Hacker News Reader

Comment by tombert | Hacker News Reader

At the risk of starting a flame war, if people see something bad, even if it is {popular to hate thing of the month}, should nothing be done about it?

View on HN

There are different ways to 'do something' about it. One option could be to remove the thing that (some) people are performatively hating today.

Another option could be to release a statement like: "We understand your concern, however we are pursuing what we believe to be a greater good, etc. To help you avoid content you don't like, we will improve our labeling."

Taken to its logical extreme (which I realize is unfair to your point), what you are suggesting is "people should be able to post anything about anyone at any time and spotify should host it", which I think is ridiculous on its face? Should Spotify be hosting a Daily Stormer podcast? How about The Daily Shoah? [1]

I don't think they should. Let's be honest; this is corporate America. It's not about "principles", it's about money. If Spotify thinks that long-term hosting Joe Rogan is going to cost them more money, they're going to get rid of it.

[1] Do not look either of these things up. They are both outright white supremacist propaganda. You have been warned.

I could just as easily turn your argument into 'anything that draws public ire should be removed', which would be just as ridiculous on its face.

I'm not saying Spotify should do anything. I'm saying it has other ways to 'do something' about these kinds of things.

People consider misinformation to be bad. The problem with censoring it is that I can think of many important instances in my lifetime where accepted narratives were later debunked and misinformation later became accepted fact. Since our understanding of COVID-19 has shifted quite a bit over the past two years, it seems to me the proper thing to do is to let people have freedom of speech.

I think it depends on so many things. In this particular case there are far worse problems in the world than Joe Rogan quoting someone and using the N word. I completely disagree with his stance on vaccinations but I also disagree that he's some sort of major source of disinformation.

In the general case, I think it's bad that the socially expected thing at the moment is to be angry at {something}. It is both bad for peoples mental health and in general and it detracts from more serious issues in the world.

Take for example the situation in Ukraine. Wouldn't it be more effective to be vocal to our politicians to say we don't want to start some catastrophic war there than to try and force a tech company to remove a podcast host? If Joe Rogan isn't removed, will people even remember this discussion in three months? Probably not, because by that time {someone} will have said {something} and everyone will be tweeting angry thoughts at them instead.

> Wouldn't it be more effective to be vocal to our politicians to say we don't want to start some catastrophic war there

I don't have the impression that any politician (in the west) wants to do that.

Nationalist/populist leaders losing support love looking strong for polls. Putin is losing support internally and is trying to look strong for the polls. Two sides both playing a game of chicken is risky and would be helped by internal pressures.

> I completely disagree with his stance on vaccinations but I also disagree that he's some sort of major source of disinformation.

Just to play with this a bit. Joe Rogan is unvaccinated himself, and he at least has recommended young people not to get vaccinated.

In the meantime ICU beds are/have been occupied by overwhelmingly unvaccinated people (proportionally) pushing out other urgent medical care, all over the world.

I agree that we can't blame everything on something/someone specific, but JRE is the biggest podcast on the planet, so I think it's fair to say he's probably one major source (among others).

The only thing they should do is click on something else and stop being sticks in the mud.

Pretty sure racist remarks on the podcast and use of n-word casually isn't {popular to hate thing of the month}, so I respectfully disagree heavily with you here.

If you listened to them in context they weren't racist. I listened to at least 5 of them in context, and they weren't racist and mostly portraying the opposite, so I'm satisfied he's not racist and this is a made up out of context attack as is typical of extremists. They post sound bites without context to enrage weak-minded people who won't seek out clarity on the situation. It's a tactic as old as propaganda.

I don't think we actually disagree here; I totally think that racist remarks and casual use of the N-word is pretty bad, more than just a cringy thing to hate in a month.

I was trying to say that, using the parent comment's framework, even if it was the {popular thing to hate of the month} (which it isn't), if it is sufficiently bad, something should be done about it regardless.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com