Joe Rogan Podcast

[1995]

Spotify confirms Joe Rogan removed episodes with racially offensive language

Spotify's CEO also said the company would invest $100 million in creators from "historically marginalized groups," matching the amount of Rogan's exclusivity deal.

www.cnet.com

 

[noblekane]

i see the oppression of the white man is squeezing a few undercover magas out of their hiding places.

poor joe rogaine. always getting picked on by them libs

adolf rolling over in hell right now.

 

[DLF]

Deleted Spotify weeks ago. Y’all doing your part?

“R Kelly is a monster but man it’s hard to not listen to Ignition pt 2”

 

[IATT]

 

[osh kosh bosh]

So it’s not going to have any effect…. except that it might accomplish its stated goal.

Before all of this, Spotify had no publicly visible policies on medical misinformation. That has already changed in direct response to the controversy, and we may well see action taken with respect to individual episodes of Joe Rogan’s podcast in the near future.

As such, this is already kind of a moot point.

I assumed the goal is to reduce the spread of misinformation,
removing him from spotify would do the opposite.

he would be available to more people not less.
and given the structure of podcasts as just totally unregulated RSS feeds,
there literally no one to complain to if were to leave spotify.

If you support content moderation, then you’re fine with companies and services setting their own policies around these issues and consumers/partners making their own choices accordingly.

Although you like to lean on slippery slope arguments, if you support content moderation then yours isn’t an “all or nothing” position. You’re fine with companies limiting expression on their premises/platforms/services, you would just personally draw the boundaries so as to permit, among other things, racial slurs, medical misinformation, and White Supremacist hate speech.

As we’re essentially discussing matters of corporate policy, not government prohibition of speech, the conservative/libertarian stance on this issue is particularly ironic in that it essentially opposes free market forces.

Im not opposed to moderation but I think how it happens matters.

Take the Maus situation, I think it's one thing if a school board decides they are uncomfortable with teaching maus at a specific grade and decide to remove it from the curriculum.

I think it's different when conservatives gin a up a moral panic, to win elections
and embarrass democrats and start enacting book bans as part of a broader political strategy

the outcome is the same but I think the process matters.
I think rich celebrities and cultural elites using shunning tactics to suppress popular media

is unhelpful and counter productive.
do they have the right to do it sure. but I don't think it helps anyone.

NikeTalk is not affiliated with Nike, Inc.

NikeTalk remains independently owned and operated.


Platform moderation is no minor feat. Even services with virtually unlimited resources struggle mightily with it.

We’re not above criticism and I would hardly cry foul if anyone chooses to patronize a service that they believe provides a safer experience.

I would be the first to admit that, although it is difficult to strike the right balance between safety and ideological diversity, we have at times been too patient with people like Ninjahood. Although he was held accountable for his behavior, it was self-evidently insufficient to adequately alter that behavior.

While realtime moderation is, despite its difficulty, an important responsibility that we don’t shy away from, it is a very different and far more complicated task than accepting responsibility for content that we directly produce or commission.

If Ninjahood were even a fraction as important to the community as he fancied himself and we paid him to post here exclusively, would we not have an even greater responsibility to ensure that his content conforms to our community’s values?

sorry typo, what I meant to say is that NT gets revenue from ads and page views
and thus profits from the content posted even if they aren't directly paying the posters.

look I think i'd agree that there is a difference.
id disagree what actions that difference necessitates but i grant there is a difference.

but that's not really my point; Im saying you see people argue all the time that the
publisher-platform distinction is just a cop out made by twitter, facebook ect
to avoid liability and could fairly accuse you of the same thing.

if someone decides, hey I don't want to be on NT the moderation is not strong enough, cool.

but I think it's different if say

some small group of outsiders disagrees with you on your levels of moderation
and tries to use elite influence and shunning tactics to force you to change your policies.
the try to brand anyone who posts on this forum a racist or sexist,
they convince Nike to file suit ect ect.

to me that is counter productive, and accomplishes nothing.
at best it's ineffectual, it doesn't get rid of these ideas,
at worst it boomerangs and further radicalizes people.

Do you think it was wrong for CBS radio to have fired Don Imus for his comments about, among other subjects, the Rutgers basketball team?

i was a pretty young when that happened but no.

to me it's different between authentic popular discontent and a broadcaster enforcing their already described standards

and elite actors using influence to force platforms to violate their own standards
and adopt theirs.


Joe Rogan is the most popular english podcast on the planet,
banning him, for whatever merits that idea may have, is a fringe view.

you don't help anyone when you try to supress popular figures.
you have to persuade people and imo that happens through more speech, not less.

like I said I think NT strikes a good balance. on this.
not allowing counterproductive behaviors but allowing people to be wrong on the internet.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Just wanted to chime in and say this post is dumb on multiple levels.

brilliant retort.
how will i ever recover?

 

[gry60]

Just curious, if it was trump who made the statement about not wearing masks once vaccinated what would your response have been?

Really? Why do you think the answer to this question depends on the messenger?

The consensus among scientists was that in an indoor setting, where all folks had been vaccinated, it was ok to be maskers.

Then Omicron happened.

All people wanted from Trump when it comes to the pandemic was to follow the guidance of the CDC, but he spent most of the time undermining it by torpedoing the testing guidance, hoarding the little bit of resources available and playing favorite with governors (sending extra ventilators to Florida and diverting shipments of PPE away from blue states), just so he could get people to ignore the pandemic, salvage the economy, and get reelected.

It would have been a welcome surprise if he just parroted what the CDC suggested.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Misinformation or preliminary observations/conclusions that were subject to change as they found out more about the virus?

Plenty of folks have decried the lack of clear communication from health agencies, but you'd have to prove that a lot of those early assumptions that were made about the virus were intentionally misleading to call them misinformation.
If you're going to use what those agencies said at a time when very few of their experts had a grasp on what they were dealing with during the early months of the pandemic, all I have to tell you is that this is how science works: they made guesses, examined them, eliminated whatever didn't make sense, updated the public on their findings, and corrected earlier conclusions that no longer applied. None of this happens overnight.

To compare the above with people claiming, two years into the pandemic, that vaccines have killed 50k people is Jeff Bezos rich.


Is his opinion on GMOs the subject of a nationwide conversation? Are people going hungry because they believe what Neil young has posted about GMOs and refuse to eat cheap, genetically modified foods?

my point is you need clear rules and principles.
otherwise you need to rely on elite actors to draw the lines for you,

is the principle, don't spread scientific misinformation?

or is it you CAN spread misinformation until it reaches a hazy undefined level of seriousness
that I will allow rich people to determine for me.

 

[gry60]

if someone decides, hey I don't want to be on NT the moderation is not strong enough, cool.

but I think it's different if say

some small group of outsiders disagrees with you on your levels of moderation
and tries to use elite influence and shunning tactics to force you to change your policies.

Are you serious?

So Neil Young and other elites have a way to monitor what their Spotify fans do on the platform and chastise them if they don't cancel their membership or uninstall the app? Sounds far-fetched to me.

Shunning tactics? What rights does Spotify have with respect to access to these people's music, podcasts, or money?

and elite actors using influence to force platforms to violate their own standards
and adopt theirs.

The thing about standards is that they are not meant to be static; they are supposed to be updated when they become inadequate to deal with the situation at hand.
In your analysis, do you even acknowledge that we are in the midst of a 100-year event, in which information given to the general public is critical in managing it?

 

[Comparison Ford]

brilliant retort.
how will i ever recover?

Probably the same way you do every time: beat a dead horse for weeks on end until you reach the point of exhaustion, go ghost for a while, come back, make another ****ty hot take, rinse, and repeat.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Are you serious?

So Neil Young and other elites have a way to monitor what their Spotify fans do on the platform and chastise them if they don't cancel their membership or uninstall the app? Sounds far-fetched to me.

C'mon man, don't be obtuse

they aren't trying to exhert influence on the users,
they are trying influence the company.

The thing about standards is that they are not meant to be static; they are supposed to be updated when they become inadequate to deal with the situation at hand.

In your analysis, do you even acknowledge that we are in the midst of a 100-year event, in which information given to the general public is critical in managing it?

Sure and I think it's hard to write new standard in way that is clear and can be consistently applied.

 

[BIG LEEMELONE]

It would have been a welcome surprise if he just parroted what the CDC suggested.

That's hard to believe but ok

Really? Why do you think the answer to this question depends on the messenger?

Because it does. If I like someone or invested in them I'm more likely to make excuses for them and rationalize their actions rather than admit they just made a mistake. Even you disingenuously trying to pretend like a message isn't impacted by the messenger is a reflection of bias

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Probably the same way you do every time: beat a dead horse for weeks on end until you reach the point of exhaustion, go ghost for a while, come back, make another ****ty hot take, rinse, and repeat.

If by dead horse, you mean the weak totally flaccid and constantly shifting counter arguments.

Yah I beat a lot of those.


But pre emptive surrender I think is good look for you.

 

[wavycrocket]

He clever as hell

After the initial fake “apology” he spends the majority of the video upset about how who’re people can’t use the n word

Sounds word for word like this:



And the sketch from boondocks



I’m dying at “the variety of ways, black people can use the n word”

 

[Comparison Ford]

If by dead horse, you mean the weak totally flaccid and constantly shifting counter arguments.

Yah I beat a lot of those.


But pre emptive surrender I think is good look for you.

If by “surrender” you mean “acknowledging the fool’s errand of engaging with me” then yes, I surrender.

Keep up the great work.

 

[gry60]

my point is you need clear rules and principles.
otherwise you need to rely on elite actors to draw the lines for you,

is the principle, don't spread scientific misinformation?

or is it you CAN spread misinformation until it reaches a hazy undefined level of seriousness
that I will allow rich people to determine for me.

The principle is to give the most accurate information that you have at the time you make a statement. The thing about catastrophes/crises is that such information is affected by the ongoing investigations that happen at the same time the crisis is being responded to.

Ideally, they could just say "no comment until we get solid answers." The problem with that approach is that they risk driving up the sense of panic (people were stocking up on toilet paper), which will make the country more unmanageable and the crisis harder to solve.
In practice, they have to strike the balance between informing the public and keep the population calm, and that means telling people "you can do X/you can't do Y" today, with the understanding that those instructions may no longer be valid the next hour/day/week if the most up-to-date findings suggest otherwise.

That's a very far cry from misinformation. And it's not rich people handling batches of boogers in labs.

 

[IATT]

Cant believe some of y’all still defending this dude who looks like a thumb

i will never understand some shh

like trump is really the dude the whole country going to go to hell over

all the options y’all got in that over 300,000,000.. these the dudes

 

[trynafeelmink]

Wasn't this supposed to be about his views on vaccines?? it's somehow flipped to a racial conflict.

Dudes must have not been exaggerating about his influence in media

 

[Cashflow]

 

[thehealthinspector]

Wasn't this supposed to be about his views on vaccines?? it's somehow flipped to a racial conflict.

Dudes must have not been exaggerating about his influence in media

That's how it started, then people who don't like his content decided to take advantage of the situation

If people want to take their content off Spotify cool, people want to unsubscribe cool

What some people like myself don't care for is the attempt to police content base on one's own standards

I didn't need moms against violent video games to decide what was harmful for me, I can do that myself

 

[bonde111]

I think one of my friends summed it up pretty nicely: "Joe Rogan listeners are a lot like Tool fans: terminally stupid but absolutely determined to convince otherwise."

Bringing this back from pages back…This hurts, as a big Tool fan I enjoy their music a lot. There are insufferable fans of everything.

 

[wavycrocket]

Wasn't this supposed to be about his views on vaccines?? it's somehow flipped to a racial conflict.

Dudes must have not been exaggerating about his influence in media

Man, it’s always been about that. You doing the thing where your acting “neutral” to the conversation as somebody that “doesn’t know”….but clearly, you feel a way about Rogan.

Cmon man

 

[wavycrocket]

That's how it started, then people who don't like his content decided to take advantage of the situation

If people want to take their content off Spotify cool, people want to unsubscribe cool

What some people like myself don't care for is the attempt to police content base on one's own standards

I didn't need moms against violent video games to decide what was harmful for me, I can do that myself

Nobody is saying you shouldn’t listen to joe Rogan. If you like a platform that elevates and launders white supremacist…that is cool for you too.

We’re free to think how we want to think about that association.

You know what that is called….”free thinking”

 

[thehealthinspector]

Nobody is saying you shouldn’t listen to joe Rogan. If you like a platform that elevates and launders white supremacist…that is cool for you too.

We’re free to think how we want to think about that association.

You know what that is called….”free thinking”

yeah, you're totally free to think that i listen to joe rogan

does that make it true? does it make this attempt to have content removed people dont agree with not true?

i mean, its all just "free thinking" right?

 

[trynafeelmink]

Man, it’s always been about that. You doing the thing where your acting “neutral” to the conversation as somebody that “doesn’t know”….but clearly, you feel a way about Rogan.

Cmon man

No & this is what ya'll continue to do to everyone that doesn't share in ya'll opinions.... is project this character narrative & insist that people feel things they don't.

If Joe Rogan disappeared from earth tomorrow it wouldn't have a single impact on my day to day. You unwillingly made it clear what this was about in your first post..... Control & censorship.

Rogan is out running with his opinion & saying whatever he wants, some of which offends people. No different than the media we grew up with, he just has a different platform & different means & the old guard is pissed because it isn't under their control.

this ain't about no vaccine misinformation, or no Nword. This about getting more moral victories & "silencing" someone (as they trend, while dozens up clips containing their "dangerous" messaging get passed around social media)

Ya'll love picking & choosing when to call out performative, self fullfilling bull****. A bunch of these people talkin about they pulling from Spotify don't even own their music .

If people wanna keep acting like this is a change, We're gonna keep getting ****ing black boxes as a show of "solidarity" from these companies.

People feel how they feel about Rogan & Vaccines, cool with me get out all the complaints & thoughts. But I just wish we would stop allowing ourselves to get used to fight other people battles. Now suddenly the N word & black people are spearheading this convo?? Like what? like How?