Joe Rogan Shouldn't Be Silenced (Sal Rodriguez, Los Angeles Daily News)

dailynews.com

2 points·csdvrx··5 comments

An interesting analysis about how open discussion can promote broader understanding:

> "If you Google McCullough’s and Malone’s appearances on the Rogan podcast, you’ll see no shortage of fact-checks by various outlets, which is a good thing and to be expected, because that’s how the internet works. It turns out, discussion, even erroneous discussion, can serve as an opportunity to promote broader understanding. Who would’ve thought?"

Why silence him, unless he’s breaking laws or losing lawsuits. Marketing has consequences so whatever he says or does defines his audience. Time will tell whether the audience is useful. People should follow and support what they like and ignore what they don’t and let money solve their problems.

> Why silence him, unless he’s breaking laws or losing lawsuits.

There’s also business considerations. If enough employees, advertisers, artists, etc… decide to leave Spotify because they don’t want anything to do with Rogan, then Spotify might decide to end their relationship with him.

That would probably have the unintended side-effect of growing Rogan’s audience. I’m not convinced that being on Spotify is helping Rogan on that front. If his show were more widely available, his audience would likely be larger.

How could you silence Rogan? He’s exclusive to the Spotify platform, so is the worry that Spotify would stop publishing his shows?

Likely you couldn't. Impossible to tell without knowing the details of the contract between Rogan and Spotify. But if Spotify killed JRE, he would likely then be free to take his show to any other platform that would have him, or self-host it himself. Removing Rogan from Spotify is pointless.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com