, or entertainers, or celebrities - they have a duty and an important role in the society. At least it used to mean something at some point in time.
Now, if people are looking to inform themselves on other sources, maybe you should question first if the news are doing a proper job. In a lot of places, I don't think they are, maybe the US is one of them.
When you have different news channels that pretty much openly support different political views, you're already splitting up and dividing people.
If people are looking for Joe Rogan to be informed, the problem isn't Joe Rogan, or the people who go there to be informed, but the ones who should have been informing people all along and failed to the point of people not caring, or worst, not believing it.
It would be easy to label those who don't believe the news as "nuts", which in fact is the common label. When in reality those "nuts" at some point in time were fooled, or misinformed by those organizations - which probably didn't take responsibility for it, and never owned up to their mistakes.
In the case of COVID, it was as simple as listening to the experts as they learned things and as the virus evolved. No need for the president to suggest medicines/treatments to general public. Let the doctors/medical personnel do their job.
Following that there has been so much mud slinging/disinformation/distraction intending to make it a political issue rather than public health issue and they have succeeded to some extent.
I am going to be selfish and ask that the businesses/websites that I visit don't partake/promote/be-in-league with any of this nonsense. I want them to promote science if the general govt + media system doesn't do it. I am just sad that businesses take so long to make a stand, they fix a situation rather than preventing it in the first place.
It's a choice like any other, and after looking at some public divide over the past couple of years I don't even think I'm being too dramatic.
>In the case of COVID, it was as simple as listening to the experts as they learned things and as the virus evolved. No need for the president to suggest medicines/treatments to general public. Let the doctors/medical personnel do their job.
If you recall correctly, in the beginning of the pandemic, everyone was listening - remember the craze for toilet paper, masks and the whole ridiculous hoarding drama?
Somewhere down the line it shifted part of the population in the opposite direction, and I agree with you it was because some had the interest for it to become a political matter not a public health issue. The Media played their part in this, it wasn't Joe Rogan.
>I am going to be selfish and ask that the businesses/websites that I visit don't partake/promote/be-in-league with any of this nonsense.
Businesses have an agenda as well, usually revolves around makes money or creating share holder value. Let's not forget what happened to Spotify stock when they announced Joe Rogan would come to Spotify (took a 10% bump), and the amount of new users he brought with him.
That's the stand they took, they brought an entertainer to their platform that wasn't being valued at Youtube.
Yeah people forget words have effects. Its much easier to give up all responsibility instead. Seems sensible (/s).
Regarding the other points, I think you are losing focus of the topic. I am happy whenever sometimes listens to scientists for covid and takes steps in that direction. I would be happy if a more currently applicable version of the Fairness Doctrine made a resurgence. It would be much better than allowing anyone to say anything without any responsibility.
That proposal isn't appealing to someone like JRE because he can't get $100 million per year from decentralized self-hosted podcasts with your suggestion of Bitcoin micropayments. He's mostly mainstream with a few controversial topics. This (mostly acceptable) mix allows him to be on a popular platform like Spotify with the commensurate multi-million dollar contract.
Your decentralized podcast distribution would be more attractive (or simply a last resort) for people who are mostly controversial and de-platformed like Milo Yiannopoulos and Alex Jones.
The above analysis is about comparing strategies & tradeoffs of well-known personalities who are trying to reach big audiences. It's not relevant to other types of podcasters who may prioritize decentralized ideology over audience numbers or lucrative contracts.
Also the 100 Million deal from Spotify was for 3 years, not that it makes much difference but he was earning 20 million per year using other outlets before signing the exclusive deal with Spotify.
There are plenty of places Podcasts are hosted that are decentralized, maybe this is a rightwing phenom as after the great purge of 2020 many rightwing media creators saw the writing on the wall and found new outlets for their products.
I find that almost every podcast is available from multiple hosting sites now as many podcasters learned a hard lesson when the oligarchs running the major sites colluded to influence the US election by blocking and banning in an effort(successful) to kill the Hunter Biden story among others.
It would be censorship if the FCC (or similar Swedish org) told Spotify they had to take it down.
Rogan is free to go publish his bullshit elsewhere.
Words are important, and you can't just redefine them to suit your argument for politically motivated silencing.
[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/censorsh...
By your logic any academic paper or book that a publisher turns down is being "censored"
What Spotify and Youtube does isn't denying to publish work, they remove content that was already published.
i'll be rooting for spotify
your point is valid, but I would argue that by leaving content up on a website you're sort of publishing it at will
suppose you posted a picture I took of the grand canyon on your website
you paid me for that picture, so you have exclusive rights
you take it down?? ehhh maybe if you prevent me from publishing it elsewhere now?
this will be in court for sure
>you paid me for that picture, so you have exclusive rights
>you take it down?? ehhh maybe if you prevent me from publishing it elsewhere now?
Well that's an extremely simple take on the subject... again there's a context.
A better take would be to not publish your picture because of someone claiming that you were acting/acted in a "improper manner" (not in the legal sense).
You have a name, JRE is a brand as well, not to mention the guests he has, so removing the content that was once published in a sense it's also sending a message to the public.
I have no clue why they removed ep. "#91 - Bill Burr". I like Bill Burr, he is a funny comedian. I look for his content to be entertained, not to be informed. Is he paddling misinformation? Is he homophobic? A racist? Or he said something someone didn't like?
Who knows. We just know that one of his appearances is no longer listed.
At this point the best would be to let the man go with the money.
I don’t follow tabloid stuff, so this may have changed, but at least during the filming of his recent Netflix specials: Bill Burr is married, and his wife is African-American.
"a system in which an authority limits the ideas that people are allowed to express and prevents books, films, works of art, documents, or other kinds of communication from being seen or made available to the public, because they include or support certain ideas"
>By your logic any academic paper or book that a publisher turns down is being "censored"
This does not match that definition. Please read the definition.
I'm pretty sure his exclusivity contract precludes this option.
Censorship in the US has usually been through private groups who practically control most distribution of a medium. That allows the private groups to control what the censorship consists of, allows the censorship to be less accountable and regulated, and allows it to better serve the interests of the groups who control it, while avoiding the imposition of state censorship. In the Hays Code era, you were perfectly legally able to make a film that, say, had an interracial relationship, or had clergy as less than paragons of morality, or criticized the judicial system. You just wouldn't be able to use essentially any significant production company, any actor connected with any significant production company, essentially any distributor, or essentially any theatre in the country.
Spotify controls a significant amount of the streaming market, but not as much as the MPAA did and does for film. Spotify by itself choosing not to allow content doesn't enormously harm someone's ability publish. However, I could easily see this trend turning into US-style censorship of streaming, if a few of the major streaming services started coordinating such decisions and guidelines. It would take less than ten companies coordinating in order to control well over 90% of streaming distribution. That can be every bit as strong as state censorship, if not even worse.
I wonder if there isn't a net positive from these artists "Self-Censoring" as now they are the subject of many news stories. I would think that there will be a spike in album sales for them, especially Joni Mitchell who although may have been very popular in a bygone era is mostly unknown by anyone born this century.
Libel, fraud, slander, lying under oath, dissemination of child porn and state secrets, swearing on television, verbal threats, and more are all government-sanctioned censorship. Corporate censorship is routine, with NDAs, employment agreements, policy, and other contractual agreements. Censorship in the home is also normal and routine, as parents dictate what is allowable. Society also applies pressure oneself in particular situation: don’t talk in the movie theatre, don’t be obnoxious at a funeral, don’t interrupt people, etc.
Why is it so hard for people to imagine that a company might not want to be associated with a particular political ideology?
Wheres my freedom to endorse hateful people and give them a platform spout lies?