Content Moderation Case Study: Spotify Comes Under Fire For Hosting Joe Rogan's Podcast (2020)
from the podcast-moderation dept
Summary: In May of 2020 Joe Rogan, whose podcast was considered one of the most popular in the world, signed an exclusive deal to host the podcast on Spotify. Rogan, who has been described as “America’s Bro Whisperer” by the AV Club, is a comedian/actor whose podcast is known for extended discussions on a variety of topics. He frequently delves into controversial subjects and explores potentially extreme ideas, conspiracy theories, and hoaxes.
Given that history, it was not surprising that people quickly raised questions about why Spotify would “platform” Rogan amidst various controversies regarding the content on his show (both from some of his guests and from Rogan himself), and about how much responsibility Spotify should take for that content. Spotify already has a history, on the music side of its business, of removing some artists from its platform.
In the Fall of 2020, things came to a head when a group of Spotify employees complained to management about Spotify being a platform for Rogan, and complained about some particular Rogan content. Reports revealed an all-hands meeting in which Spotify founder and CEO Daniel Ek discussed these requests and explained his reasoning for keeping Rogan on the platform.
"In the case of Joe Rogan, a total of 10 meetings have been held with various groups and individuals to hear their respective concerns. And some of them want Rogan removed because of things he's said in the past." -- Spotify CEO, Daniel Ek
Spotify did say that it refused to host some of Rogan’s older episodes, but after reviewing some more recent ones, said that they did not violate the company’s policies. The company overall seems happy with having Rogan on its platform. A NY Times report says that “among top Spotify leadership, people familiar with the company say, the notion that Mr. Rogan presents any kind of regrettable executive headache is laughable.” However, there remain accusations that Spotify is simply profiting from the outrage over Rogan being on the platform. Spotify has said that Rogan is drawing more users than the company expected, and even has a special category for Rogan’s podcast. As the NY Times article notes: “So central is he to the company’s fortunes that the podcast is listed as its own category on the app: Sports. Music. News and Politics. Joe Rogan.”
More recently, concerns were raised after Rogan gave advice that could be seen as discouraging people from getting a COVID-19 vaccine, again leading to questions about how much Spotify should moderate the content of the podcast. Rogan clarified his comments and suggested that no one should listen to him for advice regarding medical issues. “I'm not a doctor," he said. "I'm not a respected source of information, even for me."
However, over the last few months, people have noticed that dozens of Rogan’s older podcast episodes have disappeared from Spotify. Some of these were first noticed in September of 2020, and by April 2021, it was reported that Spotify had deleted 42 older episodes. Another report noted that another 15 to 20 were “earmarked” for deletion but had not been deleted due to concerns about “bad optics.” Many fans of Rogan’s podcast reacted angrily to the news of some episodes being deleted, calling it censorship, and threatened to no longer use Spotify.
Company Considerations:
- How can a company effectively and efficiently moderate very long podcasts, like Rogan's, which can go up to 2-3 hours?
- How does a company draw the line between someone's opinion vs spreading misinformation?
- How should Spotify handle competing demands from two very strong constituencies: Rogan’s supporters and detractors?
- How much (if any) should bottom line financial interests be taken into account when considering content moderation questions?
- How much should internal employee complaints be taken into account in reviewing content moderation policies?
- Is removing older podcasts or podcasts with controversial guests or topics an acceptable strategy?
- Will threats of stronger moderation or removal of podcasts lead to more careful consideration by podcast hosts and guests? Will it lead to important, but still controversial, topics not being discussed at all? Or will it result in a combination of both?
- Should internet platforms hosting podcasts be responsible for the content in those podcasts? Would the answer to this question be different if it’s an openly available podcast distributed via RSS on all platforms, compared to an exclusive podcast only available on a single, closed platform like Spotify?
- Is public pressure more effective at policing controversial content than expecting a platform to moderate the content? In the example of the information on vaccines, public outcry resulted in Rogan walking back his comments soon after.
And while he pushed back at some of the criticisms of his podcast, he also said that Spotify is not censoring the content of his show. He claims that he knew that Spotify did not want to host certain older episodes, but that the company has given him no rules regarding future content.
"They don't give a f**k man. They haven't given me a hard time at all. There were a few episodes they didn't want on their platform, I was like 'okay, I don't care'.
"But other than that, in terms of what I do in the future, the big test was having Alex Jones on... Alex Jones and Tim Dillon was like one of my favorite podcasts." -- Joe Rogan
He separately made some comments regarding employees at Spotify who were upset about content on his podcast.
“I don’t know what the actual conversation has been from Spotify talking to these employees. But if these employees are listening, I would tell you, emphatically, I am not in any way anti-trans. … I am 100 percent for people being able to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn’t harm other people.
“I’m talking off the top of my head. And a lot of times I’m saying shit that I don’t even mean. Cus I’m saying it because this is a fucking podcast. And if you have a problem with people saying terrible shit and you work for Spotify, maybe you should listen to some of the lyrics. Okay, cus some of the lyrics and some of the fucking music that you guys play over and over and over again makes my shit pale in comparison.
“But I get it, you’re a 23-year-old woke kid and you’re working for this company and you think you’re gonna put your foot down, I get it.” -- Joe Rogan
As for the overall situation, Rogan has suggested that the controversy around all of this has only helped him become more famous, though others have argued that he is having less impact on the wider zeitgeist and a review of how often his name is searched for suggests interest has decreased since the move to Spotify.
Originally published to the Trust & Safety Foundation website.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: content moderation, joe rogan, podcasts
Companies: spotify
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
By minute 13, the fame has waned noticeably.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lol, um nope. What a feeble swipe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It was so good you felt the need to defend him...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe nailed it
“But I get it, you’re a 23-year-old woke kid and you’re working for this company and you think you’re gonna put your foot down, I get it.”
I mean, that's exactly what it is. Trying to "cancel" someone who says something you don't agree with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Joe nailed it
Or trying to get the company you work for to be more ethical, since you don't want your labor to contribute to the distribution of trash. I'm sure Spotify prefers that to their employees just up and leaving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Joe nailed it
Translator note:
When a right-winger says "cancel" "cancel culture" or "censorship," in English that means "liberals exercising their rights to free speech in ways I don't like."
Likewise, "woke" "SJW" and "virtue signaling" mean "someone who, unlike me, has a functioning moral compass."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Joe nailed it
It's also a strawman argument. Unless Joe is thinking of a specific person he's aware of making a complaint that he's referring to, all he's done is invented some young "woke" person who never complains about anything else their company does, in order to move the conversation over to that particular person rather than any wider conversation. Then, he can condescendingly wave away that person's concerns without even having to talk to anyone making the complaints, and he can get back to claiming he's the real victim because he's not allowed to platform a specific type of hatred that has real world consequences for the targets of that hate..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Joe nailed it
I can't agree with you here PaulT, I'm normally with you on most issues, but I believe you're being unfair in this case.
I've watched a lot of Joe's shows on YouTube and can't recall a single episode where he promotes or preaches any form of hate. To me, he seems to be a true liberal, as he states in the article - people can do what the fuck they want, as long as it harms no other.
Of course he's had controversial figures on his show, which in my eyes is a good thing as we get to see the real lunacy and shitfuckery in person and we can all make our own minds up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You've not been paying attention.
I'm also an listener of Joe's podcast. And I can recall multiple incidents across multiple episodes where he's made some pretty derogatory comments about trans people, about racial justice campaigners. (One incident where he referred to Jesse Jackson as a "race pimp").
The constant rehashing of alt right and anti-sjw talking points.
His completely uncritical interviews of genuinely f** hateful figures, like Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Gavin McInnes, etc.
(I'd go back and link to the particular time stamps but honestly there's not enough time in the day to be trolling through multiple 3 hour podcasts.)
And no Joe Rogan clearly isn't an alt righter or a fascist. If he was, he clearly wouldn't have anything like the following he does.
But that's what makes it more insidious.
He presents a respectability, and a neutrality, bolstered by his credentials as a comedian, combat sports experts, and fight commentator. His fight breakdown interviews, an interviews with celebrities, scientists and fighters, interspersed with his more seditious interviews, give cover for the times that the podcast really goes off into crazy town!
Is it any wonder that mixed martial arts has an alt right problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You've not been paying attention.
"His completely uncritical interviews of genuinely f** hateful figures, like Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Gavin McInnes, etc."
This does seem to where he gets most inadvertently toxic. Invite a "controversial" figure on his show, present them with zero actual context and criticism, allow them to present themselves as reasonable actors, and promote their other shows. Next thing you know, your YouTube feed is full of the actual extremist stuff and you've been guided down the rabbit hole to believe that they must be the good guys.
There's various studies and anecdotal stories about why this is problematic, but it should be obvious. No extremist started at the extreme part, they were led down that path. Rogan seems to delight in hosting the people who will lead them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You've not been paying attention.
Milo basically ended his career on Joe Rogan, and Joe pushed back on several points of his. He pushed back on plenty of Jones’ points, and had McInnes on before the Proud Boys, and when Gavin talked about his new group’s tactics, he pushed back on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You've not been paying attention.
The fact that he even booked a guy known best for being the token alt-right gay dude and a guy best known for shoving a dildo up his own ass on camera in the first place should be red flags, even if he did counter them when they were on his show.
"He pushed back on plenty of Jones’ points"
Lol, no. There's some great breakdowns on the Knowledge Fight podcast, but what he did is push back a little bit, then Jones managed to fool them into thinking that a couple of articles he regularly misrepresents said the thing he misrepresented and they moved on to other subjects with the basic lies having been "validated". It's free recruitment every time he's on there because Rogan won't actually push back, and he helps present a sanitised view that doesn't touch on the actual dangerous rhetoric that goes on over at Infowars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Joe nailed it
"I've watched a lot of Joe's shows on YouTube and can't recall a single episode where he promotes or preaches any form of hate"
I don't listen to him, but I'm aware of the types of guests he has on and I can't imagine that they don't preach the same hate as they do on their own platforms.
I'll admit that I've only been exposed to his show through people breaking down why his unengaged platforming is so dangerous, but I've heard enough to be convinced that it is so.
"Of course he's had controversial figures on his show"
Cool. Now, describe why they're controversial. I have a feeling hate might come into the equation quite early. So, why is spreading hateful figures a good thing? Osama Bin Laden going on a radio show would have cool so long as he didn't bring up anti-US jihads on that specific show? He wouldn't get more people checking out the actual propaganda he used elsewhere to recruit?
"which in my eyes is a good thing as we get to see the real lunacy and shitfuckery in person and we can all make our own minds up."
Oh, you naive child... you seem to think that this will result in people not being recruited to their ranks. If simply letting them speak only resulted in them being exposed and ignored, we wouldn't be having half the problems we have now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Joe nailed it
Naive, not so much, child maybe :) As a martial artist myself, the biggest challenge is fighting oneself and overcoming. I see this in Joe, he's willing to overcome his inner demons and face the truth, whether he sees the truth in some areas is debatable, but I believe he tries.
As for the controversial guests, of course he makes a bucketload of cash with them I imagine. but he has far more uncontrovesrial guests with a reasonable and sane outlook on life.
As for people being recruited via Joes's show, I find it unlikely, as he does challenge some of his guests if he disagrees. Those who are going to turn to the dark side will do so without this show. I can't say I've seen every show he's done, but given the amount I've seen it does seem unlikely.
Maybe I am naive, but I do like to see the better side of people without judgement too much, as on the whole it pays off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Joe nailed it
"As for people being recruited via Joes's show, I find it unlikely"
There's numerous studies that suggest otherwise. I don't find it a particular stretch that when Joe hosts vile extremists and says "here's how to find them elsewhere", people might follow them.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/59ade5/inside-youtubes-alt-media-ecosystem
"I find it unlikely, as he does challenge some of his guests if he disagrees"
I have limited direct exposure, but that's not the impression I've been given. Certainly not in the encounters with people he likes IRL like Alex Jones, he actually amplifies the false claims because the guy he has Googling is easily fooled by vague headlines.
"Those who are going to turn to the dark side will do so without this show"
No True Scotsman is a named fallacy for a reason.
"Maybe I am naive, but I do like to see the better side of people without judgement too much, as on the whole it pays off."
That fails at a point. Karl Popper's paradox of intolerance explains why we can't allow such things without question. At some point, the "harmless" guys who present a "controversial opposing opinion" become an actual danger. We don't need to wait until the results occur before taking action against the clear implications. Most people don't start as extremists, they're led down that path by people who know how to fool the incurious or apathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't respect a coward
I respect these dumbass, loudmouth reactionaries a lot more when they're honest. Pretending he's not anti-trans is just pathetic. Then again, maybe he's part of the set that is too stupid to realize their own bigotry; would be in keeping with this meathead's brand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't respect a coward
Or maybe he simply thinks that men who transitioned are on average stronger than females which is unfair to them (and likely dangerous in combat) competititive sports.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't respect a coward
Yeah I'm pretty sure he agrees with [anti-trans talking point], great argument against him being anti-trans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't respect a coward
Trans women lose muscle mass after they transitioned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can't respect a coward
Strength and muscle mass are not the same thing. They are related but a smaller person can be much stronger than a larger person, especially amongst athletes. An elite 120kg bodybuilder's strength will pale in comparison to an elite 59kg powerlifter. What makes a muscle strong, the fiber, is a small percentage of its overall mass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't respect a coward
"...he simply thinks that men who transitioned are on average stronger than females..."
Well, they can be. Phenotype is a thing and if you spent the first twenty years of your life under testosterone then you will have, come your transition, the muscle mass and bone density you built during that time.
Post transition although the bone density may remain muscle mass will decrease.
That said it's not exactly an "unfair" advantage as there are a lot of women who possess muscle-building biochemistry and where biological males may have an advantage in muscle mass, they win the game similarly in endurance and reaction time.
Honestly, if that's grounds for pulling the "fairness" card then we might as well exclude anyone who was born an athlete or with a body type conducive to the sport in question. The argument on whether participation in a sport is "unfair" should be restricted to direct chemical augmentation or various other performance-enhancing exterior factors now and in future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can't respect a coward
"That said it's not exactly an "unfair" advantage as there are a lot of women who possess muscle-building biochemistry and where biological males may have an advantage in muscle mass, they win the game similarly in endurance and reaction time."
We aren't talking about the church league here. We are talking about the elites. At this level the divide between men's and women's sports is huge. The women's world record in the 100m won't even qualify a man for the Olympics.
7 WNBA players have dunked. 7 let that sink in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't respect a coward
"We aren't talking about the church league here. We are talking about the elites. At this level the divide between men's and women's sports is huge."
About as big as between various demographics when it comes to running, then. "Fairness" has never been in olympics since even among the "elite" athletes you'll find a massive overrepresentation of people provided an "unfair" advantage.
Fairness isn't a part of the Olympics. Never has been. As long as you aren't using exterior performance-enhancing items like drugs, or in future possibly cybernetics, I'm not seeing the problem here. You assemble everyone who wants to compete and has worked their butt off, then the best of them ends up taking the medal home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't respect a coward
I’m, actually, with you, mostly.
Again, I can think of 30 women wrestlers, off the top of my head, from across the world, that would legitimately snap most high leve male combat sports leaders, in half.
There’s a reason UFC is ending cross-gender fighting as they buy smaller companies.
Women have been trouncing men in cage fighting for 2 decades internationally.
Not always but often enough to not be an anomaly.
Pride’s heavy weight champ on open ring was a woman when UFC bought them in 2007. She quit. Rather than fight only women.
how about UFC’s former 4 horse women?
Wonder what they would do to the men in Olympic fighting sports!
So worrying about trans ⚧ in prosports is over rated.
Again my concern is high school football. Colgate. And the like.
Because women take longer to build the same level of mass.
And I still have concerns about creepy man in a wig in the public womens bath spying on tweens.
But the solution is harsher penalties. Which should be part of equality legislation from the start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't respect a coward
Saying that trans women should not be allowed to compete in womens sports is not anti-trans. Its pro-women. Joe Rogan comes from MMA which had one of the first examples of trans women in sport when the trans Falon Fox put Timika Brent in the hospital with a broken skull.
BTW Falon Fox is not a good fighter. She is just so much stronger than the women she fights that she is able to over power them.
This is what Timika Brent said about her fight with Fox while she was recovering in the hospital
"I have struggled with many women and I have never felt the strength I felt in a fight like that night. I can’t answer whether it’s because she was born a man or not because I’m not a doctor. I can only say that I have never felt so dominated in my life and that I am an abnormally strong woman in my own right? I still disagree with Fox’s struggle. Any other job or career that I say I try, but when it comes to a combat sport I don’t think it’s fair."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't respect a coward
I have no way to assess your claims about Fox, but I do know they would be made whether they had any merit or not. The science on this is not settled, and the anecdote of someone who lost a fight isn't worth much evidentially. Is it fair for an exceptionally strong or exceptionally broad-shouldered cis woman to compete? The Olympics don't think so, and have been using their anti-trans rules to exclude several cis African women from competing. Seems pretty dumb to me, but then, I'm not a big brain genius like Joe "pass the DMT" Rogan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can't respect a coward
Whoops, formatting error there. Only the very first line is a quote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't respect a coward
The question is where does inclusion of non-biological females become detrimental to biological women.
I don’t have an answer. One needs only look at professional wrestling to see that women can build stunning physiques and ability that puts most men to shame.
At the same time most women would be destroyed by someone as small as Stacy Keebler so…
From a competition aspect, I think the general idea at the professional level is men and women could not only cross over, but could potentially complete equally.
At lower levels, such situations are more questionable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't respect a coward
"From a competition aspect, I think the general idea at the professional level is men and women could not only cross over, but could potentially complete equally.
At lower levels, such situations are more questionable."
You are backwards on that. Its at the elite levels that men separate from women even more. At the lower levels you are correct a WWE women's wrestler can beat an average man. But in any kind of power sport the differences just get bigger and bigger the more elite you get.
The woman's 100m record is 10.49s. That wont even qualify a man for the Olympics.
We see this time and time again. A male athlete who is middling at best transitions and suddenly they are at the elite of the woman's sport. This goes all the way back to Renee Richards in tennis in the 70s. Richard Raskind was a middling club pro tennis player. Better than 99% of people who play tennis but miles away from the elite of the sport.
Richards transitions and is able to qualify for the US open in her 40s in a sport that is dominated by people in their 20s. Elite level tennis is a very young persons game for the quickness needed to cover the court.
So how does someone go from being a club pro as a man to top 20s in her 40s as a woman?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can't respect a coward
I wasn’t specifically talking about world level though.
Using on of the most extreme examples I can think of… again, Keebler, who hasn’t doom much since dancing with the stars, is a buck ten and benches 250. She’d destroy the average male in most sports.
Putting an 18yr old female against an 18yr old no longer male in, say, football, or judo, or soccer (football), ?
Ouch. 🤕
I have issues with it.
I’m not for or against it. I think I’ve made that clear elsewhere. I see problems all over the place. Can they be worked out? Probably. But they’re still issues of concern.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can't respect a coward
"I have no way to assess your claims about Fox"
You are on the internet. You could have watched Fox pounding Brent into a bloody heap in a matter of seconds. You are choosing to remain ignorant so you can claim ignorance.
"The Olympics don't think so,"
The same Olympics that bans athletes for pot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can't respect a coward
"This is what Timika Brent said about her fight with Fox while she was recovering in the hospital..."
...and the same comment was made about Usain Bolt and other sprinters with "unfair body builds" courtesy of their ancestry.
The fact of the matter is that statistically you will have people who have enormous advantages in certain sports based on their phenotype, their ancestry, their early lifestyle, or the quality of their professional career training.
Trans women do not exceed the variations you'd find in other athletes who are cis women. There may be a statistical skew placing them in the upper ranges but if that's bounds for dismissal then so is...being born a Kalenjin Kenyan when it comes to distance running, for instance.
Or for that matter, being born a Pennsylvanian whose family has raised them as a sportsman from the day they could walk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can't respect a coward
"The fact of the matter is that statistically you will have people who have enormous advantages in certain sports based on their phenotype, their ancestry, their early lifestyle, or the quality of their professional career training."
I dont claim to be the elite of my sport. But even at the lower level college where I played DII everyone was a freak of nature. Having the genetics is required to just get you through the door.
Can women compete with men? Yes in my dojo as an 11 year old I started in the same class as an eventual Women's Open 66kg National Champion. By the time I was in college I was playing another sport and only practicing judo intermittently and she was the champ. Now could she beat me? Hell no! It wasn't even close. Now I'm not a dick and a principle of judo is mutual welfare and benefit so when we rolled I didn't use close to my true strength. But I was humoring her. When push literally came to shove she stood no chance. I was too strong. Now here I am an above average male judoka beating the national champ at will. Was I anywhere near her in terms of skill. Hell no!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can't respect a coward
"Pretending he's not anti-trans is just pathetic."
For all intents and purposes, he might be. The issue is that he's marketing himself as the guy who keeps inviting bigots and racists to his show and lobbies softballs at them so they can look good.
And that brings us to A.R. Moxon's old and still very valid saying;
Whether Joe is himself a transphobe, racist, generic bigot or whatnot seriously doesn't matter when those are the people he tends to invite. These are people who aren't on the "both sides" divide. They don't have a point. They don't have any arguments. They have hatred of the other and conspiracy theories.
When the Very Fine People are part of his transactional goods that really says it all.
That said he still has a point when it comes to Spotify. If your Greatest Hits playlist contains gangsta rap lyrics it's probable that you'll hear more upsetting lines by far than you will on most of Rogan's shows. Now Spotify are free to set their own terms, but I certainly do hope they're as eager to vet the gangsta rap lyrics just as hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Alex Jones and Tim Dillon was like one of my favorite podcasts"
...and whenever you have Alex on your show, there's a good exhaustive breakdown on the Knowledge Fight podcast about exactly how he's mocking you and using your show to spread misinformation to people who wouldn't normally listen to him. How your lack of pushback and fact checking allows his fictions to be spread unquestioned. The fact that you were stoned off your ass having a laugh with your buddies does not mean that the show has value.
" Okay, cus some of the lyrics and some of the fucking music that you guys play over and over and over again makes my shit pale in comparison"
How do you know those people aren't also complaining about the music? You don't, I'm guessing
“But I get it, you’re a 23-year-old woke kid and you’re working for this company and you think you’re gonna put your foot down, I get it."
Sadly nobody who throws around terms like "woke" and "cancel culture" are really getting the issues, they just found some buzzwords to reject other peoples' concerns and pretend they're the victim. Remember, Rogan recently claimed that white straight men aren't allowed to speak their opinions any more... on a show where he's paid $100 million expressly to state his opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know who this guy is or what his podcast is about, but the only way to avoid getting the standard insults and demands of deplatforming from the political correctness lobby is to never say anything interesting or original at all. People intentionally looking for things to be upset about will always find it.
So I'm not the slightest bit surprised if those people's attempts to cancel him have made him more popular. And Spotify as well, for not bending the knee. Very few people actually like political correctness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No one I know has ever faced calls for deplatforming, nor have most celebrities. Acceptable opinion only seems this constrained when you have bigoted beliefs, which themselves are almost certainly not particularly interesting or original.
That's how political slurs designed as a vague stand-in for whatever the speaker doesn't like work. No one likes cultural marxism or sexual bolshevism either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting! Please tell me more about the minefield of podcasts
Honestly, I don't feel moderating the content of Joe rogan's individual podcast is that important. At most, it's mildly interesting to watch Spotify squirm!
When this was announced Joe Rogan was pretty unequivocal that the contract with Spotify gave him complete editorial control his podcasts. Assuming that's true, it's likely to be a massive headache for them to do anything other than deleting older episodes from their catalogue (all of which swiftly reappear online, and most of which are still available on his old podcast feed). Anything more could invite a breach of contract.
They can do nothing and tacitly endorse the more controversial content (along with all the negative publicity and employee relations issues that that causes)
Or they try and put their foot down. Rogan walks away. The podcast remains as popular as ever on its previous platforms. And Spotify potentially kiss goodbye to the $100m it's spent to secure his exclusivity. (Or alternatively, Burns money on expensive lawsuits, or has to hold its nose on a settlement).
The more interesting discussion, I think, is this recent trend to monetize podcast culture. In which we include Spotify, Audible, and newer platforms like Luminary.
Apart from general appointment that a once thriving and free online cultural touchstone, is being commodified and turned into just another damn product.
These platforms also have to wrestle with the manifold issues of podcasts. Including but not limited to, copyright infringement, defamation, and the presence of hateful, or otherwise questionable content on many podcast feeds.
Stuff that you generally ask forgiveness rather than permission for, on a free podcast. But when you start paying walling that, it creates a lot more liability for a lot more bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Interesting! Please tell me more about the minefield of podc
Or perhaps Spotify has recognized that the vocal minority of the professionally offended doesn't represent much of their customers (a point so many giants of the entertainment industry have fallen on and continue falling on) and instead of a headache they have a popular and profitable product.
People who like listening to Rogan's podcast get to do so. Those who don't get to listen to something else. Rogan and Spotify get to make money. And the haters get to gather on Twitter to preach how everything is so horrible and evil. Everybody wins, kinda.
As for the monetization of podcasts, or culture in general...it's inevitable I guess. Free culture is a great ideal, but artists have to eat and pay their bills just like everyone else, so there's a limit to how much they can do for free. I count it a good thing that new artists are able to make a living off their work, even if the platforms themselves often treat their work as interchangeable "content."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He could sell shirts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“Should internet platforms hosting podcasts be responsible for the content in those podcasts? ”
Absolutely! 100%
At the same time: if you don’t like it don’t listen.
It’s not that hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Absolutely not. I deleted the not with the !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ah, in that case I take back my first comment. My second one stands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Absolutely! 100%"
You claim to opposed "censorship", yet here you demand it. very strange, unless you think that podcasts and radio shows are the same thing, in which case you're at least calling for a business model change that will vastly reduce freedom and access to resources.
"At the same time: if you don’t like it don’t listen."
The issue in the article appears to be Spotify employees who are appalled that their previously reputable employer has chosen to pay $100 million to someone who is directly platforming hatred against them and/or people who they care about. That's something of a different issue that is not fixed by either not listening, or even leaving the job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
“ previously ”
And still
If you have that big of a problem quit and join green peace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because of course LGBT rights have something to do with environmental concerns in your warped mind. I won't bother to look for the connection myself (as I suspect it comes from the same fiction peddlers you get all your ideas from), only to note that, yet again, you would rather abandon problems and leave people open to abuse and violence than address any valid concerns about them. Always a race to the bottom with you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your so quick to not take things at face value.
If you don’t like where your employer directs the company content, shut up and ignore it, or quite and go elsewhere.
As a consumer, nobody is forcing you to listen to it. Or are you now against a company’s right to chose their own content?
Because that’s what it looks like. You’re all for companies acting in the ‘liberal’ interest but as soon as they make a choice you disagree with you attack them.
You know what that’s called? Attempted cancellation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If you don’t like where your employer directs the company content, shut up and ignore it, or quite and go elsewhere."
Yes, but if I do that, it doesn't help stop the behaviour I find objectionable, and doesn't account for the change that happened since I joined. I've had various jobs, both for companies whose business I believe in and those who I joined because I needed a wage. But, if I joined a company that did ethical things and they switched to being unethical I would make my voice heard as much as possible, and no quitted at the first sign of trouble doesn't do that. Ask people who bailed on Blizzard a few years ago how that helped the people they left behind with the current news coming out...
"As a consumer, nobody is forcing you to listen to it"
If I work for the company that produces and distributes the content, I'm not a consumer by definition.
"You know what that’s called? Attempted cancellation."
·Cancellation" being the meaningless term that thin-skinned right-wingers started applying to basic concepts like the free market and boycotts once they realised that they're not currently the dominant demographic. They were happy to do such things when they had some majority power, hence the need for things like protected classes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Complain enough and they have cause to fire you.
It’s like Republicans who bitch about Google employee memos. Or everyone bitching about Coinbase being a politics free company.
If you don’t like it make your own Spotify. I’m sure you could bring people with you when you leave.
So, cancelling a show is no longer cancellation? What do we call it then?
If you demand that something be cancelled,
You’re doing just that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Complain enough and they have cause to fire you."
Indeed. Before that, I have the right to complain and that will have more impact than the average consumer, or at least that is what I would hope.
"It’s like Republicans who bitch about Google employee memos"
Hmmm... yes and no. Those tend to be people complaining about company policy regarding employees, this is regarding policy regarding stock and suppliers.
"If you don’t like it make your own Spotify."
I'm not sure if that's you deliberately misunderstanding the arguments or an unintended strawman.
In the case of Spotify, contracts have to be made with a large number of labels and suppliers. Until recently, that list did not include podcasts. When entering into the podcast realm, Spotify decided to sign an exclusive contract with Rogan. This specific decision had led to some uproar. Setting up another music streaming company without the podcast aspect doesn't help boycott the podcast aspect of Spotify. There's already many podcast suppliers that don't include Rogan. What do you think would be achieved here that wouldn't be better resolved internally?
"So, cancelling a show is no longer cancellation? What do we call it then"
Define "cancel". Rogan got along fine before Spotify, which is why he was signed to begin with. Now he's signed with them exclusively, I'm sure the contract includes some ability to moderate content. They haven't tried removing his podcast as a whole, but they have advised they won't carry certain shows. Depending on the terms of his contract, Rogan is free to distribute those shows elsewhere or allow guests like Alex Jones to carry them on places like Infowars. If he finds the terms he signed up for too odious, he can go elsewhere, and take his audience with him.
It's not "cancellation" if they do these things, and even if so being "cancelled" doesn't mean you don't have the ability to keep broadcasting. it just means you don't get to use the broadcaster you used to use. Many shows have been picked up and broadcast after being "cancelled", it's just a question of whether they keep the same audience figures that they used to have on a different platform. Nobody's entitled to those numbers, and in the podcasting world there' virtually no barrier to entry if you need to set up your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ Those tend to be people complaining about company policy regarding employees”
I was referring to political action meetings they were promoting attendance to.
“ What do you think would be achieved here that wouldn't be better resolved internally?”
Well they chose to sign someone who they believe would bring in subscribers. Xm cArries both air America and fox.
The only “wrong” I see is calling to boot someone.
Employees are calling to have his show terminated on the platform. Correct. When a show is terminated, it’s often said to be cancelled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I was referring to political action meetings they were promoting attendance to."
I wasn't. If you're going to move the goalposts, at least have the courtesy of indicating that they're being relocated.
"Well they chose to sign someone who they believe would bring in subscribers"
Yes, and some people working for the company either disagreed with that or believed that there was a higher position to take morally. It's up to Spotify whether they agree or not on a business level.
"The only “wrong” I see is calling to boot someone."
I hope you have the same position every time a boycott is called, although that just raises the question of why you think that such free speech is not to be tolerated.
"Employees are calling to have his show terminated on the platform. Correct. When a show is terminated, it’s often said to be cancelled"
Which happens constantly, and has happened since the first show played on the first platform. A business should be able to determine its course, and the fact that it makes a decision based on a public boycott or moral stance rather than a ratings decision doesn't change the nature of the decision.
I will just note however, that you seem to think it's fine to "cancel" an employee for speaking up by firing them, but not OK for them to "cancel" a show that's subject to the opposing type of protest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn’t move goalposts. I was referring to like cases.
“ I hope you have the same position every time a boycott is called…”
In speech rights: Absolutely!
That’s very different from my not stepping foot in hobby lobby over their refusal of proper insurance coverage. Or not going to chicken bastard because the ownership is actively anti-LGBT.
“ A business should be able to determine its course”
And if the employees don’t like it, oh well.
“ you seem to think it's fine to "cancel" an employee for speaking up by firing them”
No: just no. See we have different ideas on free Speech.
I firmly believe you have the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre despite legislative determination that takes that right away.
Speech has consequences you don’t ban the speech. You make the speaker responsible for the results of said speech.
Yell fire in a theatre and you should be liable for any property damage, any injuries, and any deaths.
If you botch about a show as an employee you are representing the company. (Unless you specifically announced it was your opinion alone).
If the company doesn’t like your representation, bubye.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"In speech rights: Absolutely!"
So, one party says something, another party says something in return. Where is the free speech issue?
Not that it necessarily matters to the people speaking - they may be happy to speak out and risk their jobs if they think that their trans friend's right to freedom outweighs Rogan's right to be paid silly money to platform hate. But both are forms of speech, surely? Why is one more important than the other, apart from the idea that companies should own your opinions?
"That’s very different from my not stepping foot in hobby lobby over their refusal of proper insurance coverage."
So, it's the very concept of protests you have a problem with? What's your opinion of recent protests against pro-LGBT companies? The same, or does it only count when they protest anti-LGBT companies?
"If the company doesn’t like your representation, bubye."
So, you're pro "cancel culture" if the cancelling takes the form of firing people?
I'm not saying that businesses should be forced to employ people who disagree with them, only noting that the idea that free speech exists in an environment where people can be fired for saying the wrong thing doesn't exactly ring true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ "In speech rights: Absolutely!"
I was saying I do have that opinion over such calls to deplatform users regardless of party.
“ What's your opinion of recent protests against pro-LGBT companies”
Homophonic fucks.
But I’m not aware of what your talking about.
When an employee inside a company complains the company can listen, or not listen.
If you keep it up you can be fired as a disruption.
That’s all the more it is to it.
“So, you're pro "cancel culture" if the cancelling takes the form of firing people?“
Private company private rules.
Like you like to say, go somewhere else.
Just like private Twitter tossing a user. Private company private rules.
Go get a soap box and stand on the sidewalk in front of the building. (Don’t block egress and stay out of the street).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I was saying I do have that opinion over such calls to deplatform users regardless of party."
As far as I understand it, calls were not in relation to a party, it was due to speech that people found offensive and/or potentially dangerous to them or people they care about. But, a call for a boycott is free speech - Spotify can choose to ignore them or take action based on either agreement or actual danger to their bottom line.
I'll just once again note that if all the calls for objectionable behaviour seem to affect one "side" more than the other, maybe it's not the part name that's the problem?
"Homophonic fucks."
You quoted me saying "pro-LGBT" and you interpreted that as the homophobic side? Either you need to get better with your quoting or you have an angle I'm not seeing.
"When an employee inside a company complains the company can listen, or not listen."
Yes..? That doesn't remove the employee's rights to do so, and there are examples of companies taking note and siding with the employee.
"Private company private rules."
So, again, you're for cancelling people for their opinions if a company does it.
I'm not disagreeing that they have the right, I'm just noting the hypocrisy when you claim that Twitter are engaging in censorship if they do it against people you agree with, yet you're OK with Spotify canning people because they are uncomfortable with new rules that weren't there when they joined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ As far as I understand it, calls were not in relation to a party, it was due to speech that people found offensive and/or potentially dangerous to them or people they care about.”
This isn’t going anywhere.
What did you specifically mean you said “ I hope you have the same position every time a boycott is called”
“ You quoted me saying "pro-LGBT" and you interpreted that as the homophobic side”
Anyone protesting Against a pro-lgbt company is a homophobic fuck.
“ So, again, you're for cancelling people for their opinions if a company does it.”
Yes, in the same way that Twitter tan “cancel” users.
“I'm not disagreeing that they have the right, I'm just noting the hypocrisy“
There’s a difference between public speech and private discourse.
The issue here is how was the report of a person against a new ahi known to be an employee.
As soon as you place yourself as a member of the company you associate yourself as a representative speaker for that company.
If a Parler employee tells the management they want more democrats, that’s internal discourse.
When you, for example, go to WaPo and say, I work for Parler and think we should host more democrats, you become a representative of the company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"What did you specifically mean you said “ I hope you have the same position every time a boycott is called”"
Lying about my position because you can't deal with words I actually typed won't get you very far. My basic point is that just because all the, for example, most white supremacists are in your party, that doesn't mean that banning white supremacists is an attack on that partly.
"Anyone protesting Against a pro-lgbt company is a homophobic fuck."
OK, and protesting against an anti-LGBT company makes you...? Be careful in the face of your above accusation.
"Yes, in the same way that Twitter tan “cancel” users."
I'll be honest I may be confusing your conversations with others here, but weren't you complaining that Twitter were banning "conservatives" before? If not, I apologise.
"There’s a difference between public speech and private discourse."
..and places where the two overlap.
"The issue here is how was the report of a person against a new ahi known to be an employee."
I'm not sure what "ahi" was meant to be in this context?
"As soon as you place yourself as a member of the company you associate yourself as a representative speaker for that company"
True. There's also many examples where the company rallies behind a person rather than fires them, and plenty of behind the scenes conversations before the press release is filed.
"When you, for example, go to WaPo and say, I work for Parler and think we should host more democrats, you become a representative of the company."
When you do the former, and someone else makes the report, then...? From what I can see from the Vice/Motherboard reports linked (why your obsession with WaPo when they're not involved AFAIK?), there were some anonymous whistleblowers but they may or may not have been the same individuals complaining. Should someone be fired because a different person leaked an internal meeting that didn't result in consequences before the leak? That doesn't seem compatible with your binary strawman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ Lying about my position because you can't deal with words I actually typed won't get you very far.”
I sincerely have no clue what your getting at. I don’t do between the lines.
“ banning white supremacists is an attack on that partly.”
I didn’t say it was.
“ OK, and protesting against an anti-LGBT company makes you”
Humane. Righteous. Proper.
“ Twitter were banning "conservatives" before?”
Initially yes. I quickly backs down after understanding the more general view of 230. And said I was wrong.
I don’t necessarily believe banning is the solution, but they do have that right.
“ I'm not sure what "ahi" was meant to be in this context?”
Neither am I. Should be show.
“ why your obsession with WaPo when they're not involved ”
I hate them more than you hate fox.
“ From what I can see from the Vice/Motherboard reports linked”
Story here wasn’t specific. Again I don’t usually click through in lines unless they are clearly noted as a source.
If it was a leak you can simply disregard my entire process of thought on the topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I hate them more than you hate fox."
Be that as it may, nobody else mentioned them. If you hate them so much that you're bringing them up in completely unrelated conversations in order to erect more easily destroyed strawmen, you may have a problem.
Now, did you have anything to say about the conversation everyone else is having, or is ignoring the context everyone else is using while inventing your own all that you have?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They happen to be considered a reliable source by most Democrats.
So every time someone says Fox, I say WaPo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"They happen to be considered a reliable source by most Democrats."
According to who? Bear in mind that many of the people you're arguing against with this weak sauce don't read it as much as you apparently do. Even if that were to be presented as a source (which, again, it wasn't in this thread), if the story is factual then there will be other sources, unlike a lot of the "Project veritas" level propaganda you try to pass off as valid.
"So every time someone says Fox, I say WaPo."
Again, "no u" is not a real argument. You don't win any internet points by responding to people who have real objections to a source you claim to read by naming something you consider to be an opposing source which they don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I used to love the JRE but he has gone full boomer and become a bundle of conspiracy theories and groupthink. He isn't even as entertaining as AJ used to be so why not just let cut him lose,let him bank on drifting the far right and selling his own line of vitamins like AJ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nothing to add here except for the hilarity of referring to firmly gen-Xers as boomers.
"why not just let cut him lose,let him bank on drifting the far right and selling his own line of vitamins like AJ"
Presumably because he got paid $100 million and will still stand to be way richer and more influential than Jones even if he has to give most of it back. Meanwhile, Alex seems to be losing what was left of his mind over all sorts of personal problems combined with getting actual consequences from his Sandy Hook activities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]