"passed the unidentified plaintiff's IP address to Google without authorization and without a legitimate reason for doing so"
Erm, what? An IP address is not private or confidential information, and if there's no local cache of the fonts, exactly how do you expect a font to be sent to the user if you don't know their IP?
Not a particular surprise. Nintendo have always built themselves on first party titles and in most recent years have opted not to join the same kinds of hardware arms races as the other major manufacturers - for example, while MS and Sony were trying to one-up each other with sheer graphics and processing power, the Wii was essentially 2 GameCubes taped together hardware-wise. Apart from the odd outlier such as Rare, Nintendo do most of their best sellers in-house so it's not surprising they will continue that.
"So now we have three distinct strategies from the Big 3 of the video game industry: Microsoft will do M&As and try the exclusivity route, Sony will do M&As and be more open and permissive or cross-platform releases, and Nintendo will simply choose largely to not play this game at all."
I still maintain that's something of a dumb conclusion to come to based on recent events. Bungie have exactly one title that they publish so it's no surprise that they'll promise to continue making that cross-platform. A part of that is that I don't trust Sony as far as I can throw their home country, and it's a bad idea to take them at their word. But, a big part of the reason why Microsoft has been doing what it's been doing is to play catchup after Sony's previous purchases of the likes of Naughty Dog and Insomniac has led to massive exclusive titles being made, and MS are clearly trying to be a cross-platform as possible with Game Pass even if they're not committing to make everything available as a native title on PS. If Sony are being kinder here, it's only because they won the same arms race last gen.
It's a very bad idea to state that MS are doing something untoward here while giving Sony a free pass just because Destiny 3 will be on all platforms and not one of the next Bethesda games, in my opinion
"Whats idiotic is using a 1934 definition to regulate technology in 2022. "
Laws need to be updated, but only where relevant. Which, despite your obsession over 1934, has already happened since that law was written.
I can't think of any description of a common carrier that exists in the real world currently and would be applicable to social media, especially if you're trying to define it so narrowly that it only affects them and cannot affect other types of website.
"Your reasoning is completely circular."
No, your insistence that we ignore all current law and pretend that these proposals are already law is the faulty logic here. I'm simply asking that we start with the basics - what problems are being addressed here, why is changing the fundamental definition of common carrier the best way to achieve this, and what do you do about the collateral damage and unintended consequences that are inevitable with the current proposal? Going "let's ignore how things actually work in real life right now and pretend that the bill has already passed" is not a way to answer these issues.
"As I have said before it seems that Mike's model is to fight tooth and nail to prevent any common regulatory law from being updated to include modern social media"
Except, that's false. He might fight to prevent it from being updated in ways that completely overturn how those concepts work in the real world. If you're trying to force the same common carrier status on to a social media site as exists on an ISP or telephone network, you're either misunderstanding what a common carrier is on a fundamental level, or you really haven't thought through the differences and why they're relevant.
Which, of course, is why you want us to focus on your idealised fantasy version of what you think the term means instead of what it actually represents.
"Now we got GoFundMe facing real criminal investigations because they listen to people like Mike."
Do we? I don't know which investigations you're referring to, but I suspect you're referring to the recent spate of people who have attempts to fundraise for legal funds despite that being against their T&Cs. But, where in the law is it stated that a private corporation has to help you do this?
Far better for these thin-skinned fools is to use a different service that does not have this clause in the T&Cs (as many grifters recently have done successfully).
To paraphrase something I've seen a lot recently - if one person tells you it's clear skies and the other tells you it's raining, your job as a journalist is not to report on "both sides" of the issue. Your job is to open the damn window and find out which is true, because it's not possible for both to be true. There might be an edge case where neither person is actually lying (for example, it's clear but there's a burst pipe outside the window of the person who thinks it's raining), but you won't find out without some actual investigation, and the most likely outcome is that one position is indeed completely wrong without supporting evidence and can therefore be ignored.
With things like basic medical advice during a pandemic and human rights, it becomes even more important to do the investigations because the consequences of compromise is that people literally die. If your "moderate" compromise position is "some people will needlessly suffer and die", it's still wrong, matter how carefully you're treading to avoid offending the Nazi snowflakes.
I'm not sure of the value, but who knows? It wouldn't be the first time a corporation bought something only to sell it on for pennies later when they didn't do much with it. But, also not the first time I was surprised by a strategy I didn't see before.
"They can’t touch Halo so they, again, have one title? This really is a why moment in games."
There seems to be a lot of different opinions out there, but it seems that Bungie were bringing in anything from $100 - $500 million from Destiny. Not world changing but not small either. If Sony are going to bankroll a new IP while doing something else with existing IP it might make sense, but we'll have to wait and see what that is. Sometimes these mergers surprise us, sometimes they get sold again for pennies in a few years.
Re: Re: Re: That isn't a perfect solution by any stretch
"Ideally you wait for a complaint and block an ip/cc range."
You do know how many complaints YT get, right? I think they get more daily takedown requests than some of those sites have overall daily viewers, and the reason for ContentID existing is because they got sued by Viacom for content that Viacom had uploaded themselves...
More granular filters are a good thing, but I doubt it's going to be productive overall if the uploader are expected to be a copyright guru or if ContentID is expected to accurately determine legal liability.
Also, honestly? If you depend on someone manually reading a complaint then blocking an IP range, your traffic is relatively trivial.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Common Carrier Interchangeable Services
Weirdly, he seems to be saying he does know ho law works, he'd just rather deal with the change that he agrees with having been made fact instead of how it is now.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Common Carrier Interchangeable Services
"Actually I posted days ago. It stood "in review" for days as Mike's Misfits thought up a response."
OK... so why assume that didn't happen to the person you responded to? You've chosen to log in so you can't be the same idiot that posts 25 messages in a row then complains about the spam filter working, so surely you're aware that a) other people get affected by the filter in the same way and b) people don't check their email all the time.
"What we are talking about here are proposals at the state and federal level to add social media to "common carrier" definition"
Which is an idiotic and ridiculous proposal that seems to be based on a complete misunderstanding of what the term was ever meant to mean, let alone does mean.
By all means, argue as if your preferred definition must absolutely be true in the future, I just fear that you won't like the unintended consequences you've asked for.
In the mean time, I prefer my articles to be talking about "this is what the law currently means" rather than "if my fantasy bill gets in this is how things will work".
The question is who decision is with and how it's made, and how it's enforced. If you're expecting individual YouTubers to make the correct international decisions, you're asking for a lot of unnecessary lawsuits. If it's down to YouTube, there will be unnecessary blocking. Also there's the question of how well smaller sites can enforce such things since even if YT can do it, that doesn't mean everyone can.
"If something's illegal in Japan block it only in Japan" is a good step forward compared with a global block, but there's a lot of outstanding problems.
"What does Bungie have today of any real concern on exclusive content?"
Destiny. That's basically all they've done since they left MS and Halo with them.
"I’d live to see an Oni live film."
I never actually played that game though I heard good things.
"I mean, their clam to fame is Halo and Myth and they don’t own (complete) rights to either. If any."
Halo, absolutely not. They started developing it while that were a 3rd party developer mainly concentrating on Mac, but MS bought them to get an XBox exclusive. When they decided to go independent, they had to do 2 more games in the series and left the rights with Microsoft Studios for 343 Studios t continue with. Depending on when you take the dates from, they either gave up the rights in 2011 when they left or in 2001 when they joined MS.
I believe that Myth was published by Eidos, so I'd be surprised if they didn't have the rights.
"All I see is Sony overpaying for a place at the “we-can-too” table."
I suspect a couple of things. Sony aren't exactly shy about buying studios but after the recent Microsoft activity I can't imagine that an implied "FU" by buying studio so famously associated with them isn't part of it. But, there's always behind the scenes stuff with these things that are associated with tech and data and not the actual games, so we'll see what the long term plans are.
I'm assuming he's trying to say something about an imbalance of power, or monopoly, which is fine.
But, Rogan and Spotify are the ones with the power here (so far), delisting TD from Google would achieve less than nothing (since the publicity from that happening would outweigh the effect of doing so), and I suspect that Google Play is far from the main place Android owners get their music from to begin with.
I wouldn't agree with the idea that a supplier cannot remove their content from a provider if they wish to end a business (or personal) relationship for whatever reason even if it's clearly bullying (since the implications of forcing them to say are way more problematic). But, it's unlikely such a demand would go their way in the case presented.
"As of 2002, it was estimated the NYPD could save more than $24 million by converting certain positions. Presumably, the potential savings are much higher two decades later"
"the NYPD offered excuses (supposed budget limitations)"
I'm not in a position to read the whole thing right now but... budget limitations prevent saving $24+ million?
""nothing he did has been found to be illegal."
then why are we posting this here?"
Something doesn't have to be illegal to be a problem. In fact that's how most laws are made - people do things that are clearly wrong then something is done to try and stop it happening again.
Your opinion on how right or effective that is might differ, but "legal" and "moral" or "acceptable" have never been synonyms.
"That doesn't seem like a huge amount of money considering the reputational damage and number of really angry people that result from this push."
However, I'm willing to be that there's a lot of people in jail right now in the US who did things for way less than $76k because they didn't think they'd get caught.
I generally think that if someone's caught doing something really dumb, you just have to consider that they didn't think they'd be caught.
I hope so. I assume it's a federal law rather than a local one? But, I understand that such things are less enforced if someone's not smoking a plant or duplicating a file.
Once again - there's different customer bases. Most of the mainstream customer base don't know about this story. If everyone who does know about it boycotts them immediately, they wouldn't notice.
This is bad philosophically and to anyone who cares about how copyright is actually handled, but most people don't know about it, let alone care enough to not buy their kids their preferred gift.
"It's not "just a few bad apples." It's the whole system."
This is where we have to remind people that the whole saying is "a few bad apples spoil the whole barrel" not "meh, there's only a few bad apples, the rest of it's OK".
The point of the saying is to stress that if you put up with the bad actors eventually they'll cause the whole system to be corrupted. For which, the entire US police infrastructure appears to be a comprehensive case study.
"But I didn't realize he invited Nazis on his show, I think we all know what they think."
A short list of some of the "fine" people he's had as guests.
Alex Jones
Gavin McInnes
Milo Yiannopoulos
Charles C. Johnson
Carl Benjamin (aka Sargon of Akkad)
Stefan Molyneaux
Steven Crowder
Now, look into who these people are if you're not already aware. Then, imagine that they're aware enough not to voice their more extremist, obviously objectionable views on such a wide platform that they're not allowed anywhere else (with most of them having been banned from social media for doing so), and even come across as somewhat reasonable. Then imagine the average Rogan listener being taken in by these more reasonable representations of bad ideas and being guided down the rabbit hole to what their real purpose is.
That's the problem.
"Trevor Noah called it broken clock thinking, which is spot on"
I doubt it. The broken clock analogy means that you can be right even if you're wrong almost all the time, without having to change or put in any effort. Rogan is in the middle of a $100 million contract, and presumably that contract has clauses in it that allow Spotify to ditch him if they start losing them money. So, he puts on a reasonable face while there's headlines about how toxic his show is and how he really wishes that everyone could get along until the danger to his income is passed.
This is basic ass-covering and the mask will drop the moment the spotlight is no longer on him.
"Plus, I get a little sick of the whining when people get multiple warnings about spreading disinformation and they keep doing it anyway and have a tantrum when they get the boot"
...then go on all the right-wing grifter platforms to whine about how they've been "silenced", even though more people know about what they're saying because of that than ever saw the original content.
On the post: German Court Fines Site Owner For Sharing User Data With Google To Access Web Fonts
"passed the unidentified plaintiff's IP address to Google without authorization and without a legitimate reason for doing so"
Erm, what? An IP address is not private or confidential information, and if there's no local cache of the fonts, exactly how do you expect a font to be sent to the user if you don't know their IP?
On the post: Consolidation Strategies Emerge For The Big 3 In Gaming: Nintendo Looks Like It Doesn't Want To Play
Not a particular surprise. Nintendo have always built themselves on first party titles and in most recent years have opted not to join the same kinds of hardware arms races as the other major manufacturers - for example, while MS and Sony were trying to one-up each other with sheer graphics and processing power, the Wii was essentially 2 GameCubes taped together hardware-wise. Apart from the odd outlier such as Rare, Nintendo do most of their best sellers in-house so it's not surprising they will continue that.
"So now we have three distinct strategies from the Big 3 of the video game industry: Microsoft will do M&As and try the exclusivity route, Sony will do M&As and be more open and permissive or cross-platform releases, and Nintendo will simply choose largely to not play this game at all."
I still maintain that's something of a dumb conclusion to come to based on recent events. Bungie have exactly one title that they publish so it's no surprise that they'll promise to continue making that cross-platform. A part of that is that I don't trust Sony as far as I can throw their home country, and it's a bad idea to take them at their word. But, a big part of the reason why Microsoft has been doing what it's been doing is to play catchup after Sony's previous purchases of the likes of Naughty Dog and Insomniac has led to massive exclusive titles being made, and MS are clearly trying to be a cross-platform as possible with Game Pass even if they're not committing to make everything available as a native title on PS. If Sony are being kinder here, it's only because they won the same arms race last gen.
It's a very bad idea to state that MS are doing something untoward here while giving Sony a free pass just because Destiny 3 will be on all platforms and not one of the next Bethesda games, in my opinion
On the post: Georgia Sees Florida & Texas Social Media Laws Go Down In 1st Amendment Flames And Decides... 'Hey, We Should Do That Too'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Common Carrier Interchangeable Servi
"Whats idiotic is using a 1934 definition to regulate technology in 2022. "
Laws need to be updated, but only where relevant. Which, despite your obsession over 1934, has already happened since that law was written.
I can't think of any description of a common carrier that exists in the real world currently and would be applicable to social media, especially if you're trying to define it so narrowly that it only affects them and cannot affect other types of website.
"Your reasoning is completely circular."
No, your insistence that we ignore all current law and pretend that these proposals are already law is the faulty logic here. I'm simply asking that we start with the basics - what problems are being addressed here, why is changing the fundamental definition of common carrier the best way to achieve this, and what do you do about the collateral damage and unintended consequences that are inevitable with the current proposal? Going "let's ignore how things actually work in real life right now and pretend that the bill has already passed" is not a way to answer these issues.
On the post: Georgia Sees Florida & Texas Social Media Laws Go Down In 1st Amendment Flames And Decides... 'Hey, We Should Do That Too'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Common Carrier Interchangeable Servi
"As I have said before it seems that Mike's model is to fight tooth and nail to prevent any common regulatory law from being updated to include modern social media"
Except, that's false. He might fight to prevent it from being updated in ways that completely overturn how those concepts work in the real world. If you're trying to force the same common carrier status on to a social media site as exists on an ISP or telephone network, you're either misunderstanding what a common carrier is on a fundamental level, or you really haven't thought through the differences and why they're relevant.
Which, of course, is why you want us to focus on your idealised fantasy version of what you think the term means instead of what it actually represents.
"Now we got GoFundMe facing real criminal investigations because they listen to people like Mike."
Do we? I don't know which investigations you're referring to, but I suspect you're referring to the recent spate of people who have attempts to fundraise for legal funds despite that being against their T&Cs. But, where in the law is it stated that a private corporation has to help you do this?
Far better for these thin-skinned fools is to use a different service that does not have this clause in the T&Cs (as many grifters recently have done successfully).
On the post: Explainer: The Whole Spotify / Joe Rogan Thing Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Some issues just don't have medium ground."
To paraphrase something I've seen a lot recently - if one person tells you it's clear skies and the other tells you it's raining, your job as a journalist is not to report on "both sides" of the issue. Your job is to open the damn window and find out which is true, because it's not possible for both to be true. There might be an edge case where neither person is actually lying (for example, it's clear but there's a burst pipe outside the window of the person who thinks it's raining), but you won't find out without some actual investigation, and the most likely outcome is that one position is indeed completely wrong without supporting evidence and can therefore be ignored.
With things like basic medical advice during a pandemic and human rights, it becomes even more important to do the investigations because the consequences of compromise is that people literally die. If your "moderate" compromise position is "some people will needlessly suffer and die", it's still wrong, matter how carefully you're treading to avoid offending the Nazi snowflakes.
On the post: Moar Consolidation: Sony Acquires Bungie, But Appears To Be More Hands Off Than Microsoft
Re: Re: Re: Titles?
I'm not sure of the value, but who knows? It wouldn't be the first time a corporation bought something only to sell it on for pennies later when they didn't do much with it. But, also not the first time I was surprised by a strategy I didn't see before.
"They can’t touch Halo so they, again, have one title? This really is a why moment in games."
There seems to be a lot of different opinions out there, but it seems that Bungie were bringing in anything from $100 - $500 million from Destiny. Not world changing but not small either. If Sony are going to bankroll a new IP while doing something else with existing IP it might make sense, but we'll have to wait and see what that is. Sometimes these mergers surprise us, sometimes they get sold again for pennies in a few years.
On the post: YouTube Dusts Off Granular National Video Blocking To Assist YouTuber Feuding With Toei Animation
Re: Re: Re: That isn't a perfect solution by any stretch
"Ideally you wait for a complaint and block an ip/cc range."
You do know how many complaints YT get, right? I think they get more daily takedown requests than some of those sites have overall daily viewers, and the reason for ContentID existing is because they got sued by Viacom for content that Viacom had uploaded themselves...
More granular filters are a good thing, but I doubt it's going to be productive overall if the uploader are expected to be a copyright guru or if ContentID is expected to accurately determine legal liability.
Also, honestly? If you depend on someone manually reading a complaint then blocking an IP range, your traffic is relatively trivial.
On the post: Georgia Sees Florida & Texas Social Media Laws Go Down In 1st Amendment Flames And Decides... 'Hey, We Should Do That Too'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Common Carrier Interchangeable Services
Weirdly, he seems to be saying he does know ho law works, he'd just rather deal with the change that he agrees with having been made fact instead of how it is now.
On the post: Georgia Sees Florida & Texas Social Media Laws Go Down In 1st Amendment Flames And Decides... 'Hey, We Should Do That Too'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Common Carrier Interchangeable Services
"Actually I posted days ago. It stood "in review" for days as Mike's Misfits thought up a response."
OK... so why assume that didn't happen to the person you responded to? You've chosen to log in so you can't be the same idiot that posts 25 messages in a row then complains about the spam filter working, so surely you're aware that a) other people get affected by the filter in the same way and b) people don't check their email all the time.
"What we are talking about here are proposals at the state and federal level to add social media to "common carrier" definition"
Which is an idiotic and ridiculous proposal that seems to be based on a complete misunderstanding of what the term was ever meant to mean, let alone does mean.
By all means, argue as if your preferred definition must absolutely be true in the future, I just fear that you won't like the unintended consequences you've asked for.
In the mean time, I prefer my articles to be talking about "this is what the law currently means" rather than "if my fantasy bill gets in this is how things will work".
On the post: YouTube Dusts Off Granular National Video Blocking To Assist YouTuber Feuding With Toei Animation
Re: That isn't a perfect solution by any stretch
The question is who decision is with and how it's made, and how it's enforced. If you're expecting individual YouTubers to make the correct international decisions, you're asking for a lot of unnecessary lawsuits. If it's down to YouTube, there will be unnecessary blocking. Also there's the question of how well smaller sites can enforce such things since even if YT can do it, that doesn't mean everyone can.
"If something's illegal in Japan block it only in Japan" is a good step forward compared with a global block, but there's a lot of outstanding problems.
On the post: Moar Consolidation: Sony Acquires Bungie, But Appears To Be More Hands Off Than Microsoft
Re: Titles?
"What does Bungie have today of any real concern on exclusive content?"
Destiny. That's basically all they've done since they left MS and Halo with them.
"I’d live to see an Oni live film."
I never actually played that game though I heard good things.
"I mean, their clam to fame is Halo and Myth and they don’t own (complete) rights to either. If any."
Halo, absolutely not. They started developing it while that were a 3rd party developer mainly concentrating on Mac, but MS bought them to get an XBox exclusive. When they decided to go independent, they had to do 2 more games in the series and left the rights with Microsoft Studios for 343 Studios t continue with. Depending on when you take the dates from, they either gave up the rights in 2011 when they left or in 2001 when they joined MS.
I believe that Myth was published by Eidos, so I'd be surprised if they didn't have the rights.
"All I see is Sony overpaying for a place at the “we-can-too” table."
I suspect a couple of things. Sony aren't exactly shy about buying studios but after the recent Microsoft activity I can't imagine that an implied "FU" by buying studio so famously associated with them isn't part of it. But, there's always behind the scenes stuff with these things that are associated with tech and data and not the actual games, so we'll see what the long term plans are.
On the post: Explainer: The Whole Spotify / Joe Rogan Thing Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Section 230
Re: Re: Another Angle to this Story
I'm assuming he's trying to say something about an imbalance of power, or monopoly, which is fine.
But, Rogan and Spotify are the ones with the power here (so far), delisting TD from Google would achieve less than nothing (since the publicity from that happening would outweigh the effect of doing so), and I suspect that Google Play is far from the main place Android owners get their music from to begin with.
I wouldn't agree with the idea that a supplier cannot remove their content from a provider if they wish to end a business (or personal) relationship for whatever reason even if it's clearly bullying (since the implications of forcing them to say are way more problematic). But, it's unlikely such a demand would go their way in the case presented.
On the post: NYPD Was Supposed To Replace Hundreds Of Cops Working Administrative Jobs With Civilians. It Never Did.
Wait...
"As of 2002, it was estimated the NYPD could save more than $24 million by converting certain positions. Presumably, the potential savings are much higher two decades later"
"the NYPD offered excuses (supposed budget limitations)"
I'm not in a position to read the whole thing right now but... budget limitations prevent saving $24+ million?
On the post: Small Alabama Town's Overzealous Traffic Cops Also Monitored Internet Traffic To Threaten Critics Of The Corrupt PD
Re:
""nothing he did has been found to be illegal."
then why are we posting this here?"
Something doesn't have to be illegal to be a problem. In fact that's how most laws are made - people do things that are clearly wrong then something is done to try and stop it happening again.
Your opinion on how right or effective that is might differ, but "legal" and "moral" or "acceptable" have never been synonyms.
On the post: Small Alabama Town's Overzealous Traffic Cops Also Monitored Internet Traffic To Threaten Critics Of The Corrupt PD
Re: I'm not seeing the profit being made here
"That doesn't seem like a huge amount of money considering the reputational damage and number of really angry people that result from this push."
However, I'm willing to be that there's a lot of people in jail right now in the US who did things for way less than $76k because they didn't think they'd get caught.
I generally think that if someone's caught doing something really dumb, you just have to consider that they didn't think they'd be caught.
On the post: Virginia Police Used Fake Forensic Documents To Secure Confessions From Criminal Suspects
Re: Re:
I hope so. I assume it's a federal law rather than a local one? But, I understand that such things are less enforced if someone's not smoking a plant or duplicating a file.
On the post: Nintendo Hates You: More DMCA Takedowns Of YouTube Videos Of Game Music Despite No Legit Alternative
Re: The road never taken
Once again - there's different customer bases. Most of the mainstream customer base don't know about this story. If everyone who does know about it boycotts them immediately, they wouldn't notice.
This is bad philosophically and to anyone who cares about how copyright is actually handled, but most people don't know about it, let alone care enough to not buy their kids their preferred gift.
On the post: Small Alabama Town's Overzealous Traffic Cops Also Monitored Internet Traffic To Threaten Critics Of The Corrupt PD
Re: Scary - the rank and file falls in line
"It's not "just a few bad apples." It's the whole system."
This is where we have to remind people that the whole saying is "a few bad apples spoil the whole barrel" not "meh, there's only a few bad apples, the rest of it's OK".
The point of the saying is to stress that if you put up with the bad actors eventually they'll cause the whole system to be corrupted. For which, the entire US police infrastructure appears to be a comprehensive case study.
On the post: Small Alabama Town's Overzealous Traffic Cops Also Monitored Internet Traffic To Threaten Critics Of The Corrupt PD
Re: Re: 'just a few bad apples'...
So, do you often respond to points nobody made or is this a new thing for you?
On the post: Explainer: The Whole Spotify / Joe Rogan Thing Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"But I didn't realize he invited Nazis on his show, I think we all know what they think."
A short list of some of the "fine" people he's had as guests.
Alex Jones
Gavin McInnes
Milo Yiannopoulos
Charles C. Johnson
Carl Benjamin (aka Sargon of Akkad)
Stefan Molyneaux
Steven Crowder
Now, look into who these people are if you're not already aware. Then, imagine that they're aware enough not to voice their more extremist, obviously objectionable views on such a wide platform that they're not allowed anywhere else (with most of them having been banned from social media for doing so), and even come across as somewhat reasonable. Then imagine the average Rogan listener being taken in by these more reasonable representations of bad ideas and being guided down the rabbit hole to what their real purpose is.
That's the problem.
"Trevor Noah called it broken clock thinking, which is spot on"
I doubt it. The broken clock analogy means that you can be right even if you're wrong almost all the time, without having to change or put in any effort. Rogan is in the middle of a $100 million contract, and presumably that contract has clauses in it that allow Spotify to ditch him if they start losing them money. So, he puts on a reasonable face while there's headlines about how toxic his show is and how he really wishes that everyone could get along until the danger to his income is passed.
This is basic ass-covering and the mask will drop the moment the spotlight is no longer on him.
"Plus, I get a little sick of the whining when people get multiple warnings about spreading disinformation and they keep doing it anyway and have a tantrum when they get the boot"
...then go on all the right-wing grifter platforms to whine about how they've been "silenced", even though more people know about what they're saying because of that than ever saw the original content.
Next >>