Spotify CEO Daniel Ek Confirms Removal of Joe Rogan Episodes | Hacker News Reader

Spotify CEO Daniel Ek Confirms Removal of Joe Rogan Episodes

theverge.com

Never been a fan of Joe Rogan, I dislike his show and the man himself, but we can't just go silencing people. Just do what I do, don't listen to Joe.

You and me not listening isn't going to fix massive spreading of fake news.

True, but there's nothing we can do about it other than telling platforms we don't want to listen to him. Unless of course we decide to go full authoritarian government and take a page from the CCP's playbook.

The problem with that line of thinking is that when you silence people for their speech it doesn't really solve the fake news problem, it just reinforces amongst the conspiratorial that there's something that you don't want them to hear. Only now they can't get the mainstream version of it so they descend into the "dark news web" and find even worse crap like InfoWars or One America News.

It can very easily shut down a big part of fake news : https://www.counterhate.com/_files/ugd/f4d9b9_b7cedc05536047... We know we just have to turn off a few faucets to clean a vast majority of the oceans. It can actually solve a significant part of the fake news problem because an insanely small amount of people/entities are responsible for this mess.

Concerning Inforwars : People using facebook/twitter/youtube alternatives are a very small minority. Infowars is the past, they've been banned from almost everywhere. I think the last only one infowars door to mainstream is their scam pills store on amazon... They use a lot of alternative platforms, but does it really matter ? ... They used to have youtube videos with dozens of millions of viewers, now check the selfhosted/bitchute/etc IW channels, they're a few videos hitting 1 million, at best. I think the last only one IW powerful tool is Telegram. I just checked the IW "social" page, the two IW Telegram only have 30k followers... Pretty much everything else are shady twitter alternatives filled with bots. Alex Jones problably still earn a significant amount of money, no doubt about it. But his massive influence started to fade since the 2018 bans. His income has gone down these last years and there's a good possiblity that the Sandy Hook lawsuits are going to shut him down. Can't wait.

BTW, I don't think we should shut down Joe Rogan. I don't care if people wants to listen to the biggest moron on earth having a conversation with a dumbass psychologist about hard sciences, but Spotify should definitely set public serious rules and factcheck their content as much as possible. The situation is pathetic. Daniel Ek act like everything's ok with his libertarian bs statements, but we know Spotify is currently removing dozens of Joe Rogan's episodes. The last sources talks about 100 removed episodes... I guess the users/subscribers stats and the -20% drop stock are starting to bring Daniel Ek back to earth. Eh.

Being honest, COHERENT, and rules/warning intros/factchecking/etc could be a good start.

(there's probably a lot of broken english, sorry about that, I'm french)

It's never black and white. The interview most often cited was an interview with Dr. Robert Malone:

"Malone contributed to important early research. A pair of papers he coauthored with two other researchers in 1989 and six other researchers in 1990 showed that mRNA could be delivered into cells using lipids, and that doing so with mice could trigger the production of new proteins. The two papers were the first reference in a 2019 history of the mRNA vaccine technology."

I'm less upset about this guy saying something wrong after doing some faulty research (I don't think he has any bad intent) than I am when a journalist interviews another journalist about corona (as far away from a researcher as you can get, or even worse, journalists babbling on which scientists are good or not amongst themselves, the blind leading the blind).

I never understood how journalists (or comedians for that matter) can have any authority, at all. This is not an issue about fake news, but a trust issue that is not Joe Rogans fault. Trust will not magically spring up after censoring North Korea-style.

PS. I'm already vaccinated, because I do not trust the likes of the anti-vaxxer Alex Berenson, a former New York Times reporter and I do trust the government.

This whole debacle has made me think less of Rogan, not that he cares. IMO, he bent too far backwards to accommodate censors.

I feel the same way - he acts in desperation, which is quite the opposite of the public image he's been trying to build, and which gave him a big following.

I mostly agree. But Rogan’s physical appearance and demeanor in his apology reminds me of Anthony Jeselnik’s shark story from “Thoughts and Prayers”. To paraphrase: it’s one thing to put your own job on the line to take a stand, it’s something else entirely to put the jobs of everyone who depends on you on the line.

I didn't know he had a huge staff, but I'm pretty sure he saved enough to give them a nice severance package if things go that South and still have enough to retire and live a meaningful yet modest life... if there's nothing else for him to do, of course.

I frankly don't believe in the sincerity of any public apology anymore. The more groveling it is, the more fake. These kind of apologies always result from large amounts of external pressure leading to the threat of some kind of financial repercussion. Especially in the case of Rogan it seems to me to go against the things he believes in, and he has echoed the view before that you shouldn't apologize to the woke mob. Unfounded conspiracy theory: Spotify might have found a way to leverage the civil rights act[1] to exploit some kind of loophole in their contract in order to subdue him.

[1] https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/woke-institutions-is-j...

Man this post really pulled all the Rogan apologists out on HN.

Does the character assassination not bother you? Next they'll come for someone you like.

I don't buy it. Rogan got a public backlash for spreading misinformation. It's rather easy to verify. If they come for someone I like, there's probably a good reason for it and I'll have to re-evaluate if I should keep liking them.

So far "they" came for only one entertainer I've enjoyed, Louis CK. And well, I can't really be upset over it.

A sad day for the freedom of speech , when highly qualified phds and medical doctors are not allowed to challenge "the" science.

"This is for the record. History is written by the victor. History is filled with liars. If he lives, and we die, his truth becomes written - and ours is lost. Shepherd will be a hero, 'cause all you need to change the world is one good lie and a river of blood. He's about to complete the greatest trick a liar ever played on history. His truth will be the truth. But only if he lives, and we die." — Captain Price's speech in the intro to Endgame.

https://callofduty.fandom.com/wiki/John_Price/Quotes

Err, aren't the pulled episodes about his use of the N word, not about challenged science?

Are we really going to pretend the N word debacle isn't a result of character assassination directly from those pissed off about the controversial COVID stuff? Hardly anybody gave a fuck about these 70 episodes until it became fashionable to beat on Rogan for his questionable and controversial COVID shows. It's pretty clear people were just searching for some way to hurt Rogan, usually the best way to do so is to blame someone for sexual misconduct or racism which magically only appears once they're on the chopping block for engaging in some other controversial but less damning behavior.

Pressuring Rogan to remove episodes is just a convenient way to say "gotcha." It's a tic-for-tat from the ultimatum of the others threatening to remove their own stuff if Rogan didn't.

We don't know Spotify's internal reasoning. What we do know is what episodes got removed and what public statements have been made by Spotify and Joe Rogan.

Yes lets play dumb that we don't understand the acute crisis Rogan's Spotify account is having is from the COVID controversy.

No I'm talking about how you have nothing to anchor your words to bring more weight than what anyone else might speculate about Spotify. If you think Spotify actually just cares about the COVID episodes, then it should be pretty easy to point that out from the episodes being removed.

If Spotify is worried about the COVID narrative then leaving the COVID episodes up does not reduce their exposure.

You mean other than the fact many of these episodes have been aired and publicly available for 4+ years, and only after an acute event of COVID controversy were they removed ? [0] That 113 episodes were removed in the direct aftermath of the call to remove "disinformation" by Rogan and subsequent ultimatums issued by several other artists, but that was just a coincidence? Are we really going to play dumb that after 4 years of some of these episodes being public, that the acute controversy isn't at play here? It's hilarious on face. Obviously racism is one of the easiest character assassination cards to play, so that was played. It has the double bonus of not having to directly address the content of the COVID episodes.

I can't even fathom how you think that this removal wouldn't be a result of the acute controversy.

>If Spotify is worried about the COVID narrative then leaving the COVId episodes up does not reduce their exposure.

It makes it look like something is being done, and at least some tic-for-tat is happening with Rogan. Spotify is clearly being pressured here, they're just trying to maximize profit. If they can use racism as an excuse while simultaneously placating enough of their viewers who are acutely pissed off while not putting themselves in the bad position of having to take a stance on COVID (which could fracture their viewership), then they're going to pick the easy racist angle instead to make it look like they're doing something.

Note the racist angle was really instigated by people trying to hurt Rogan for his COVID stuff, Spotify is just working with the outrage they've been dealt. Spotify doesn't want to get crucified as 'racist' along with Rogan. This way they get to placate the mob while simultaneously not having to take a COVID stance on paper.

[0] https://www.jremissing.com/

Eh, "questionable and controversial" is a really light-weight way of putting his COVID shows--and his shows focusing, increasingly, on other pseudo-science bullshit. The guy has gone completely mental.

The COVID interviews are with highly credentialed professionals, and are quite reasonable, honest and nuanced, far more so than the insane corporate media 24/7 propaganda machine that relies on repetition and histrionics to get everyone's opinions aligned.

I suggest everyone with an open mind to listen to them, they're on Rumble and elsewhere.

Those videos were out there in plain view when he signed with Spotify. millions of people had seen them. so it's pretty hard for me to belive that just now this became an issue.

Strangely, Neil Young isn't canceled for homophobia and the related use of the "F" word. The woke are all about power, the rest is a smoke screen.

Young's use of the "F" word is simply not reported by the party outlets, so hardly anyone knows.

Nobody cares if people use the F word or any other "bad language" for that matter unless that language is around race or potentially a couple other things like disabilities (eg something like the word "retard"). Can you cite a single instance of someone getting canceled by either side just for cursing?

He's also admitted to doing basically every drug on the planet on his own podcast with absolutely no push back.

You and the commenter to whom you’re responding are referencing different “F” words. Two words which seem to have switched places in terms of power and acceptability over the last generation-and-a-half.

Indeed. When hundreds of scientists send a letter raising concerns around “the” “science” published on a platform, it would be great if those platforms took that to heart.

Not scientists, not even mostly doctors, just 270 random medical professionals:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10418589/Most-270-s...

Like Robert Malone, the vaccinated anti-vaxxer? The “doctor” who never completed residency and has absolutely no clinical experience?

And what degrees do you posess that you can say he shouldnt even be able to talk about the subject?

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w maybe you will find this article about Malone interesting.

>Still, Malone, who calls himself the “inventor of mRNA vaccines”, thinks his work hasn’t been given enough credit. “I’ve been written out of history,” he told Nature.

Yeah, it's even worse than what I've written above. He's also pretty much sour that he hasn't been given enough credit.

So what degrees do you possess?

He is claiming to be what he is not. He is intellectually dishonest about his experience. This are things I can judge without being a medical professional. I've never said that possessing a degree or title is needed to discuss a topic. And it wouldn't be in the case of Dr. Malone, if he wasn't claiming to be what he is not.

>He is claiming to be what he is not

Yes, you are indeed. Here online talking about subjects you probably don't know so much about as an MD or medical PHD of any kind or quality.

Even you talking about the subject is totally fine to me. But here you are telling OTHER qualified people not to do the same?

The level of hypocrisy is mind boggling.

I’m confused, are you bringing up that he’s vaccinated to discredit him as being hypocritical or otherwise dishonest?

If so that’s a very weird position. It can be entirely rational for someone to believe the vaccine is the best choice for them personally, while also being skeptical of the pharmaceutical industry, public health institutions, and the media.

Thats not what is happening here. Rogan is clearly pandering to an audience who already know what they want to hear. The people working hard to try to save lives by playing whack-a-mole with some millionaire with a megaphone will always use all the tools at their disposal to stop that flood of misinformation.

Rogan is yelling fire in a crowded theatre and cosplaying as a concern troll. He deserves the public scrutiny on his other work.

His defenders really need to stop the crocodile tears over Rogan. They also need to stop conflating free speech with dangerous misinformation that has already been debunked but is only kept alive by trolls like him.

> Rogan is clearly pandering to an audience who already know what they want to hear.

I don’t think that’s the case for the majority of his listeners. I like him because he’s a good interviewer and has lots of interesting guests from across the political (and apolitical) spectrum. And I’m tripled vaccinated, since I guess that’s needed for credibility now.

Serious question: is there a point-by-point debunking of the alleged “dangerous misinformation” appearing on his show?

I think funding something like that would have been a better use of Neil Young’s Spotify royalties than just giving them up.

Debunking doesn't seem to work with anti vaxxers or racists. No matter how many facts are placed in front of them, they don't care, don't trust the sources and never absorb anything new unless it fits whatever conspiracy they believe in.

This is what makes Rogan so dangerous. He seems reasonable, unlike Alex Jones, but Jones started his slide by flirting with growing his audience through nutters and Rogan will end up the same if he continues.

People have always been that way. Before Rogan showed up, before the internet was even invented, there were "nutters" that had deeply misinformed perspectives which they followed, sometimes, to death. I'm sure someone will argue scale is the differentiator, but I'd argue that the proportions of people who ignore facts vs consider facts, is probably unchanged. (Although admittedly, I have no statistics)

Also I think a big part of the problem is the aggressive labeling of content as "misinformation" or "fake news." To me, misinformation implies propaganda issued and promoted by an enemy entity. But today, it is a term that is used to mean anything that has a fact (whether verifiably correct or incorrect) that implies a conclusion that is generally unacceptable.

For example, if the generally acceptable premise is: "everyone who is able should get a vaccination," then publicly talking to someone harmed by a vaccination (even if it's true) would be considered misinformation, because it potentially concludes something opposing the acceptable premise.

If we can't openly share ideas, good, bad, informed, misinformed, then the 99% (fake number) of us who aren't "nutters" that follow bad advice to extreme conclusions, will be denied the volume of data, perspectives, and opinions we need to make a truly informed decision.

But most of his listeners are not anti vaxxers or racists, otherwise you wouldn’t believe he was a “dangerous” influence.

If the best his critics can manage are character attacks against him and his guests (which is mostly what I’ve seen), his listeners will not only continue to listen to his “misinformation”, but believe he’s trying to be silenced.

That said, I do believe he bears some responsibility to balance out the more controversial viewpoints, and he has stated he will. I would love to see him host two guests with opposing views more frequently.

Thats not what I said.

I am saying if he decides that growing his audience via the standard laundry list of RWNJ topics and conspiracies, he will slide into being just another Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or Alex Jones. At the moment he isn't that, but he is definitely on that path.

I get that it's lucrative since that particular audience seem to be cashed up rubes who will throw money at anybody who panders to them, but it inevitably leads to getting involved in the lies they want to hear.

At this point calling someone anti-vaxxer is the new ad-hominem fallacy as an intellectually lazy way to attempt to discredit someone without actually examining the merits of their arguments. Anti-vaxxer is also an incredibly vague term, to some people might just mean they're against mandates or forcing someone to take test or vaccine under pain of quarantine to engage in interstate travel (see Hawaii).

Begin against one vaccine does not make one anti-vaxxer. For example, I have all vaccines, my kids are fully-vaccinated, but we never get the flu shots for the same reason a COVID-19 vaccine could be hypothesized to be doing an evolutionary pressure on virus. Also, when we vaccinated our kids, we gave their shots at the upper age boundary, not the lower one for the vaccine, and we spaced them out by at least 6 months. We never gave more than one shot at a time (unfortunately, there are some combox vaccines with no alternatives). In general, I think a vaccine against an RNA virus is a flawed strategy and we should focus on prevention (totally ignored by all governments and replace with ridiculous mandates and measures) and antivirals. For example, the 6-foot distance after we know for 2 years that this virus is airborne makes me angry. The same with sanitization theaters, with the mandatory vaccinations, etc. All these, actually, created the highest number of anti-vaxxers in the human history!

After I got vaccinated and my wife and I experienced the myocarditis (although we're both over 45), I turned against the mRNA vaccines and the method of giving them without aspiration. I was never fond of the adenovirus ones as there's enough science against that vector.

Spending $100 million on content from marginalized groups. Over what time frame? With no time frame it’s a meaningless statement.

Better would be to fund content to an equivalent number of listens.

Also what is a "marginalized group"? Who gets to decide that - is there a list somewhere?

One reason feminists and LGBTQ groups are so powerful is that billionaires and senators have daughters and LGBTQ kids.

This is newsworthy, but among some of the news that shouldn't really be on Hacker News.

It's quite clear that Spotify is trying hard to improve public relations as that directly affects their bottom line.

And what better way to do it than making an example with Joe Rogan.

But as mentioned, this news is better suited for Reddit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com