I will be curious to see if NY will stay off of Spotify while JRE is there forever, or if once covid is not the main news story, that NY is back on Spotify.
I didn't know they were actively standing behind Rogan - I kind of expected they signed him on before he went completely off the deep end and are now just keeping up the status quo.
I remember most of the interviews being Joe bringing in someone to talk about interesting topic (neuroscience, nutrition, mushrooms, astronomy) while Joe sat there saying "woooooo, thats craaaaaazy". That changed when he started interviewing various alt-right talking heads.
You have to ask yourself, did Joe move politically or did you?
because in my experience I have seen the "Alt-Right" be expanded to include a whole host of people that are not what "alt-right" was it was originally described, instead anyone that disagrees with any position of the authoritarian left is now "alt right" also anyone that expresses any support for any person previously called "alt-right" is now themselves "alt-right" by their mere limited association or support..
i could go to COVID as it provides many examples of this, but lets take another hot button issue of the day, Abortion. I am pro-choice 90's style democrat on the topic, I support the idea of "Safe legal and Rare" but if I say the new law out of NJ may be going to far, or that maybe we should not out right celebrate abortions instead viewing it as something tragic that ultimately may be needed and certainly should be outside of the purview of government regulation I am viewed as "Alt-right bigot" for my very centrist and rational position
You have people with very classically liberal positions, libertarian positions, 1990's democrat positions, etc being called "alt-right", including some of the recent guests of JRE
You haven't supplied any context into "any position of the authoritarian left". Who are they and what are their positions that you can't disagree with?
Where to start.. Sex/Gender, Abortion, COVID Public Policy, Tech Censorship, "hate Speech", Who should participate in Female sports, any number of other cultural issues...
Then you have topics like Universal Healthcare, Gun Control, etc etc.
I mean the "context" is literally everything
as to "who" is the authoritarian left, hmm lets start with this definition. Blue Checkmarks on Twitters, and.or has Pronouns in the bio of any social media platform, and.or rides alone in a car with mask on.
> as to "who" is the authoritarian left, hmm lets start with this definition. Blue Checkmarks on Twitters, and.or has Pronouns in the bio of any social media platform, and.or rides alone in a car with mask on.
Welcome to HN in [current year]. You can write any nonsense you want and it’s perfectly fine as long as it goes along with the current zeitgeist of the userbase.
I know plenty of Uber drivers who wear a mask alone while on then way to pickup for conscience, as getting reported for not having it can get you kicked off, but yes surely those people are the authoritarians.
I used to listen to the podcast a lot before it went to Spotify. While Rogan is a self-admitted "ignorant", it was that aspect that made his interviews interesting and enjoyable. He always had guests of all types and beliefs.
Unfortunately, it seems that the pandemic has thrown him into a conspiracy hole. I think the whole thing started with one of the Weinstein brothers and the ivermectin push and it just went downhill from there...
Is anybody really all that surprised by this, though? Setting Spotify's deal with JRE aside, removing the show from the platform would set an unenforceable precedent for the majority of podcasts. If we just start banning people for saying things that go against the status quo, what would we even be left with? A handful of NPR shows minus The Moth Radio Hour?
Joe Rogan is a hilariously bad entertainer and an even worse podcast host, but how could this have gone any other way? If Spotify caved, everyone would have gotten the worst of both worlds: people who don't care would have a diminished Spotify experience while every other artist gets a piece of the virtue-signalling pie, and disenfranchised podcast hosts would just go back to RSS and keep distributing their content to the exact same people.
The average person is not stupid, but the average person is irrational about some topic that has high visibility, usually due to tense emotions. I find that this is usually what people are referring to when they say people are "stupid" - not that they aren't clever or don't have good instincts or are low IQ.
Rolling Stone, the publication that lied about Oklahoma ERs over ran by "horse dewormer overdoses" who had a room of gun shot victims that could be seen? (bc you know... Oklahoma rolls hard with those gun shot victims)
Yes, having the reasonable expectation that publications with long histories occasionally get things wrong is definitely an immutable support for authoritarianism...
I don't think an appeal to popularity is a useful or interesting challenge, even on topics so closely related to popularity like this. It's perfectly valid to have an opinion that some piece of entertainment media is "bad" while acknowledging that it is popular. There are plenty of reasons a non-fiction content creator in particular can gain popularity without being good at entertaining. E.g. if he gets guests that are perceived by a large group of people as challenging a status quo that they hate, he may develop a religious-like following among that group, and that certainly is viable outside the context of entertainment value.
For the record, I am coming from the perspective of having listened to very few episodes, but enjoying what I heard.
He says what people want to hear. People like having their sensibilities pandered to, so they tune in and the whole thing turns into a pretty lucrative cycle.
His opponents aren't arguing he's not entertaining. The argument is that he platforms dangerous misinformation.
Militant extremists, climate change deniers, COVID misinformation, antivaxxers, etc. And he's generally credulous. He had Jordan Peterson in doing climate change denial just the other day.
This misinformation has material negative impact on all our lives. He's like Paltrow's Goop but for men.
And while we have freedom of speech, we also acknowledge as a society that some lies are too dangerous to allow -- that's why fraud, perjury, slander, filing a false report, false advertising, etc. are all illegal. It's just that reality itself can't sue for defamation.
Oh, wait wait wait, no, those people are actually right, it's the ones saying it _is_ happening who are wrong-thinking. Got it. Let me check my notes again; it's the global warming that is definitely happening and cannot be denied, and the great replacement that is definitely not happening and must be denied (or alternatively you can acknowledge it but say it's actually a great thing).
Do you see where I'm getting at? We must debate all those things in a healthy democracy. We can debate whether Russia or the US is right regarding the Ukraine. We can debate immigration. We can debate vaccines. We can debate whether or not it's true that Saddam actually has WMDs and whether it's wise to invade Iraq. We can debate whether or not smoking causes cancer. We can debate whether or not there is actually a risk with asbestos. We should debate all this stuff.
In case my point is not clear in a sarcastic form let me be more explicit: history has shown that we have been wrong about so many things in so many fields (medical, diplomacy, etc.) over the years. And conventional wisdom about certain things can completely flip over time. Thus we should never exclude debate and skepticism.
Mmm I’m interested on your reasons for saying that as I think the opposite. He lets the interviewed to talk freely and requests explanations when bullshit claims are made. He never attempts to conduct the interview to follow his way of thinking. It’s a show that surprisingly on these times, doesn’t have an agenda or ideology behind. The show feels like the classic easy going guy from the gym having a innocent conversation with someone who knows about some area.
Overall, I think he is a great interviewer and the only thing I could complain is that sometimes he might brings some wacky people, but hell, I have enjoyed a lot of those too.
I haven't even watched 5% of his episodes, and yet I've seen him call things out a number of times. Sometimes asking his producer to Google stuff to check in real time.
Do you think it is conceivable that what the parent comment is pointing out is found... I dunno, somewhere in the other 95% of Rogan's content that you haven't seen?
Apparently the lookups themselves are a really funky ruse sometimes actually, so it looks like he's fact checking but the source of the fact is like, some random opinion article somewhere.
There is “misinformation”, saying something untrue, then there is straight up spreading lies you know are untrue (Duke rape case), trying to cover it up when exposed and doing it multiple times.
I think the 2nd can permanently destroy credibility.
You can see him using motivated reasoning to defend the talking point he was trying to advance -- a talking point that itself has an obvious agenda behind it.
> It’s a show that surprisingly on these times, doesn’t have an agenda or ideology behind.
I used to think this, but the more popular JRE has become, the more and more I believe it less. The program is deliberately sold as being "neutral" - hence its popularity. Rogan's ideology is "question everything" and "consider everything" no matter how crazy it is. That's the problem - it's slowly turning into a conspiracy theorist field day and an anti-science field day. And it's not facilitating critical thinkers, it's facilitating anarchy.
Anyone who makes a living in media has some sort of agenda - which is to make money. This is why you'll never have an unbiased source in news. It's just literally impossible because at some level, money is involved. JRE is proof you can never truly provide an objective 3rd party viewpoint on news and current topics.
As an example, I've watched the JRE episode on Alex Jones. It's surprisingly well done for how much a wack job Jones is. Rogan does a great job of dismantling Jones's hyperbole and gets him to be, essentially, genuine. While fascinating to watch, it's setting an odd precedent - no matter how much of a wack job you might be, you can always end up on a show with millions of subscribers. If Jones wasn't given a megaphone, he'd just be some village idiot that everyone would ignore.
If Rogan was more objective, less controversial and bring on less interesting guests, he'd essentially be boring. He's the modern day Howard Stern, where people tune in to see "what will JRE's guests say next!".
There's a big difference between "saying things that go against the status quo" and spreading obvious and dangerous misinformation, lies and conspiracy theories.
I don't understand this whole misinformation thing that's appeared in the last couple of years. I've seen a ton of documentaries and listened to music that spreads misinformation. Why is doing it on social media different? I'm asking an honest question. Why can't people just listen to what they want?
Yes misinformation is nothing new. The type of bullshit I see now being promoted now on social media is no different from the bullshit that used to appear in Weekly World News or Nexus Magazine in the 90s.
Hell in "So I Married an Axe Murderer" Mike Myers even does a bit about how his mother reads batshit crazy conspiracy theories and refers to them as "news". Fringe batshit crazy conspiracy theories have always been out there and have always been a space where the far left overlaps with the far right[1].
The problem is that now we have an entire class of politican, forming an increasingly powerful faction in global politics, whose pitch is based on misinformation and it's reinforced by a media network that is increasingly divorced from any sort of regulation or oversight, has the veneer of "news" and the trust that goes with it, but which is just a bunch of sociopaths in equal measures crazy, greedy and stupid, amplifying each other into authenticity.
Social media has enabled this, it would have been impossible to do otherwise.
Yes the writers of Nexus Magazine could publish something and sell it in the newsagent alongside Time Magazine and National Geographic, but what Social Media does is the equivalent of running Nexus Magazine articles inside Time Magazine, or worse it just lets a whole bunch of people who can imitate rational, educated thought create content that too many people fail to differentiate from actual scholarly or journalistic work.
The politicians lend credibility to the shitposters, and the shitposters do the same back. Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, Tim Pool, Russell Brand, Jordan Peterson, Ted Cruz, Judge Janine, Laura Ingraham, Peta Credlin, Rowan Dean, Pauline Hanson, Malcolm Roberts, George Christiansen, Paul Murray, Rita Pahani, Miranda Devine, Adam Creighton, you name, it, they're all the fucking same, all over the world (I've only cited US and Australia because that's what I'm most familiar with but these same cutouts appear throughout global media and politics).
None of them are "telling it like it is", they're just a bunch of big greedy stinking fucking liars, or they're too dumb or too crazy to know that what they're saying is wildly inaccurate.
The unifying thread of this dangerous and insidious political movement is libertarianism, which has pitched itself as anti-authoritarian but which is ultimately the most authoritarian form of government imagineable (essentially feudalism) because "liberty" and "freedom from regulation" mean very, very different things when you're super rich than they do when you're super poor.
The rebellion against "regulation" has turned into a rebellion against "authority" which has in turn lead to a rebellion against ALL expertise, to the point where football players think they should be able to debunk scientists.
> Several things come into play for Spotify artist payouts like the listener's subscription tier and country of origin, the number of streams a song has, advertising revenue per market, and distribution contracts.
> In a tweet, classical violinist Tasmin Little with 755,000 monthly subscribers has disclosed earning £12.34 ($17) for five to six million streams.
The only way we'll know is if they release the information, and my guess is that neither party will do so publicly. I would guess $2k/mo. but I could be wrong. This is still pretty good considering there are multiple streaming platforms.
Just checking out Neil Young on YouTube Music he has only approx 440k subscribers, vs someone like Jason Mraz with 3.4M. I am guessing that the numbers on Spotify are likely skewed by a bit as well.
It seems dangerous to be so condoning of censorship. Let people make up their own minds about the validity/importance of the content. The more information that is available the better.
What were the exact things that Rogan or his guests said that were misinformation? I don't watch him, but the excerpts I watched from the Robert Malone interview weren't misinformation. The guy even seemed to be pro-vax.
Joe rogan claiming that Texas won’t give vaccines to obese elderly white people because he knows one person that was denied. Denies official source.
https://youtu.be/tR0bO1KKl60
But neither of those are from the Robert Malone interview? Which is what Neil Young was angry about and what the GP asked for examples of misinformation from.
Specifically, I think he said that if a 20-year-old healthy person were to ask him if they should get the vaccine, Rogan would say “no”. He then applied the anecdote about his two kids and their experiences to it, which is obviously not very sound justification for the position. To a certain extent it’s understandable that he’d have that position given anecdotal experience, but it wasn’t the right thing to say.
Some of the recent data on the risk factors for myocarditis in young people (particularly males) is, however at the very least, interesting. I’m not a doctor, biologist or immunologist though, so I don’t have any reason the suggest anything regarding vaccine use in young adults either way.
I ain't no fan of Rogan no more, he's gone off the deep end.
Rogan gave a platform to the founder of the Proud Boys many years ago, a group that later played a large part in an insurrection on the Capitol of the United States - and if you will remember, the current leader is serving time in prison as I write this.
The deep end was already being dived into, I can assure you. And I don't think Spotify can claim ignorance on any of this. If having a host that gives fascists a platform is what Spotify wanted to buy, I'm glad someone like Neil Young wants nothing to do with them.
Gavin isn’t left. Or lefty. That is misinformation. 19 years ago Gavin was saying things like:
“Last month, he wrote an article for Patrick Buchanan in The American Conservative boasting of having converted Vice readers to conservatism.
He actually leans much further to the right than the Republican Party. His views are closer to a white supremacist's. ''I love being white and I think it's something to be very proud of,'' he said. ''I don't want our culture diluted. We need to close the borders now and let everyone assimilate to a Western, white, English-speaking way of life.”[0]
—
When was the Proud Boys purportedly just a joke? Also, 4chan, Vice’s non lefty people like Gavin, have hid behind the cover of “just a joke” for decades.
There are many times where Gavin calls himself, Proud Boys, or others alt-lite/new right. A distinction that means nothing when the people who label themselves as these, are no different than the alt right. I have a very hard time believing Proud Boys was ever created as a joke in good faith and not as cover. Nothing from quick reading shows your take to be true.
Is it not true that Proud Boys was created in 2016 on Taki's Magazine, a far-right/alt-right site?
And then he had Bernie Sanders on. Should we disavow Bernie Sanders for speaking to a man who has conversations with horrible people?
Walter Cronkite had a conversation with Fidel Castro and it was broadcast to millions around America. Was that an abomination, spoiling the minds of the impressionable people too weak to think for themselves?
For some reason these pro censorship people think that by letting someone share an opinion that it is dangerous, not realizing that they are actually making these people more dangerous and others more likely to engage and follow their ideals by censoring them than by letting them share their opinions. A society controlled by fear is one that is easily manipulated and very unstable.
To me censorship is like adding backdoor into encryption. There may be times where it helps, but for the most part is is waiting to be exploited maliciously. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I do not agree with everything I see on the Internet, but I also support individual freedom and choice. People should be allowed to be ignorant if that is what they choose, and rather than get angry I generally just feel empathy for most people.
I think it is best to use logic and reason, it is okay to listen to someone. If they say something that fundamentally conflicts with your personal beliefs then you are allowed to set personal boundaries to not listen to them. If someone is following you around trying to intimidate you and threatening you then you can get a restraining order. If you go out seeking people that oppose your views then demand no one interact with them anymore because they have different opinions, then many times it is you that has the problem and not them.
>If you go out seeking people that oppose your views then demand no one interact with them anymore because they have different opinions, then many times it is you that has the problem and not them.
This framing of "we need to figure out who's wrong/who's weird/who has the problem" is really unhelpful. We should focus on the actual, practical, consequences of our choices and how that changes the world, not obsess over being normal. The practical effects of speaking freely and without challenge on a platform with 200M listeners are disastrous. It doesn't matter if it's weird for me to think that, its still true.
Note to "WaxedChewbacca" you are apparently hellbanned.
But the point is valid--there was nothing resembling an actual "insurrection" and any person who uses the term has probably been deeply exposed to actual disinformation.
That said, last I heard the feds may have cooked up some BS "sedition" charges for some of the hapless protesters.
Lefty McCommunism goes on JRE and says to 200 million people “Texas has a 97% case rate of Ebola and all goods exported from Texas are poison”. Joe doesn’t object. 30% of the people believe him. 60 million customers abandon Texas and thousands of small businesses close.
Is society better off because joe rogan allowed this deplorable person to enter the marketplace of ideas? Or would it have been better if he had challenged the guest to back up the claim, or simply not had the guest on in the first place?
Being able to discuss ideas is good. But why do you need to be able to discuss your fabricated ideas in front of 200 million people at once?
As a follow-on thought experiment, if 60 million customers stop buying from Texas companies, let’s say, from whom do they now end up buying those products? Possibly from some existing mega-corporations, which probably has a net negative on society as a whole, or possibly from small business owners elsewhere —- maybe mainly those that've been somehow disenfranchised by those Texas-based companies in the past. The latter maybe being a net positive for society as a whole.
Not arguing that you’re wrong; just suggesting that a seemingly simple thought experiment in this case is still very complicated on a societal scale. In general I’d argue that facts and truth are most central to productive and well-balanced societies, and combatting non-truth is therefore the most generally useful approach, but widespread discussion of ideas in general is also central.
Mr. Rogers having an open discussion with a post-WW1 / pre-WW2 Hitler would be fascinating and probably not useless.
The problem starts when Hitler is having discussions with only people who listen to Hitler. Without an interlocutor to say "wait a minute, that's crazy talk and here's why", it's easy to fall into an echo chamber of group-think.
Hitler was a manipulator. He would never come into a discussion with a rational, balanced perspective, or be open to feedback. He wouldn’t even really be speaking with Mr. Rodgers, he’d be using him to talk to disaffected, vulnerable people he can use to further his aims.
I agree that it’s interesting to think about a conversation between the two, but only if Hitler approached the conversation in the same way Mr. Rodgers would and unfortunately from history there’s no indication that would ever happen.
It’s banned in Germany. Not saying it solves the problem, but there are many different shades of free speech and every country I know of has at least some limitations.
You can refer to almost any political talk radio, any hosted segments on cable TV news networks and any opinion piece in the newspaper for starters. Almost no fact checking and incredibly biased, or downright misinformation.
Think about what you’re saying: No open discussion can possibly contain misinformation. That’s certainly not true by any stretch of the imagination. That fact that a statement is made in public doesn’t make it true.
> Think about what you’re saying: No open discussion can possibly contain misinformation.
That is not what I'm saying. I am opposed to the boiling down of a non-establishment discussion podcast to the singular word "misinformation. Just as I'm sure the commenter I replied to would object if I referred to any news source he cited - NYT, WaPo, WSJ, CDC, FDA, etc. - and defined it simply as "misinformation".
The word in and of itself is misinformation, typically meant to steer people away from reading, hearing, and seeing information they don't like. And it shouldn't be tolerated. We as a society need to start fostering open discussion of topics and viewpoints that the establishment and its followers doesn't like or approve of.
> I am opposed to the boiling down of a non-establishment discussion podcast to the singular word "misinformation.
Right, but they are calling some of the specific content misinformation. The fact that it’s an open discussion on a non-establishment podcast is irrelevant to the content being verifiable or reliable or rational.
And no, we don’t need more open discussions about every single viewpoint, regardless of feasibility. Just being anti-establishment doesn’t mean you have something worth saying or sharing. You need to have a little more substance than just doubting the establishment for the sake of doubting the establishment.
If you doubt the vaccine efficacy because you’re a virologist and have a theory that can be tested or a question about the research or development process that the establishment can’t answer adequately, great, let’s get that view out there. If you doubt the vaccine efficacy because doing so gets you attention from Rogan’s ~11M listeners per episode, or because you just want to challenge the establishment then sorry, you’re not adding value to the national conversation.
As another comment pointed out, if Taylor Swift or Beyonce joined Neil Young it would really tip the scales. Spotify can't give in to the demands of any one creator, perhaps. But if the right ones got together they could get probably get someone like Joe Rogan booted off the platform
> But yeah, it's the only sane decision not to let one content creator strong arm you into booting other content creators he doesn't like.
One difference is that in the case of Young and most other content creators on Spotify, their content is available all over the place. Spotify pays them royalties based on how many people listen to it on Spotify.
If Young were saying that he didn't want his music on Spotify unless they dropped, say, Nickleback that would just be ridiculous because Spotify isn't doing anything special with Nickleback. They didn't specifically chose to have Nickleback, and if Nickleback gets any money from Spotify it is proportional to how many people choose to listen that way.
With Rogan, Spotify has paid him in advance to make his content exclusively for Spotify. There's a much closer relationship between Rogan and Spotify than between Nickelback and Spotify.
Not really. NY was standing up to Spotify's bad decision to broadcast dangerous misinformation, and he was making a protest to try to get them to see sense. Good for him! I hope he sticks to his principles.
Note that "dangerous misinformation" changes entirely based on what the orthodoxy is currently promoting.
Particularly, CNN/MSNBC/NBC/AP all promoted the "masks don't work" lie promoted by the CDC at the start of the pandemic, which likely directly led to deaths.
But if CNN slaughters some grandparents with CDC-backed lies it's water under the bridge compared to Joe Rogan, right?
Your mistake is falsely claiming ivermectin is "dangerous", when it has been an FDA approved drug for humans for decades. When taken in advised doses, the worst ivermectin is is harmless.
So, your rebuttal for CNN and friends literally causing death by anti-mask propaganda in 2020 is a harmless drug? You're going to need more evidence.
How about the City of New York encouraging residents to visit Chinatown when the pandemic ramped up? [1] Seems a lot more dangerous than an FDA approved drug.
Dr Fauci also has made repeated dangerous claims, such as the vaccines being "100% effective at preventing hospitalisation" [2] -- this fabricated lie DESTROYED public confidence in officials.
A recent Decision Desk poll showed only 31% of Americans trust Dr Fauci (likely due to repeated lies), and less than 50% trust the CDC (which lied repeatedly about masks and bungled health advice constantly). Most notably, news media enjoys a pathetic 10% trust among the public. [3]
They should definitely have kicked off Joe Rogan instead. The man's a buffoon. Just like Russell Brand, Jordan Peterson, Alex Jones, Tim Pool and all these other new media dickheads. Ban the lot of them I say! They have no place on mainstream platforms.
Except that they're creating a political movement that's about as dystopian as one could possibly imagine by convincing people to vote against their economic interests and hand massive power to the already wealthy and corrupt. Libertarianism is the means by with capital captures labour politically, and will be the ruin of the planet.
You're welcome to your own political beliefs. Personally, I'm happy to live in a pluralistic society.
Trying to silence everyone you disagree with seems truly dystopian, but I agree with your distaste for those people. None of them are libertarian; they're extremely socially conservative conspiracy theorists.
I can't imagine being in Australia during COVID and arguing against ideologies of personal freedom, though.
That's because you've been mislead into thinking that something bad is happening in Australia, because of libertarian propaganda propagated by those aforementioned new media dickheads. They are absolutely libertarians, that's what unites them.
What does "woke" have to do with anything I've said? My primary opposition is to libertarianism, which is the philosophy underpinning all said new media dickheads, and what unites them
None of the people you have named are libertarian, to be fair. Also, for someone arguing a potential dystopia being brought about but these people, you sound like someone very willing to create your own, by arguing for silencing everyone you disagree with.
It’s not a matter of silencing people I disagree with, it’s a matter of having integrity in publishing. Because the “we all have a right to free speech” argument has been distorted to mean that everyone should have what amounts to modern day prime time access even though they’re a bunch of liars and grifters and, in some case, just kind of stupid.
Feudalism is about the localisation of military and legal aspects of government. Libertarianism is about trying to restrict the power of government. Slavery requires a strong central government to be enforcible. Feudalism and Libertarianism are both anti slavery.
I would like to think this is because Spotify grew a spine and is defending free speech. But I doubt it, given they've removed many of Joe Rogan's episodes. This is probably just a cold hard business decision, since the number of people seeking Neil Young content is likely very low by comparison.
I wonder if Neil would think about being a guest on Joe's show. I've never listened to Joe Rogan, and I don't know if I've ever heard a Neil Young song, but that seems like it might be the principled thing to do, to explain your position to Joe's audience. And I wonder if Joe would have him on? Would people just expect Joe to talk over Neil or otherwise be rude to him? If that was the expectation, then of course I wouldn't expect Neil to participate.
When's the last time Rogan has eaten anyone alive though? No matter how incredulous or inconsistent their views, he seems quite satisfied to have a good time chatting them up about nothing in particular.
Probably true today, but I would bet (if you're willing) that thirty years from now more people will be listening to Neil Young's music than old episodes of the JRE. Podcasts are perishable; music recordings and (especially) compositions have no expiration date.
Rogan would have him on. And he’s a great conversationalist, very polite, so Young would be fine (incidentally that why I cant stand to listen to Rogan… too chill)
And you’ve heard Young’s songs. “Keep on rockin’ in the free world” (?) is a staple.
Young’s no Roger Waters (Pink Floyd) though. Easiest decision for Spotify ever
"If you disagree with someone, the only honorable thing to do would be to go on their platform of misinformation to make them more money while they present your position in the most disingenuous way possible."
Come on, you can't be on hacker news and have this poor of critical thinking skills, right?
This is a reddit tier comment and not nearly as clever. This exact idea could be conveyed in more thoughtful way than "you must be an idiot". Unfortunately my own comment is guilty of the same thing, which is to reduce some one else's comment into a more absurd and ridiculous version.
I think the direct parent of this comment is a Digg style comment. Unfortunately, alas, I did exactly what I'm presently complaining about in this very comment.
It was expensive compared to spotify and the file sizes where way larger, since the files where in loseless format, something that is very niche, since most people cant tell the diference beetween a good quality mp3 and other formats.
It went a little further than that. IIRC it was specifically higher quality than the human ear could possibly hear. Young's response to this rational, science-based criticism was just pathetic; actual fact-based reasoning had no chance against his ego.
Excuse me if this latest drama of his makes me roll my eyes.
Let's not forget the hiper expensive player that came together, the Pono. How the Hell was you suposed to put that thing in your pocket with that triangular shape?
Heh, I had one of those players as well. A coworker of mine purchased it, didn't use it often and when he decided to use it for biking, it stopped working. In the meantime the company went out of business and he couldn't even get it serviced. So he gave it to me. I did manage to fix it after waiting for spare parts for many weeks.
The reason why it looks like a Toblerone bar is because they decided to use through-hole electrolytic capacitors (because audiophile reasons) and the battery was round too (an 18650 IIRC): http://mikebeauchamp.com/wp-content/gallery/pono-teardown/ca...
The triangular shape and inability to carry it comfortably in jeans pants pockets doomed it from day one. I'm amazed something like this passed the design stage. And first encounter with user testing would have made it crystal clear that the shape was a no-go. Yet it not only got funded but was also mass-produced. It was a massive waste of money.
I mean, it plays, and the audio quality was good (doubtful it was due to the reasons they claim, but it was good). But I hated the screen and you're right, the form factor would have never passed a focus group that tried to actually use it.
Yeah, that's all I immediately think of when I think of Neil Young. Griping about mp3 quality and nonsense no average listener cared about. He's probably very pleased to be off some streaming mumbojumbo site he already hates, and got to put out some positive PR about his 'principles' at the same time. Whatever. Anyone who cares about his music either owns hard copies or finds it on other things like youtube heh
Some of the prohibited episodes were obvious candidates for suppression like Alex Jones but I remember seeing the list and finding a few real headscratchers. Going to guess there were some specific comments in those episodes that an employee didn't like rather than a general opposition to the guest overall. It's unfortunate that Spotify wasn't more transparent about their review process but tech companies seem to be really fond of the notion that rules cannot be made clear because then people the hate might follow them, denying the opportunity to silence them.
Neil Young insulting young people: "Most of the listeners...on SPOTIFY are 24 years old, impressionable and easy to swing to the wrong side of the truth." [1]
24yo's don't need informational protection by the actions of crusty old rockers.
Neil Young: "...these young people, people who believe what they are hearing because it is on SPOTIFY.... they think everything they hear on SPOTIFY is true."
Ridiculous and condescending. He thinks young people are mindless zombies, dazzled by big tech platform brands, unable to think for themselves.
Neil Young: "unfortunately SPOTIFY continues to peddle the lowest quality in music reproduction. So much for art. Soon my music will live on in a better place."
He sounds like a grumpy old man, throwing around ultimatums, then burning bridges on his way out when the plan didn't work.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
The problem with this kind of requests if you comply with it, then you've set a precedence. Then who knows who else is going to get offended and then start demanding something else to be taken down.
And the worst case scenario in this attention hungry culture how many others will start making demands like this just for more publicity? I can't read minds. I didn't know this artist before this debacle. It certainly brought him a lot of free publicity. How many people are going to start doing the same now given the amount of free publicity?
Neil Young was one of the most gifted songwriters and musicians of the 60s and 70s (and produced popular music since then but not anywhere near that peak, save a brief resurgence in the 90s). If you haven’t listened to him before, “Heart of Gold” was his biggest hit.
Anyway, it’s a huge stretch to say that he’s looking for attention 60 years past his prime, and probably only a few years from his 80th birthday. He’s already made his millions and lives quietly in rural Canada and California.
My guess is that he actually is bothered by Rogan’s content and doesn’t want to be associated with him.
It’s more akin to a boycott than a publicity stunt IMO.
>> Young, a long-time proponent of high-resolution music files, also wrote that "many other platforms, Amazon, Apple, and Qobuz, to name a few, present my music today in all its High-Resolution glory—the way it is intended to be heard, while unfortunately Spotify continues to peddle the lowest quality in music reproduction. So much for art."
It is interesting how Young will stand up against spreading misinformation, and continue to make blatantly untrue statements such as this. I wonder if he somehow isn't up to date with the technology, science and research in this field after being involved in it for so long, or if it is a branding decision and some persona to be kept as a public entertainer.
Do you mean that Spotify has same quality, or that there's no perceived difference between Spotify vs other higher bitrate? (Any links to validate?)
Spotify has quality setting in app but from what I've heard it's still lower bitrate than Tidal for example and apparently the diff can be heard. (Although I saw some blog a while ago claiming that quality distortion on Spotify is a side-effect of some DRM/watermarking they do).
Apparently Spotify's 'Very High' means 320 kbps[1]. Tidal uses FLAC, which uses as high a bitrate as is necessary; I've seen flac bitrate as high as 1800 kbps. There is an eternal debate among audiophiles as to whether FLAC makes a difference, and because the debate is about sensory quality, it seems unlikely to ever be settled: even if you say that the variations between the two are below any perceivable threshold, people will say that it causes distortions that are perceivable.
As far as I know, there is no one who can reliably tell apart 320kbps mp3 and FLAC, and I'm CERTAIN that I can't. Here's a website that let's you try: http://abx.digitalfeed.net/spotify-hq.html fair warning: it's very tedious and it takes a long time.
> As far as I know, there is no one who can reliably tell apart 320kbps mp3 and FLAC, and I'm CERTAIN that I can't.
‘Reliably’, no, it’s accurate to say it’s not possible. It’s occasionally possible given certain samples, though typically only to a fairly well-trained ear. I’ve personally failed double-blind tests against lossless at bitrates as low as 80 kbps (modern encoders are very good). That says also nothing about which sounds better, which is its own subject altogether.
I think it’s fine to advocate for more of a cushion when it comes to encoding and bit rates, even if it’s just a “feel good” thing. Sure, lossless streaming: why not. But Young’s beliefs about digital audio simply don’t jive with reality.
> It’s occasionally possible given certain samples
MP3 in particular has some fundamental problems (even at maximum bitrate) when dealing with short sharp sounds (e.g. castanets), which have been fixed in the subsequent generations of audio codecs such as AAC, Vorbis or Opus.
Now, he's free to have his own opinions, but he hasn't exactly been a defender of science in the past. I agree with his vaccination position here, obviously, but that doesn't mean Spotify erred in their judgment either.
It would only take 34 more artists to have the same demand to make dropping Rogan worth it, which seems doable. I'm glad someone got the ball rolling; Hopefully others take it to the finish line.
Maybe not. I can't imagine Spotify wanting to set any precedent in this area. Who's to say it would stop with JRE and not end with all of their content creators fighting to platform each other. There is a lot of potential for objections across a broad swath of art.
Doesn't work like this. Rogan pulls in people for Podcasts. Otherwise even Spotify users are going to go elsewhere for their podcasts (PocketCast, OverCast, Apple, etc..). 34 artists likely aren't going to be deal breakers for most of the customers. Most will just not listen to those 34 artists rather than leave Spotify.
I'll immediately leave Spotify too as a user if Spotify bends to the will of Neil Young (and I'm a NY fan as well).
I imagine there's more listeners like me, and I assume there's no listeners out there that will suddenly start listening to Spotify if they aren't already.
Joe Rogan has fuck you money also. Dave Chappelle walked away from a big project because of creative differences. Joe Rogan could do the same if he were forced to.
JRE will roll on regardless of what Spotify does. Neil Young will always be Neil Young.
The only people hurting here are the decision makers of Spotify.
I don't know the degree of editing that Spotify does. If they are only removing episodes, that's different from constraining Joe Rogan in his creative direction.
Note: I may have been wrong about the reasons for Dave Chapelle leaving. If I'm recalling correctly, that was the reason he originally cited when leaving. But more info came out in later interviews. Seems like he just needed a break from the spotlight.
They both have fuck you money. One difference is that Joe Rogan is 54 and makes most of his money from producing new content. Neil Young is 76 and makes most of his money from the music that he has already made. Rogan needs Spotify for his future income. Young, much less so.
Joe Rogan would still be pulling in millions without the Podcast: MMA commentary, stand up comedy tours, and whatever residuals he has. If Spotify let him go, he would just be back on Youtube tomorrow, with arguably a larger audience than he has on spotify, because youtube is free.
> If Spotify let him go, he would just be back on Youtube tomorrow
Sure. But without the remainder of the $100 million that Spotify are paying him. Could he monetise a YouTube channel to that amount over the same time period? Perhaps, but Spotify are currently handling his marketing for him, so I'm sceptical.
I wasn't criticising Rogan, simply pointing out that the situation is different for him and Young - due to their differing ages and the nature of their creative output.
Yeah, I think we can agree that staying on Spotify is likely the most lucrative option for him, but my point is that greed notwithstanding, he's probably got enough money that he would be fine to never earn another cent. Either way, IMO this whole thing is so crazy overblown.
> Rogan supposedly pulls in 200M monthly listeners while Young's spotify page says he gets 6M per month.
Somewhat pedantic note: this statement seems misleading to me. I think you mean "200M monthly listens", unless you're claiming that 2.5% of the world's population listens to Rogan every month?
Good point. Spotify uses the term "monthly listeners" and it seems like they do mean unique individuals. That number is 6M for Young, but they don't reveal what it is for Rogan. He's claimed that he gets 200M monthly downloads, so the number of actual listeners is probably smaller.
According to this Neilsen chart [1] JRE is most watched media at 11 million viewers per show, far ahead of even the number two spot.
JRE does 3-4 shows on a typical week. So:
3.5 / 7 * 30 * 11 = 165m
So the other 35m per month must be groups of people viewing? Not sure how they took measurements or if this is apples to oranges comparison or if the graph is to be trusted [2].
They had little choice. If you let someone anyone dictate your decisions, others will leverage their power too. Soon, it would descend into who has more clout than whom and the parties shoot at each other in a cross-fire as they race to the bottom. It would be a no-win for Spotify.
>Much of the left now believes that the flow of information should be centralized and controlled to achieve certain social objectives; the right or freedom to express one’s self — even if you’re dead wrong — is not really seen as important in and of itself. That’s a big reversal from the modern left’s values, at least the left that existed since the New Left came of age in the sixties.
Sounds like a lot of misinformed bleating to me
I mean, he says that Young's changing views simply mirror the changing views of "the left" then spouts some stat about Democrats. Democrats are left of Republicans, but very few leftists consider Democrats to be of the left in the main
Neil Young has held some pretty bad opinions himself. He was a big supporter of the Iraq war, even making a song "Let's Roll". He eventually came around, but too little too late.
As I recall, that song came out in the days following 9/11, and was based on the account of Todd Beamer and others who fought back on United 93. It was not about support for the Iraq or Afghanistan wars.
I could be mistaken, but I don't think Neil Young ever came out in support of the wars. He spoke out plenty against the Iraq war, including the song "Living With War".
"Let's Roll" was adopted as a Bush slogan at the time. The lyrics also talk about going where evil hides and rooting them out.
He clearly supported the administration. I replied to another comment in this thread with sourced quotes.
The vast majority of Americans were of the same mind as Neil, and they all eventually turned against the administration when it was clear what was going on.
Please tell me that you don't consider the later appropriation of "Let's Roll" to somehow mean that people like Neil Young had committed the original sin of supporting the wars. By that logic, is Todd Beamer guilty of the same?
It's startling the ease and quickness with which some people will see a way ascribe some perceived right-wing guilt to someone like Neil Young. I'm not a fan of Young, and my politics are very different than his, but I certainly won't lay blame at his feet for being too right-wing or supporting wars, as this was never the case.
> He was a big supporter of the Iraq war, even making a song "Let's Roll".
“Let's roll” was released in 2002, and was very explicitly about the passengers of United 93 and the story constructed from the available information from that flight of the passengers fighting back against the hijackers after becoming aware of the earlier attacks. Neither the timing nor the lyrics nor anything else about it supports the idea that it is about the 2003 Iraq War.
This is so far off base it strains credulity. Charitibly I'll ask for citations.
Young's 2006 album "Living With War" was specifically critical of the Bush administration and the Iraq war.
"Let's Roll" was a Bush slogan when Neil released that song.
If you read my comment carefully, I said he "eventually came around", i.e. the 2006 album.
I specifically remember him being on TV supporting war in the middle east. I found some quotes to corroborate my memory:
"Many artists also seemed to take unpredictable positions as spokespeople. Neil Young shocked his audience at the 2001 People for the American
Way gala, at which he received a Spirit of Liberty Lifetime Achievement
Award, when he endorsed administration policy by saying that “we’re
going to have to relinquish some of our freedoms for a short period of
time.” [1]
"We're going to do the job, and then we're going to get back to being who we are." [2]
But somehow my comment gets flagged, because everyone can't believe that their hero made a mistake, which over 90% of the US population made by the way.
But neither of those quotes are about actually going to war. If we read both of your cited sources, there's nothing in context before, during or after each quote that says war is what he was referencing. Rather, he was speaking each time about giving up our freedoms for a bit and then getting back to where we were; think additional security screening at airports, not being allowed to bring water bottles on a plane, beefed up security presences elsewhere, etc.. He's very specifically talking about civil liberties, not war.
Do you have an actual quote where he talks about war itself?
Edit: So, both of your links reference the exact same event that Neil Young spoke at, the People for the American Way gala in 2001. The timing of this event is key. The second article you cited was published on 12/13/2001, and says Neil Young claimed that "Bush's anti-terrorism measures were necessary". The PATRIOT Act had just gone into effect on 10/26/2001[1], but we didn't go to Iraq until 2003.
It's terribly obvious that Young discussing Americans giving up certain freedoms temporarily is in regards to a law that was just passed that stripped away certain levels of freedom. I'm not sure how sending troops to Iraq two years later would have stripped away freedoms from citizens domestically. I'm also not sure how Neil Young - a famously anti-war individual - would be speaking out in support of a war that wouldn't happen for another two years without ever actually saying anything about fighting, military, "war", etc.
Edit 2: Even USA Today confirmed this way back when[2]...
>Not long after recording the song "Let's Roll," a tribute to passengers who apparently fought back against hijackers on doomed United Airlines Flight 93 over Pennsylvania, Young came out publicly in support of the U.S. Patriot Act.
>The legislation, which gave law enforcement authorities broad new powers aimed at bolstering the administration's war on terror, was harshly criticized by some as threatening Americans' civil liberties.
>But at a December 2001 ceremony accepting an award from the free-speech advocacy group People For the American Way, Young said he believed the measure was necessary, though he urged the audience to ensure that its more controversial provisions were only temporary.
Your bias is predictable. I actually lean left and do support peoples choice, just not mandates. I am not a big fan of Joe Rogan, but you can believe whatever helps you sleep at night. You can think I'm a racist Nazi Trump supporter if it helps you build images in your mind of what you think people that have different thoughts of you must be like.
At least 6 million monthly listens at $0.00331 per listen is about $20k per months, so you're off by an order of magnitude. Still not terrible for a wild guess based on nothing. My numbers may be wrong for all kinds of reasons. Young himself apparently said it's 60% of his streaming revenue.
>Neil Young had very little to lose by making this political statement to help the media, which I'm guessing he prob got some money from the attention of pro-vax people that wanted to try to censor Rogan and thought by supporting Young that they were going to be able to have any pull.
What a bizarre comment. He most definitely did do it in hopes of forcing Spotify to drop Rogan. Appearing on the same streaming platform as Rogan costs him nothing (neither financial nor moral). Nobody believes that he and Rogan share beliefs just because they're both on Spotify.
If his principles are that he won't be streamed on the same app as somebody he disagrees with, that's seriously pathetic. He's literally the polar opposite of the coexist bumper sticker.
The other comment said it best. Also, note that Young has dropped out of Spotify before. He made a hue and cry about its audio quality, dropped out, launched his own music player, it didn't do very well, and then he came back.
I feel like he just wanted an excuse to leave, to be very honest, so he could promote competitors that encourage high-quality streaming.
I wonder if he had principles when he thought he could get even richer, or if he only does it when his brave activism aligns with establishment views and won't cost him anything?
Seems like a typical limousine liberal to me, attaching themselves like parasites to "causes" that others have actually sweat and bled for. I wonder what he thinks about China's treatment of the Uyghurs. Probably not much if there's any money on the line for him.
Yea, he just blackmailed a platform to censor fellow content creator. Perfectly fine principled gentleman. Because that's how we all should do with each other, and the peace would come upon us
With great power comes great responsibility. You don't see spiderman ripping in pieces that reporter who harassed him, and if you did, it would be a completely diff character. You don't abuse your power to punish people you disagree with. It's evil. Call it whatever you like, what this guy did is very very bad
Let me lay down some parallels here: reporter posting fake news, damaging reputation of good people. Actually causing tangible harm to innocents by his bad reporting. Spiderman was given powers to be his judge, jury, and executioner, but he chose to not use them in that manner. Because you can not exercise your power on people just because you can, and because they piss you off. It is morally reprehensible. Good people don't hit somebody like a ton of bricks just because they don't like what this somebody said. You must learn to coexist with people you disagree with. You can't just bully the others to make them exclude people you don't like.
Look: if you think you have a case, ask Joe to invite you to a program, and argue your point. I don't think he is of the anchors who would argue with you in bad faith. I am pretty sure that if Neil actually had something valid to say in favor of his position, that road was and likely still is available to him. He just preferred to strike below belt, because he thought he could get away with it. It also demonstrates that he likely does not have a valid point he can present and defend in a fair debate.
Yes, the title of the article is misleading. It's not Spotify that is removing Neil Young, it's Neil Young removing his music from Spotify as a protest against them hosting Joe Rogan.
It's kind of annoying to me that Spotify went all in with podcasts (in the name of "growth"?), and promotes them so heavily. That's really different from music. Do people really decide to subscribe to Spotify because of podcasts? Would they change providers if Joe Rogan was on another service? I doubt it.
It's because they can get better margins from podcasts. Personally I want music and no podcasts but I understand the business pressures that have caused this.
It seems to me that both Neil Young and Joe Rogan are good people that are doing what they think is right.
But, in my judgement, they're both making serious mistakes.
Young is making the mistake of trying to summon and/or join a mob to silence someone. And Rogan is making the mistake of not handling his Covid-related conversations with the diligence a pandemic ethically requires.
In neither case do they deserve hatred. The best outcome would be for them, or at least others, to learn from their mistakes.
How is Young trying to silence anyone? He clearly knew the answer to the question of "it's me or Rogan" before he posed it.
He's just making it very clear what his position is on Spotify's tacit support of misinformation and he's taking a financial hit to boot.
Comparing Young to Rogan in this instance is a bit of a stretch. Young might force people to think a bit, Rogan either directly or indirectly, is causing people to distrust the vast majority of experts with some sort of dudebro contrarian outlook - and people will die due to it
That's doesn't seem like an accurate take on what he's doing.
Young is either hoping that other people will follow his lead or knows that it could happen. That's why he made it a big public announcement. Young is very openly trying to pressure Spotify into cancelling Rogan.
Whether Young's mistake here is as big as Rogan's is a very complex question.
What we can know for sure is that trying to cancel people because you disagree with them is an extremely corrosive thing to do in a free and open society. It's a very big mistake.
Rogan outed Mencia as a serial joke thief, which undoubtedly hurt Mencia's career, but I'm not sure that counts as cancellation.
For example, one would not fairly characterize Hannibal Burris as "cancelling" Bill Cosby's career by outing him as a serial rapist.
If Young was outing Rogan I would have no objection. But all of the behavior by Rogan that Young disagrees with happened in public, for anyone to see. Young is not exposing any new information.
>not handling his Covid-related conversations with the diligence a pandemic ethically requires
I like Joe Rogan but when it comes to vaccines he becomes incoherent. I didn't listen to the episode at the center of this but I listened to another one where he was pushing unsubstantiated statistics on the vaccine and myocarditis. The guest had to correct him with official data on multiple occasions.
I like Neil, saw him in concert long ago and have listened to a ton of his music over many decades. Admittedly, hardly any in recent years unless I go on a nostalgia binge for a day or two. He is, or at least was, brilliant.
I agree with him here, mostly. I wish a bunch of other artists would do the same. Censorship is a complex issue, but there is a lot of mass delusion going on recently and a lot of lives lost because of it.
I haven't really listened to Rogan except clips of what he's said on this issue. But I liked him a lot on Newsradio.
It's not like it is going to hurt Neil, he doesn't need the money. I can't see a huge amount of people streaming his music anymore.
That said, if Neil wants to be "pro-science," he should have never pushed his high res music stuff which sure doesn't stand up to double blind testing.
I think mastering is far more important. And I agree other audio formats aren't all great.
But uncompressed CD quality audio is perfectly fine, in terms of resolution, humans can't detect beyond that. Neil's Pono stuff was a waste.... it was MASSIVE datawise for no good reason.
In the time domain, you're absolutely right, Nyquist–Shannon proves that we don't benefit from sampling higher than twice the upper bound of human hearing. Rates like 96kHz or 192kHz are useless for quality (although in specific live situations, they have utility in that the latency would be half or quarter that of typical rates, for a given buffer size in samples).
In the amplitude domain, CD quality (16 bits/sample) is pretty damn great for typical mastered audio (~96dB undithered, ~120dB dithered) but if the audio is unusually dynamic (i.e., loudness is not maximized) like with a symphony orchestra, you might actually turn up your sound system to the point where quantization noise becomes evident in the quietest parts, at which point you absolutely would benefit from more bits per sample (say, 24, yielding ~144dB of range undithered).
So in practice, you're right, CDs are fine; but "humans can't detect beyond that" only truly applies in the frequency domain. We can detect latency (not applicable to playback of recordings) and we can detect quantization noise when cranking up the volume knob.
Meta: I have no idea why someone downvoted you, and gave you an upvote because your explanation is accurate, and unusually well-written, IMHO. Although I'm curious what you mean about "detecting latency". You mean between two sources, for positioning? I'm not sure the relevance of that here.
> You mean between two sources, for positioning? I'm not sure the relevance of that here.
It's only really meaningful in scenarios like a recording studio where the performer is listening to themselves live, in headphones, if the signal undergoing A/D and D/A conversion with some processing in between. It could mean 2ms instead of 8ms, which can be the difference between distracting and not. Not relevant here (I admitted "not applicable") but just an example of where some utility does exist, but the utility is definitely not audible frequency response.
Yeah, FFMPEG famously had a troubled AAC encoder for a long time. It's a bit better since FFMPEG 5.0 was released recently. There is a huge difference between AAC as a codec and the quality of file FFMPEG can generate for it.
I don't see any evidence that NY was blackmailing Spotify. Wouldn't that require NY to be threatening to release some kind of compromising information about Spotify?
I think we both agree that he did not only make threats, but also follow up on them. Weinstein could also have made arguments that he never threatened any actresses to sleep with him, he was just withholding jobs from the ones who didn't. Call it the way you want, but the guy clearly abused his position
In a world where competition exists, this is simple - one publisher can carry one author, other publisher can carry others and you just buy the content from the one you prefer.
In a world where everyone defends consolidation into monopolistic platforms and you need to choose which tech platform will own your life this becomes a problematic political issue. At least it's convenient right?
So where is the problem? It is not something in realms of scientific discussion. More like with open-source or right to repair. When someone has issue with GMO lot of people assume that it is because of the 'technology' - not the politics.
Such things are investigated before they are released, that's the whole point. Thinking that some corporation sticks fish genes into tomatoes and then just gets to sow that wherever they want with no investigation whatsoever is frankly delusional.
I imagine that is how someone who doesn't understand nuance would characterize it.
If you understand why such legal concepts as fraud and defamation exist, you would understand that there is indeed nuance to the concept of freedom of speech.
I like the JRE. I like that he listens to everyone and engages with them. The world could do with more of that rather than this tribalism shit.
On one of his recent podcasts, he supports fox news keeping it's guests from specific no-no topics because they don't want to loose their credibility.
The irony, obviously, being that Joe should also keep his guests and himself away from certain no-no topics. That's the thing though. Joe doesn't seem himself as a credible news source, a voice of a movement, or any of those other things because accuse him of. It's mainly just him hanging out with his buddies smoke'n (sometimes literally) and joke'n.
This is the same defense Jon Stewart always used. "It's a comedy show". I'm not sure whether you're a credible news source absolves you of responsibility of spreading harmful misinformation. He has a huge platform and a huge voice. What he does isn't illegal but it's definitely not the most moral behavior.
The difference is that the Daily Show looked and acted like a traditional news show, which of course, was part of the parody. No one has ever confused the JRE for that.
But they do. People defended the show by saying he’ll listen to anyone. The products he endorses and people he has on enjoy gigantic boosts in popularity. Literally nobody is saying, “oh it’s just some dumb show”. A lot of men look to Joe Rogan for guidance. If you don’t see it, you’re not paying attention imo. I used to look to the show for dumb fun, sure, but also to expose me to information about working out, cool activities, cool people to follow like Cameron Hanes and David Goggins, lots of stuff.
You must be listening to a completely different JRE. He pretends to speak as an authority on all subjects, occasionally to the point of shouting down guests and not even letting them finish a thought -- usually because Rogan just thought of a good jab and needs to get it in before the guest can finish making their correct point. Made worse that a substantial portion of Rogan's fan base is quite rabid and are well known for harassing guests (sometimes for months after an appearance) simply because Joe disagreed with them.
It's egregiously ignorant to proclaim that his comments aren't taken seriously or don't have real life consequences. You don't get to dole out medical advice as a self-proclaimed expert and then hide behind "it's just entertainment, bro."
What! JRE shows are around 2 hours long. Guests have plenty of time to talk even if interrupted. I have seen no other show that provides such an opportunity for guests to finish a thought.
I listen to most JRE episodes (I skip the ones where he has his MMA buddies on because I'm not interested) - I don't think I've ever heard him shout anyone down?
Also I've never heard him speak as an authority on anything other than stand-up comedy and MMA. Everything else I hear him ask his guests to clarify, like his recent episode with some skeevy psychologist/tech guy (Dr. Robert Epstein) who wasn't elaborating on dubious claims. At some point the guest was talking about Google "blocking the internet" and said condescendingly "Are you serious? You don't know this?" (my paraphrasing).
Joe just calmly responded with something along the lines of "Even if I do know this, my audience may not, so when I push back on you to elaborate or give more details or proof of a claim, it's not for me specifically". And yea, the guest was just a BS-er talking about big tech censorship, no Google can't block the internet, his claim ended up being about Google search and Chrome specifically.
If they're similarly guilty of misinformation, those responsible in the media should absolutely face consequences as well. This feels like whataboutism, which doesn't preclude people taking a stand against the JRE podcast.
I think this hits at the heart of the issue though - you don't get to, as a public figure, decide whether or not you are "the voice of a movement". In mass media today, influencers and other people of note who don't have advanced degrees should be doing their research - from credible sources - so they're not spouting inaccuracies and falsehoods to their followers.
Joe Rogan doesn't need to do these things if he's just "hanging out with his buddies smoke'n" but he also doesn't have an obligation to have provocateurs and hacks like robert malone or ben shapiro on his show. He does it because he knows his fanbase will listen to it, ingest the information, and then speak it as fact to their friends and family - and THAT is where the danger comes in. Furthermore, he also knows that parts of his fanbase will go wild to see their fringe views espoused by a guest on their favorite podcast, without Joe challenging them to back their claims up with facts. I'm sure he also knows that his listeners skew young and male, and impressionable young men have been radicalized to a dangerous degree on the internet. Having the same views on his podcast as conspiracy theory sites, for example, will undoubtedly make it easier for the bad actors running these sites to radicalize JRE listeners (who will then, of course, become a part of the fanbase that loves when their theories are given time on his show in some perverse feedback loop).
He has also inked a deal with the largest music streaming service in the world for more money than any of us will see in our entire lives - at that point I don't think you can even say he's just "hanging out" any more. It's facetious at best, and wilfully negligent at worst, to assume that no one thinks of him as an authority figure, because even if he's playing the everyman character his guests profess to be authority figures in their fields. If he doesn't seriously challenge their false claims or ask for evidence from credible sources, he's doing his listeners a disservice.
I don't trust Joe Rogan any more than I do any news media about the pandemic. The media has made countless mistakes, he's made his own mistakes, but at least Joe Rogan is willing to somewhat own his mistakes while the media never has. For that reason, I don't care.
Also, on that note, "provocateurs and hacks"? The journal Nature, about as authoritative as you can get, has this to say about Malone:
"In late 1987, Robert Malone performed a landmark experiment. He mixed strands of messenger RNA with droplets of fat, to create a kind of molecular stew. Human cells bathed in this genetic gumbo absorbed the mRNA, and began producing proteins from it. Realizing that this discovery might have far-reaching potential in medicine, Malone, a graduate student at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California, later jotted down some notes, which he signed and dated. If cells could create proteins from mRNA delivered into them, he wrote on 11 January 1988, it might be possible to 'treat RNA as a drug'. Another member of the Salk lab signed the notes, too, for posterity. Later that year, Malone’s experiments showed that frog embryos absorbed such mRNA2. It was the first time anyone had used fatty droplets to ease mRNA’s passage into a living organism."
So, he did (according to Nature) help invent mRNA, but he's a hack because he disagrees with the "scientific consensus" or something. Reasonable minds can differ on that.
It’s curious that you pit Joe Rogan singularly against “the media”. Joe Rogan has owned up to mistakes but the entirety of “the media” never has? Nobody in the media has ever owned up to a mistake? Joe Rogan is not a member of the media? What is the definition of the media here? People you dislike/disagree with?
In the US, the "media" is slang for the news. CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC, talking head news commentators, so forth. All the ones that supposedly don't spread misinformation. Except for FOX from the CNN and MSNBC viewers perspective, and CNN and MSNBC from the FOX viewers perspective.
Washington Post did, but didn't do any broad announcement - but rather, worked on silently rewriting history for anyone who went back and looked. CNN and MSNBC have never admitted errors.
> CNN chief Tom Johnson said in an on-air statement that CNN alone bears responsibility for the "serious faults" in TV reports and the related article in Time magazine. He said an internal investigation concluded that the claims could not be supported. He apologized to CNN viewers, Time staffers, and American military personnel.
> CNN removed the story and all connecting links to it late Friday, saying the story did not meet its editorial standards. CNN also issued an apology to Scaramucci, who accepted it with a tweet on Saturday. “Everyone makes mistakes,” he wrote. “Moving on.”
> “Last night on this show I discussed information that wasn't ready for reporting,“ O‘Donnell said at the top of his show Wednesday night. “I did not go through the rigorous verification and standards process here at MSNBC before repeating what I heard from my source. Had it gone through that process I would not have been permitted to report it. I should not have said it on air or posted it on Twitter. I was wrong to do so.“
> “Tonight we are retracting the story,” he added. “We don‘t know whether the information is inaccurate. But the fact is, we do know it wasn‘t ready for broadcast, and for that I apologize.“
> MSNBC apologized for using “not factually accurate” maps in a segment discussing the violence that has erupted across Israel in recent weeks.
> “MSNBC Live” host Kate Snow acknowledged Monday that her show displayed maps describing present-day Israel as a Palestinian state in 1946, when the area was under British mandate rule. The series of maps shown last Thursday gave the impression that Palestinians had control over all of modern-day Israel and have continuously lost land since.
> “[I]n an attempt to talk about the context for the current turmoil in the Middle East, we showed a series of maps of the changing geography in that region,” Snow said. “We realized after we went off the air the maps were not factually accurate and we regret using them.”
I eagerly await your retraction of that false claim.
Sure but why did those trash outlets (all for profit outlets are trash to me) push out ...shove it down their viewers throats as truth when they knew it clearly wasn't. JUst because they know their bias drone viewers will eat it up and keep coming back for more making them more money.
One example is the Trump Pee Pee tape garbage (just like the Clinton pizza parlor garbage & the Hunter Biden Ukraine garbage) that CNN and all the left outlets pushed and their bias drone of viewers ate it up fact yet years later their retraction isnt even a pin drop compare to the megaphone they had used daily.
Not sure why anyone would defend such an outlet as they aren't about integrity clearly their objective is feed their bias drone viewers' brains what they want to hear/get excited over and make more money. It's all garbage best to enjoy life far away from it.
Not defending the parent argument, but the biggest difference to me here is that JRE is not claiming any accuracy of his views, but with news outlets the damage is already irreversible when they retract their "information from credible sources".
The commentator I was replying to was referring to Washington Post admitting that the "Russia Collusion" scandal that went for over a year was corrected silently by them and they admitted it was basically all fraud, but that MSNBC and CNN have made virtually no corrections to this day on that specific issue.
I was not speaking to that MSNBC or CNN has never made corrections broadly-speaking, but rather that they would not back down on a story that is now broadly considered (according to the Washington Post, no right-wing sympathizer) debunked.
> Except for FOX from the CNN and MSNBC viewers perspective, and CNN and MSNBC from the FOX viewers perspective.
Outside perspective: They're clearly all heavily pushing agendas that are only very thinly veiled as news, in between the actual news.
The US hardly has any objective reporting because any attempt at doing so has to weather a lot of shit from every direction. The left-leaning and "centrist" news love to lie by omission (just look at the Rittenhouse trials: nobody who actually saw the full trial would have been surprised by the result), while the right-leaning news tend to exaggerate and outright make shit up. Both do a fair amount of cherry-picking what to report on.
It's like people don't actually want news, but instead want to have their views confirmed. The only places on this globe that manage to actually have some semi-objective TV news do so because it is ingrained in their very culture to value those and because of unconditional (government) funding. And even there news have issues - because it's still only people deciding what to report on and how.
Having programmes that the whole political spectrum can watch goes a long way towards having a dialogue and finding common ground.
In any event this deplatforming needs to stop. It will only polarize US society further, amplifying all of the above problems.
There's also a lot of dodgy terminology too, like Trump "putting children in cages" which is a "right-style" (think of the children) provocation not dissimilar to anti-Semitic or witch-hunting misrepresentations.
Joe is a talkshow host. Not part of the press but his guests make the news other stations report on. He is letterman or Tom Green. Are they some form media.. sure.
If you changed the all encompassing word media to press the difference is clear
Joe Rogan has a huge viewership. Him being a "talkshow host" is side-stepping the issue.
I'm sure Tucker Carlson ( who Joe Rogan DWARFS in terms of audience ) would also describe himself as a "talkshow host" ( legally he has to, since his show is for "entertainment value" only. )
He was vaccine injured by the second dose, and realised something was wrong, unlike the idiots who are like "oh I may have got permanent heart damage but at least I didn't get covid yet".
No contradictions for himself, no. The AV crews hold him up as a poster boy for not getting the vaccine though, citing that he as the 'inventor'* of mRNA says nobody should use mRNA vaccines. I wonder if many of them realise he's vaccinated.
You don't need to trust him, but I think you're making a false equivalency there. The reason Joe Rogan apologizes, is that some of his takes are WILD. The whole thing about the wildfires last year being set by left-wing activists was a truly insane statement, and I have no idea where he found that information or what possessed him to say it on his show.
On the other hand, the media generally doesn't make ridiculous pie-in-the-sky takes. Every once in a while they get it wrong (sometimes dangerously so) but not with anything near the same magnitude or frequency that a comparatively uneducated influencer does. And they do apologize, for small inaccuracies with an editor's note at the bottom and for large inaccuracies with a retraction published in the next edition of the paper. Newspapers HATE printing retractions, and they try very hard never to say something that would require it.
Joe rogan has no such compunctions - in fact, he's on the same playbook as so many influencers and provocateurs before him. If you say enough crazy stuff, and only apologize for the worst of it, people are eventually going to give up trying to get you to denounce any statements you've made which are only mildly crazy. Here's a great example [0] - Joe apparently said you shouldn't worry about taking the vaccine if you're young and healthy, and when he apologized he called himself a moron and said he was talking about OTHER people. That's insane: getting vaccinated regardless of age means a brush with covid is less severe, thus saving you a trip to the hospital - and a hospital bed is saved for someone who actually needs it (covid-related or not).
I empathize with your apathy, but I would strongly urge you to think about the difference between a news corporation that hires professional fact-checkers to confirm their articles and has a two-source policy on news, and a guy who wilfully admits he's a moron before continuing to spout potentially harmful views against vaccinating yourself during a pandemic.
Edit: whoops, you edited your comment after I started to reply to you. I'll make this brief: Robert Malone may have invented mRNA vaccines, but he's still anti-vax and believes the vaccines made from his technology (or some derivative thereof) make covid worse. On his episode of JRE he said something called "mass formation psychosis" existed, and had something to do with COVID(?!?) which is a bald-faced lie. You can be an excellent scientist on the frontier of medical research and still be an idiot who has no business spreading your personal views. If Joe had fact-checked him, his opinions would have folded, but he didn't.
You clearly forgot about Russiagate. The claim that Trump was colluding with Russia was all over the news for over a year with constant coverage every day. The Washington Post has now retracted dozens of articles, rewritten huge parts of stories, and basically admitted it was all a sham.
That was a huge, huge pie-in-the-sky take. The media is absolutely not above their own lunacy. Green Greenwald, the reporter who broke the news about Snowden, agreed that it was "this generation's WMDs in terms of media malfeasance."
The President’s son is on record saying he was interested in getting info from Russia. If Trump didn’t collaborate, it wasn’t from lack of interest or effort. It was wrong, but not a pie-in-the-sky take.
There is a huge difference between a candidate "Getting information from Russia" [1] and coordinating on election misinformation campaigns with Russian Intelligence agencies.
Have you reviewed the article you linked? The Steele Dossier was compiled by a British source, and the one claim that's generally agreed on is that the Russian Govt highly favored Trump over Hillary. I'd recommend the summary to get aquatinted, then the subsection "Risk of contamination with Russian disinformation considered"
I have, and I have followed the actual reporting on it; The wikipedia article shows a significant amount of bias. The Dossier was compiled by a British source from hearsay from a Russian Citizen who had contacts in Russian Intelligence. Some directly, but his major source only had the information as hearsay. https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/politics/steele-dossier-recko...
> You clearly forgot about Russiagate. The claim that Trump was colluding with Russia was all over the news for over a year with constant coverage every day.
That coverage was accurate. There was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
> The Washington Post has now retracted dozens of articles, rewritten huge parts of stories, and basically admitted it was all a sham.
This is false and you provide no evidence for it.
> Green Greenwald, the reporter who broke the news about Snowden, agreed that it was "this generation's WMDs in terms of media malfeasance."
Greenwald is a disgraced journalist turned professional provocateur. I’m not surprised that you have to resort to quoting him to support an argument as ridiculous as “Russiagate was pie-in-the-sky”. You might as well quote Tucker Carlson.
This references two Washington Post articles which have been corrected. The correction was specific to the identity of one source in the famous Steele dossier which made some of the more outlandish and salacious claims in the dossier. There is no other retraction. In particular none of the facts of the dossier are retracted. In any case, the FBI has since conducted their own investigation and published their findings. As far as I know the FBI has not retracted those findings and the press has not retracted any reporting on those findings. So what exactly are you talking about when you mention “dozens of retracted stories”? Where is your evidence?
I regret using the term “disgraced” because it’s hard to assess objectively as you point out, and superfluous to my argument, which is that 1) he is wrong in those quoted tweets, and 2) he is a polarizing figure who is not known for his objectivity and therefore, quoting his factually wrong statement as only evidence does not support the argument presented here.
> The Washington Post has now retracted dozens of articles, rewritten huge parts of stories, and basically admitted it was all a sham.
To my knowledge it hasn't. I believe they continue to stand by their reporting. It's possible I missed a major retraction but I have no clue why they would have retracted their stories.
Go and Google Matt Taibbi’s summary of all the new articles about Russiagate that were wrong and/or have been retracted. It’s quite lengthy with all the sources.
Most if not all the Russiagate claims have turned out to be false, but more critically, the media who reported them either willfully didn’t bother to validate the information or ran with it knowing it was false.
The best one was the FBI getting a search warrant based on an article by a reporter referencing an FBI source. How’s that for bullshit? Drop an anonymous tip to a reporter then use their article as proof your suspicion is valid.
Your source uses the word "correction" once (in searchable text), #18, about the detail of whether the Republican opposition research into Trump actually hired Steele, when (according to your own source) instead they hired the firm that hired Steele, but he didn't actually join the project until Clinton took over payment. It's good that it got corrected, but it's hardly something significant.
Your source uses the word "warrant" in one section (in searchable text), #12, where the reporting was accurate in that warrants had been issued. Whether the warrant should have been issued is a different question.
You'll note I qualified searchable, because I have no desire to read the entire massive text of bullet points, although I did try to find relevant ones and your best example. I did try to scan it for other corrections (because this site believes in "text in screenshots), and they were all either minor [0] of they were correct reporting [1].
[0] Example: All 17 intelligence agencies didn't say X, only the agency who coordinates information between, oversees and synthesizes their information did (and the big three of CIA, FBI and NSA)
[1] Example: Report on Day X, Government investigating Y. Report on Day X + N, Government investigation into Y turns up Z. Sometimes the Z is "nothing". You know, or the warrant reporting example above.
On his episode of >JRE he said something called "mass formation psychosis" existed, and had something to do with COVID(?!?) which is a bald-faced lie.
Mass formation psychosis is a thing that does exist. It just means shared delusion. Psychologists steer clear of religion, but if you are atheist, beliefs in Gods would be a good example.
It basically just means erroneous groupthink. It absolutely has something to do with COVID, but people obviously argue over which side is delusional, or at least more delusional.
North Koreans believe that running the fan at night will make you sick and might kill you.
It's all a govt delusion to reduce power consumption at night, including blackouts in the name of "public safety".
Not picking on them, because Americans have way more delusional thinking when it comes to things like food safety, but its hard to use a delusion as an example/ proof to the deluded that... they're deluded.
>>On his episode of JRE he said something called "mass formation psychosis" existed, and had something to do with COVID(?!?) which is a bald-faced lie.
It's not a lie. It's arguably unsubstantiated. The response to COVID, like shutting down schools for two years [1] to the enormous detriment of education [2], has been insane in many ways, and the claim that a type of group hysteria is at play is totally within the realm of the plausible, and the contra is certainly not the kind of clear cut fact that can justify calling the position a "bald-faced lie".
Classifying everything that opposes a particular agenda as the kind of indisputable lie that has no right to be aired on any platform, is the path to a totalitarian society that censors.
> Joe apparently said you shouldn't worry about taking the vaccine if you're young and healthy, and when he apologized he called himself a moron and said he was talking about OTHER people. That's insane: getting vaccinated regardless of age means a brush with covid is less severe
What's insane is calling such statements insane when the evidence isn't yet there to reach such a conclusion.
> On the other hand, the media generally doesn't make ridiculous pie-in-the-sky takes.
I have to disagree with this too. A lot of takes on Trump were pretty ridiculous. He's probably among the worst Presidents ever, but the blatant exaggerations during the Trump years were ridiculous.
Where does it say that the accused was a left-wing activist? If we find out he is registered as a republican does it mean it was set by a right-wing activist?
They perform different roles. A biologist is not necessarily expert in epidemiology/public health, which is really the expertise you need to evaluate the vaccines at scale.
He wasn’t “the original inventor”. He’s one of many, many people who worked in the field (very early on) and has subsequently shown that he’s no longer willing to practice science by promoting antivax propaganda and offering patients false hope over ineffective treatments.
Fauci is far more credible because he’s talking about what many hundreds of researchers have confirmed. When he’s talking about vaccines, he’s not just making things up but summarizing peer reviewed studies which have been extensively analyzed. Malone now avoids the scientific process because he knows that his claims aren’t rigorous enough to survive it, and he can profit by telling people that’s censorship rather than admitting inadequacy.
A. He has over a dozen patents on mRNA-related technologies. He was the first person to get the ball rolling, and is credited as the inventor by Nature, so this is not a made-up title.
B. Fauci has had every position on every issue throughout the pandemic. No masks, then masks. No vaccine mandate, then vaccine mandate. Don't mask the children, then mask the children. Don't return to school, return to school, don't return to school. Lockdown for 2 weeks, keep it up for over a year. You might call it science changing. I consider it (as do many Americans at this point) an excuse for a dictator who doesn't know what he is doing to cover up his arbitrary decisions.
He was one of the early researchers, not the only one, and most importantly for this topic he wasn’t involved in the development, testing, or review of the vaccines we’re using. The thousands of people who were have a much better claim than he does, and their work has been extensively peer-reviewed and monitored after mainstream approval. This isn’t some philosophical debate where nobody knows the answer, we can look at vaccine efficacy and safety data from around the world and see that they’re doing a great job.
You’re similarly misrepresenting Fauci’s positions and the degree to which he represented a scientific consensus and how that changed over time as conditions changed (vaccines have been a clear win since the early days; the best way to return to schools safely was not as clear cut and the idea that we had a year long lockdown in the United States is just absurd). If you find batting at strawmen entertaining, have at it, but I don’t see much value.
> is willing to somewhat own his mistakes while the media never has
Your lack of knowledge about media "owning up" to their mistakes is not evidence they don't. Because they do.
I'm sure most people don't see the difference between actual Journalists (and not necessarily with a degree) and some dude talking crap on a microphone but there is.
> "In late 1987, Robert Malone performed a landmark experiment.
Well, so f what? This is 20% of the work that lead us today
Apparently having done that work (if that was actually his actual work) doesn't prevent him from misrepresenting his work spouting crap 30 years after that.
Best definition for Robert Malone is that "he had as much influence on the vaccine as Graham Bell had on the Lady Gaga's song Telephone"
A sample of some of the patents held by Malone. Note the "Generation of antibodies through lipid mediated DNA delivery" and "Induction of a protective immune response in a mammal by injecting a DNA sequence":
Lipid-mediated polynucleotide administration to deliver a biologically active peptide and to induce a cellular immune response (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, R Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, Inc and licensed to Merck. No. 7,250,404, date of issue: 7/31/07 Cited in 105 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.
Lipid-mediated polynucleotide administration to reduce likelihood of subject's becoming infected (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, Inc and licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,867,195 B1. Date of issue: 3/15/05. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.
Generation of an immune response to a pathogen (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, Inc and licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,710,035. Date of issue: 3/23/04. Citations: 39 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.
Expression of exogenous polynucleotide sequences in a vertebrate, mammal, fish, bird or human (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,673,776. Date of issue: 1/6/04. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.
Methods of delivering a physiologically active polypeptide to a mammal (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,413,942. Date of issue: 7/2/02. (cited in 150 articles). Priority Date: 3/21/1989.
Induction of a protective immune response in a mammal by injecting a DNA sequence (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 6,214,804, date of issue: 4/10/01. Cited in 360 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.
Induction of a protective immune response in a mammal by injecting a DNA sequence (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,589,466. Date of issue: 12/31/96. Cited in 899 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.
Delivery of exogenous DNA sequences in a mammal (includes mRNA). Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,580,859. Date of issue: 12/3/96. Cited in 1244 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.
Generation of antibodies through lipid mediated DNA delivery (includes mRNA). P Felgner, JA Wolff, GH Rhodes, Robert W Malone, D Carson. Assigned to Vical, Inc, licensed to Merck. US Pat. Ser. No. 5,703,055. Date of issue: 12/30/97. Cited in 419 articles. Priority Date: 3/21/1989.
Reminder that US patents don't require a working product to be granted. The USPO just takes the money and leaves it to lawyers to defend them. It's common in certain fields to blanket patent inventions before even having looked at their feasibility.
Also all of those are result of the research directed by Felgner, granted to Vical (his own company), and highly hypothetical at the time. Unsurprisingly, most of those, if not all, have expired without putting a product in the market.
mRNA vaccine development has been incredibly incremental and spanning decades. Anyone claiming they're the inventor because they put a few pieces of the puzzle together is incredibly disingenuous.
He got the ball rolling, and is credited as inventor by Nature. We call Thomas Edison the inventor of the lightbulb even though his lightbulb has little to do with modern LED lighting. Similarly, it is not dishonest to call Robert Malone (in Nature's own assessment) the inventor of mRNA technology.
Literally nowhere in the quote says that. An important step (if he actually was the main discoverer for those) but not "the inventor". He imagined it (in the same way I can imagine a flying car - but not invent it)
And Nature goes on: "But the path to success was not direct. For many years after Malone’s experiments, which themselves had drawn on the work of other researchers, mRNA was seen as too unstable and expensive to be used as a drug or a vaccine. "
The Atlantic article (which I just read) is literally nothing except an attack on his character, everywhere, instead of his claims or perspectives. It just says he was wrong once about something in Israel, but other than that, it leaves his claims wholly unaddressed and uses a cynical tone related to him for everything, because how dare he have different perspective on something he at least helped invent.
I have almost no respect for media that does attacks on character rather than attacks on ideas.
He also claims children don't have strokes, that basically 100% of them are caused by COVID-19 vaccines, even though strokes are among the most common causes of death of children (that's from his JRE interview).
That information kills children as it may make people disregard the obvious symptoms and fatally delay treatment.
Which claims? The claims that Japan used Ivermectin (already proven false)? Or his other claims that have been debunked thoroughly by more serious people?
Thanks for providing your opinion on the article, it's a good gauge on how his fans see things.
> but he's a hack because he disagrees with the "scientific consensus" or something. Reasonable minds can differ on that.
That's kind of funny, because throughout history the people who were very critical of the scientific consensus (especially those who maintained this position even after lifting themselves up from a lower social status) are the ones who, on average, turned out to be right and either revolutionized that field or had an amazing insight that was a missing puzzle piece.
The mentality of 'scientific consensus says A, therefore B is bogus' does a lot more damage than people realize.Still, to be taken seriously you need to have some sort of proof or a sensible explanation of how you reached that conclusion.Here it's not as much that the guy is an incredible genius and is the only one with that position, but more of the fact that the critical voices almost entirely colluded.(This is de facto "proved" by the latest wave of western articles admitting that the narrative they adopted and pushed was done in an irresponsible fashion.See german press or even american outlets)
> That's kind of funny, because throughout history the people who were very critical of the scientific consensus (especially those who maintained this position even after lifting themselves up from a lower social status) are the ones who, on average, turned out to be right and either revolutionized that field or had an amazing insight that was a missing puzzle piece.
You are saying that on average, those going against scientific consensus are more often right than they are wrong? That sound like a load of bullshit.
I expressed myself poorly because my wording gives room to implied causality.The historical figures did not make revolutionary insights or reshaped human history >because< they were going against the scientific consensus (let's say accepted narrative,thought,etc).Their own brilliance,insights [often gained through isolation by not adhering to a consensus] are the reason they were right, not because of their arrogance.That arrogance comes as a second nature due to the assumed knowledge one has about the domain to make contradictory statements against the consensus.
And quantifying my statement is hard if you assume causality and you don't make distinction between levels of "radical thinking".Because i can give you 5-10 well-known historical figures who fit my description and make me look right, and you can say "here are 10000 conspiracy nuts from YT who make you look wrong".What I meant by 'are the ones who, on average, turned out to be right[...]' is that the more radical/higher level your thinking is, the better chances you are to be right if you made your case for them(again, I mentioned that those people do not change their stance with time,social status,environment).
Accepting scientific consensus >because< it is the consensus and upholding it as an orthodoxy is precisely why there's stagnation in many if not all the fields.And yes, the more radical,incorporating,exploratory you are in your thinking, the higher chances you probably have in being "right", assuming you are actually creating a superset of a scientific domain(i.e innovating) and not merely "go against the wave".To take my point home: 5000 flat earthers from YouTube who are undeniable wrong make my average "wrong" because they are going against the current scientific consensus.Is their thinking radical or incorporates existing knowledge into something more profound?Do they change the thinking about world, is it shockingly different?No, they're just saying the negation of a proposition, mostly based on 'loads of bullshit' without substance or regard to the consensus.We used to think the earth was flat.This is different from, say, "Here is a conjecture which lies at the limits of current knowledge about X[say gravity, or anything].You're all wrong at thinking about X/Y/Z in terms of A, my insight (often new) is better and vastly different."
The main issue here is that from a known understanding, a newer,different idea might seem wrong.It's the duty of the "contrarian" to prove his case.If one stays true to his motives and is not a hack it will serve them well.
Your original comment is simply poor. A better way to phrase it would be something like "a lot of scientific breakthroughs came from people who fought against the concensus" and leave it at that.
My favorite story about scientific consensus is the Wright Brothers. They didn't get credit for heavier than air flight from the Smithsonian until the 1920s. Also, NYT said the same week the Wright brothers flew that heavier than air flight would take millions of years. Should have shut down the bicycle mechanics for misinformation.
> They had offered it to the United States National Museum, as the Smithsonian Institution was then known, in 1910. Officials at the Smithsonian, particularly Charles Walcott, were "anxious to redeem the reputation" of former director, Samuel Langley, who had spent thousands of government dollars trying to invent an airplane which he called an "aerodrome."
Malone did valuable and important research decades ago. But today he is far far far far more famous for being vocally critical of mRNA vaccines, in opposition to the bulk of researchers working today. He has done this without engaging with the scientific community in the ordinary fashion and made a name for himself for being "silenced." That's a hack.
Plenty of scientists do great work in one topic and then also act like hacks at other times.
I don't know why you're being downvoted. Fauci made his political name pushing for a public policy response to AIDS that looks extremely similar to what he's rolled out against covid.
Yet it's been decried ever since as a mistake being based on fear rather than science, pushing stigma on segments of population in the name of compliance, and being so "overly cautious" that the damages (medical and social) far outweighed the benefits, even with its limited implementation.
There are plenty of bright people who convince themselves of something that's crazy and unsupported by evidence. It's classic confirmation bias.
Linus Pauling was one of the founders of molecular biology and spent part of his later life advocating that people megadose vitamin c to cure heart disease, something that could have very well hurt people who chose that over a more evidence-backed treatment.
Steve Jobs tried treating his cancer through juice cleanses until it became too late-stage to treat conventionally.
Malone really should not be given a platform. We know that being unvaccinated can make covid way more severe and puts you at 14x higher risk of death from covid, and there is a huge body of evidence on covid vaccine efficacy from the literal billions of people worldwide who have been vaccinated.
People will almost certainly die because he lends credibility to anti-vaccination arguments.
It doesn't need popularity to make its decrees accepted or even believed: they are by definition the controlling law of the land. Whether you read their opinions or not.
You think government enforceable law is less important or does "less damage" than voluntary viewing an expert with an opinion?
If you disagree with someone, you need to get into the arena with them and criticise what they say and debunk it. If someone doesn't agree with Rogan or his guests and believe they are spouting scientific nonsense, then it needs to be challenged, not suppressed.
But because our media is so entrenched the only challenge Rogan gets from conventional media are typical smeer campaigns that look disingenuous and erode trust even further. Vaccine hesitant people are never really addressed adequately by government or by conventional media. Distrust is at an all time high and the power structures of the world have never been so apparent to the every day man.
The solution to all of this is transparency, discussion and health policy that targets the problems rather than blanket policy that ostracises and discriminates.
Suppression will only make the situation worse because all of a sudden we on a slippery slope to totalitarianism where fact checkers are the primordial source of truth and authority.
Ostracising will only make the situation worse because all of a sudden we have very large portions of the community (upward of 25% in countries like Germany) now feel discriminated against, people cannot get on planes and travel to see loved ones, they cant go the cinema, they cant do basically anything, all because they object to handling of health policy.
Further more politicians like Macron are stoking divisions even further and marginalizing these people by proclaiming they are non-citizens.
Shit, I cant really imagine a better way to fracture western society. In my mind the virus really did win.
"If you disagree with someone, you need to get into the arena with them and criticise what they say and debunk it."
This is the challenge Dennis Prager often offers to young college students in his audience. It is comically grotesque to see a senior professional debater and speaker take joy when he shuts down a young nervous challenger. Sure, you and I can think of quick responses, in the same way when we watch a boxing match and can see where the challenger made a mistake. But in a real life arena most of us would probably take a beating when matched against a pro.
A sincere debate can be had when one is willing to steel-man the other's argument but that's not an option when being right and winning is your opponent's brand.
> Vaccine hesitant people are never really addressed adequately by government or by conventional media
Maybe to people who only follow crap on facebook and refuse to read "mainstream media" then misrepresent what they show. Mainstream medis is not saying what fb is parroting.
Because this has been ongoing for the most part. But hey it's boring and not written in capital letters so nobody reads it
> then it needs to be challenged, not suppressed.
You've just proven that people don't do that. Thanks. There's no better evidence than your post that people are too stupid to get out of their bubbles
> we have very large portions of the community (upward of 25% in countries like Germany) now feel discriminated against, people cannot get on planes and travel to see loved ones, they cant go the cinema, they cant do basically anything
Of course they can, they just have to stop being idiots. And if they won't do that by themselves the virus will do it for them
> "If you disagree with someone, you need to get into the arena with them and criticise what they say and debunk it"
Unfortunately, it's one-way only. You can't "get into the arena" disagreeing (for example) with the institution same-sex marriage without calls for deplatforming, Facebook bans and (for example) Neil Young trying to get your content removed.
Debunking makes people believe the thing more favourably. It's the same psychological trick that makes advertising exposure work. If you hear more about something, good or bad, you like it more.
People are not rational beings who will disregard an idea because it is incorrect. The debunking is instead an attack on the person's identity or one of their friends. What you really need to do if you disagree with somebody is befriend and get them to have an emotional attachment to the same ideas you do
> provocateurs and hacks like robert malone or ben shapiro on his show... and impressionable young men have been radicalized to a dangerous degree on the internet
Ah yes, Ben Shapiro will radicalize young men to... get married and start a family? I really don't understand the harm from the examples you mentioned. He offers alternative voices that don't get much attention by CNN or NYT. Literally every other media outlet will have the same 5 or 10 same talking heads and officials telling you the science du jour.
Ben Shapiro is, even though I disagree with him on many things, certainly not alt-right. He is very pro-vaccination and condemned January 6th as an ugly day in American history. His advice to people basically is work hard, get married, have a family, and don't be a criminal.
He has stated that black incarceration rate is higher and does not deny it. He does not address too much why the rate is higher (he suspects it is related to the same reasons why the marriage is much lower among black people), but he does not actively deny it in any way.
Maybe he didn't quite follow the same trajectory of radicalization/insanity as the rest of the alt-right, but he was definitely a poster child of the movement at some point. Him claiming to not be doesn't really change anything.
The alt-right a loose collection (with overlaps) of January 6th supporters, anti-vaccination activists, people who believe the election was stolen, white supremacists, and so forth.
Ben Shapiro is pro-vax, does not believe the election was stolen, and has had the FBI arrest alt-right people who made death threats against him multiple times over the years. "Poster child of the movement?" Unless you consider alt-right to be completely the same as far-right, that was never the case. No movement makes death threats against their poster child.
According to Wikipedia [1], the term was coined by American white nationalist Richard B. Spencer and shortened to "alt-right" and popularised by far-right participants of /pol/, the politics board of web forum 4chan.
But anyways, thanks for the link, I wasn't aware that at least wikipedia makes that connection. I've alway heard "alt-right" used as "a vague collection of far right people that fall outside the Republican Party". So they could include white supremacists, but aren't exclusively white supremacists.
Sorry, I made a couple of points in that post, and you're conflating two of them. Ben Shapiro isn't radicalizing anyone, but he's definitely a hack who regularly says controversial things to get into the public eye. In a principled political party he would live on the fringes, like Hasan Piker does for liberals (although that might be a reach, I'm not super familiar with either figure).
> a hack who regularly says controversial things to get into the public eye
This is so easy to say about someone you disagree with. But the other side will say the same about your heroes.
Almost anyone in the public eye will say things to get in the public eye. That's what they are good at. In politics, those things will be by definition controversial to some people. Not to mention the opposing media will purposefully twist what you say into controversial things.
I don't see how Ben shapiro is special in this in any way.
Just a couple of years ago the only thing I had ever heard about Ben Shapiro was that he is "crazy." I must admit that I didn't actually follow up on that. I just took it as fact. The truth is that I was living in a very safe, very insular media bubble; consuming news which gave me just one narrow narrative.
Covid struck and I became increasingly disappointed with the information I was receiving. It began conflicting with actual scientific research I was reading. I stepped outside my bubble. Boy is the world a bigger and more interesting place. Ben Shapiro promotes old timey family and economic values. That's it. His views would be mildly left to anyone in the 70s or 80s. Of course, to some, old timey family and economic values make him "literally Hitler." Not to me. I don't agree with most of his values but I also think he has a right to speak and discuss his views. He's clearly not crazy, and the world has space for people who believe in nuclear families and proletarian work ethics.
I'll never again make the mistake of not challenging the information I consume. I am now very suspicious of anyone who tells me that challenging authority is wrong.
He makes this statement in that article: "Any incident of white-cop-on-black-suspect violence must be chalked up to the racist system" -- as an attempt to discredit system racism. Only those on the far right believe this. I don't believe Ben himself believes this, but I do believe that he understands that his target market loves it. It's an absurd statement.
The whole article completely misses what system racism is about and why its a useful construct to eliminate racism. Again, Ben seems like a relatively bright guy who I think probably actually understands it. I think that his financial interest is in not understanding, convoluting it, and selling to a group that is willing to suck this up.
The old timey values group wants us to stop talking about all this race stuff. Blacks have it better now than ever before -- what more do they want?! And don't get them stated on the gays and Muslims. But Shapiro pushes it in a way that outright racists can read it and say, "Hey this respectable guy says what I think -- except he uses Harvard JD words to say it!"
I don't think its hyperbole nearly at all. Maybe the term "far" is a bit hyperbolic. Would it be more accurate to say, "Only those on the right believe this"? To be clear, I'm not saying everyone on the right believes this, but rather of the group that does believe it -- they sit in the right.
> Ah yes, Ben Shapiro will radicalize young men to... get married and start a family?
That's not the bit that people have a problem with, and it's completely disingenuous to frame it that way. They have a problem with his views on transgender people, his views on gay people, his views on same-sex parents, and the views of the people he supports and spreads the agenda of.
I'm getting strange COVID-speak vibes from your comment.
All that "you don't get to decide", "and that's where danger comes in".
I think the reasoning in your head is actually backwards, and you think that because JRE got Spotify contract he now has to "be doing their research" in fear of losing it. It's all about money, eh?
I am aware of the term, having lived in a former British colony. It's hard to verbalize it. But it was just so sudden and became THE jab not just a jab, and people were talking about it everywhere. It felt very forced and like it came out of a marketing department.
I'm guessing it's an attempt to poison the well by pointing out that "I want to be able to choose which media I consume" sentiment is often employed by anti-vaxx nutjobs to protest social media censorship.
Then if not Joe, who would his audience listen to? Shapiro? The next guy?
You cannot, and shouldn't, sculpt a model of society where anyone who speaks out loud needs to speak with journalistic and scientific integrity. It cannot work; it never has, and it never will. Regimes which try to limit free speech fail, unfailingly.
You should push for more critical listening. The most surefire way to underdevelop your ability for critical thought and listening is to bubble the content you consume to only professional sources, mainstream news, and government spokespeople. So, don't listen to Rogan, or anyone else you disagree with; you're dumber for it. Not because everything he says is right; but because you'll slowly lose the skill of not just taking everything at face value, but thinking critically about why he's wrong, integrating the things said on his show with your own experiences, other media you've consumed, what scientists say, what politicians say, what random hackernews commentors say, and forming a holistic opinion about the world.
Not everyone has that skill; either by choice, accident, or otherwise. And that's the second skill you need to develop: being ok that some people will believe the wrong thing. They'll spread it. People will die; that's what people do. Think on how spectacular our world is; most of it exists in the only time in human history where freedom of speech is so protected; and some choose to desire to throw that precious right away to... save lives? Our collective freedom and values are far, far more important than life; I hope, beyond hope, that they'll outlive me.
Religion has done this world a lot of bad. In fact, many would be surprised with how recently the Vatican's crackdown on freedom of speech led to many scientists being unable to discover the nature of reality; that's what happens when we don't cherish freedom of speech. But, one thing it did do right, and with it one thing many have lost in our society: the collective recognition that there are goals for our species greater than life itself.
When someone says something wrong, or something I disagree with: I cherish your right to say it, here, in this forum. You shouldn't be labeled as disinformation; nor censored with a downvote. We should have a discussion.
How about instead of “we must allow complete free speech, anything else is bad” we go for “sometimes it’s practical to censor”. The world isn’t so black and white.
It was a "fringe view" in early 2020 when those of us wore masks despite Fauci and the rest of the pointy heads in DC saying that masks weren't needed, and were possibly harmful. It was a "fringe view" when those of us said we shouldn't invade Iraq, because their was no credible evidence of WMD. It was a "fringe view" (and still is, unfortunately among many) when some of us said that there was no credible evidence of a "Russian attack" on our election in 2016. It was a "fringe view" when some of us insisted that the government was illegally spying on us before Snowden's revelations.
According to modern standards of social media censorship, all of these "fringe views" would very likely lead to getting banned and/or silenced for "misinformation". The fact is that the accuracy of a belief has absolutely no relationship to how widespread that belief is. This is especially true when the government, big tech and their legacy media outlets work together to engineer a consensus view (or the appearance of a consensus view) that hews to their preferred narrative rather than reality.
Picking 20 seconds out of thousands of hours of your political enemies broadcasts to smear them is the lowest form of propaganda.
How do you know you're not the one being radicalized?
Have you ever tried to listen to Alex in good faith even if you don't agree and try to understand his view at least? Or is your entire perception based off of John Oliver?
Do you think you could pick 20 seconds out of John Olivers footage and make him look like a crazy person?
> impressionable young men have been radicalized to a dangerous degree on the internet. Having the same views on his podcast as conspiracy theory sites, for example, will undoubtedly make it easier for the bad actors running these sites to radicalize JRE listeners
Some would say that claiming the outcome of free speech is radicalization...to be pure idiocy.
And this cancel culture lockdown mentality is possibly why mid terms are going to rough for the left.
Probably you should make sure Alex Jones didn't do something horrible like call the sandy hook shooting victims "crises actors" leading to mass harassment campaigns and suicides (that he is currently losing lawsuits over) before you decide to defend a random person for no reason.
> How do you know you're not the one being radicalized?
How do you know you're not the one being radicalized?
> Have you ever tried to listen to Alex in good faith even if you don't agree and try to understand his view at least? Or is your entire perception based off of John Oliver?
I have, he's entertaining. I don't take a single thing seriously. I've spent some time researching on thing he's said, all of it was gross mischaracterizations and exaggerations on any topic. I won't spend any more. I'm not a journalist, that's their job.
> Do you think you could pick 20 seconds out of John Olivers footage and make him look like a crazy person?
That would be fantastic, go ahead. This isn't idolatry.
> Some would say that claiming the outcome of free speech is radicalization...to be pure idiocy.
Well, it is through free speech that radicalization does happen, however, nobody is talking about free speech here. because alex jones can still say whatever he wants. (as long as he can pay for libel/slander fines), you can exercise free speech. deplatforming has nothing to do with free speech.
Alex Jones is an interesting example. I had never really heard anything about him except for the little bits and pieces that make it to CNN. Then I listened to a Joe Rogan interview with him and it convinced me that Jones is literally crazy. Rogan would ask him something and Jones would go ballistic yelling and spewing nonsense.
I've heard criticisms of Rogan for giving people like Jones a platform, but in the end I can't believe it helps Jones. He came off as a lunatic in the show I heard.
Stupid things like prescribing something that's been found to be safe and effective in tens of studies (https://ivmmeta.com/) as opposed to remdesivir, which in the trials caused kidney failure in a double digit percent of patients after 5 days. But remdesivir is better because Fauci happens to have a financial interest in the company producing it?
What constitutes "stupid" medical treatment cannot be decided by bureaucrats with a massive financial conflict of interest. It's insane how people here complain about US government corruption yet want to give lobbyists even more power by centralising all medical decisionmaking in a few individuals.
Actually I'd go further and stop citing these XXXmeta.org websites that pop like mushrooms after the rain. It's probably the result of a Python script that pops graphs and tables according to a csv with data from the studies selected.
They do very crude, naive, ad-hoc and cherry picked study selection, and metastudies is one of the most complex and difficult areas to do research on.
On the topic of ivermectin, it certainly displays positive outcomes... in countries with high helminth prevalence. So yeah, treating co-morbidities is certainly better than not treating them, not exactly shocking.
> He does it because he knows his fanbase will listen to it, ingest the information, and then speak it as fact to their friends and family
It's very hard to take this seriously, because there's no evidence of it. The guy is an entertainer that built a platform that lets him talk to whoever he wants. There's no narrative being pushed.
>In mass media today, influencers and other people of note who don't have advanced degrees should be doing their research - from credible sources - so they're not spouting inaccuracies and falsehoods to their followers.
Meh! I would rather listen to people's original perspectives despite of potential inaccuracies, instead of lies fabricated by corporations via highly paid "experts".
Yeah, in a very specific meaning of "listen to everyone", as in he clearly listened to the people advocating Ivermectin to trait covid but not the vaccine, which to me seems like tribalism as such decision is not based on listening to anyone making a bit of sense.
Joe Rogan is a useful idiot for grifters who know that he won't seriously challenge them for what they're saying under the guise of "hey it's just fun" and "hey I'm just letting them say their piece." He is a perhaps a good conversationalist for engaging with and listening to his guests, but he is a poor interviewer and, unless he's in on the con, a poor judge of character.
I thought a blog piece on Rolling Stone summed up Rogan decently enough:
"This sort of credulity is both Rogan’s biggest draw and his worst tendency. Rogan has built his brand around open-mindedness, which he passes off as “free thinking.” But in practice, instead of thinking about what his guests are saying to him, Rogan’s first instinct is to “mmhm” his way through topics that frequently stray into conspiracies, bigotry, or simple stupidity. Rogan’s guiding ethos doesn’t seem to be much more complicated than “seek out the controversial, and popular,” which has led him, during the pandemic, to repeatedly platform or publish misinformation about coronavirus and vaccines. "
> platform or publish misinformation about coronavirus and vaccines. "
At this stage of the pandemic we know that much of the MSM has done the same thing. I'm triple vaccinated, I have followed this pandemic since late January 2020, at the time when "coronavirus" as a hashtag was seen as a trump-ism and not present on Twitter's front page or wherever it is that they publish their hot hashtags.
> This sort of credulity is both Rogan’s biggest draw and his worst tendency. Rogan has built his brand around open-mindedness, which he passes off as “free thinking.” But in practice, instead of thinking about what his guests are saying to him, Rogan’s first instinct is to “mmhm” his way through topics that frequently stray into conspiracies, bigotry, or simple stupidity
You mean his instinct is to let his guests speak and let the listeners make up their own mind? I wonder why Rogan is so popular.
> Rogan’s guiding ethos doesn’t seem to be much more complicated than “seek out the controversial, and popular,” which has led him, during the pandemic, to repeatedly platform or publish misinformation about coronavirus and vaccines.
Rogan has stated openly many times that his guiding ethos is literally to have people on that he finds interesting or wants to learn more about. I've seen nothing to really contradict this. This likely just intersects with controversial and/or popular in some or many cases, but it's disingenuous to then claim that this was the motive all along.
>You mean his instinct is to let his guests speak and let the listeners make up their own mind? I wonder why Rogan is so popular.
If he hosted some kind of a salon with competing views where he never took a stance and just let the conversation unfold that might be the case, but he regularly injects himself and varying degrees of "information" into the conversation to color and steer it. Each guest is in a vacuum where for their time on his show where they're more or less unchallenged and unfettered by reality.
To be clear I don't think his show should be censored, but I think his fans need to be a bit more honest with themselves and others. He makes people feel safe to settle in and listen to bullshit, believe the bullshit, and then say "it's just entertainment, this isn't where I get my opinions - by the way let me fill you in on all my obviously Rogan informed opinions."
> but he regularly injects himself and varying degrees of "information" into the conversation to color and steer it.
Sure, when something requires clarification because it seems inconsistent with his understanding or what's common knowledge. Even an impartial moderator would do that. It still remains the case that his instinct is to let the guests talk, because he invited them there to learn more about them.
That said, Rogan certainly states his own opinions sometimes too, more so and more forcefully on certain topics that he's discussed many times and so he has developed more certainty. I used to watch more of his podcasts a few years ago, and he was much more open and less certain on some topics. Recently he's expressed more certainty on those topics because he's had so many discussions on them that his certainty is higher.
I would certainly welcome more guests with opposing views, but a lot of those people wouldn't go on his podcast simply because he "gives a platform" to their opponents.
While that is true about Joe and the show that doesn't completely paint the whole picture either. Actually it really leaves out the key part of the whole picture.
Irregardless of what Joe says about himself and the show being nothing more than a bunch of idiotic guys talking, the truth of the matter is he does have credible and subject matter experts come on his show and talk and give their viewpoint on their area of expertise.
However when those experts come on and they go against the MSM narrative then the focus becomes about Joe and his silly tactics as a way to dismiss or downplay the counter views for some.
Ironic because Fox News has zero credibility. Their prime time anchor Tucker Carlson won against slander charges in court by arguing that he does not state actual facts and instead engages in exaggeration and non-literal commentary. They are clearly a mouthpiece for one of two sides, like other “news” organizations.
And since the beginning of Covid Joe Rogan has stopped being just a dude who hangs out and smokes with his buddies, something I used to love about the show. He is constantly and consistently political, making medical claims and other kinds of claims that are nonsensical. He’s started favoring certain types of guests, and avoiding the friends who call him out.
I used to argue vehemently that free speech can be infringed upon under no circumstance. I still will. But now I see the “other side” more clearly, that is, where is the line when someone has one of the largest platforms in the world and uses it to spread dangerous misinformation? He’s way past just some dude. I have friends who take what he says as gospel, because they want to learn how to be men and Joe is a man’s man. At the same time, he does make good arguments in favor of discourse, hearing different viewpoints, etc. so how do we handle this?
To be fair to Tucker Carlson... Facebook did the exact same thing but claimed all of their fact checkers under that legal umbrella in their own court case.
> The labels themselves are neither false nor defamatory; to the contrary, they constitute protected opinion.
All media sources hide behind "being just entertainment and not factual opinion" just like the New York Times or MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, who, when she was sued for saying OAN is "paid Russian propaganda”, won the case because “The statement could not reasonably be understood to imply an assertion of objective fact, and therefore, did not amount to defamation”[2] even though MSNBC couldn't prove OAN was paid by Russia.
I’d say we should handle it with more speech. All the experts should start their own podcasts where they have their own guests and talk about, among other things, _why_ the things discussed on his show are misinformation. Make each episode at least an hour, and have an actual discussion. They don’t need to smoke weed or anything, but people like rogan because he does still feel like just some guy with a podcast, and mainstream media is less popular than ever because people are sick of being told what to think and not to question things.
That would be infinitely more engaging than a clickbait headline and 3 minutes from an “expert” on CNN/MSNBC/Fox.
I don't know if that's feasible. Joe Rogan can have hour-long podcasts because hour-long podcasts are his job. It is not the job of experts to have hour-long podcasts dissecting another podcast-- their jobs are to be experts in whatever their field is in. Dissecting a wrong person may not be helpful if they don't have the equipment, the same following, the polish, the time, or the presentation skill... because its not their job.
> All the experts should start their own podcasts where they have their own guests and talk about, among other things, _why_ the things discussed on his show are misinformation.
Sounds like something an expert in a field would a) not have enough time to do, b) usually lack the charisma to do and c) draw them away from arguably more pertinent tasks, such as research?
I think a better course of action would be to stop believing one can be educated on topics they know nothing about, and without context, purely by passively absorbing information from podcasts.
The other American networks are no different. Just yesterday CNN’s Jim Acosta called Virginia under Republican Governor Youngkin a “Soviet-style police state.” I don’t see how that’s better or worse than any of Carlson’s hyperbolic statements. CNN in particular has spread plenty of misinformation, such as in the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion or during 2020’s “firey but mostly peaceful” riots.
People have the ability to remember and compare similar statements and events. Double standards applied unfairly tend to get remembered for a very long time. I think the best thing would be to apply even standards across the board for “misinformation”, and tend towards less rather than more censorship.
> CNN host Jim Acosta on Tuesday suggested Virginia was being run like a "Soviet-style police state" under new Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin.
> During a segment on his fill-in primetime show, Acosta, while making the comparison, cited an email tip line set up by Youngkin's administration in which parents can report teachers that teach "divisive" topics to their children, such as critical race theory, while also mocking the way Youngkin dressed.
which is hyperbole about hyperbole. Then you read it from realpolitics:
> CNN's Jim Acosta recognized that the country is divided, and he had someone to blame during a Tuesday segment with Molly Jong Fast.
> "It seems Republican leaders have gone all-in on dividing the country in many ways," Acosta said.
> "I seem to remember Glenn Youngkin campaigning in a fleece vest in Virginia. He was running as a different kind of Republican. I was told there was going to be a vest, not a Soviet-style police state across the Potomac from Washington," he said about the new Virginia governor.
Who spend most of their time quoting what Acosta actually said in one block (while FoxNews shuffles the quotes around so it would fit their narrative). The news is basically trash these days. Of course, once it comes out that the governer basically instituted a tip line to out teachers who might be teaching something construed as critical race theory, all the non-far right wingers are already on board with Acosta's outrage.
Here's how the actual executive order defines "inherently divisive"- seems worth a tip line to me:
>For the purposes of this Executive order “inherently divisive concepts” means advancing any ideas in violation of Title IV and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including, but not limited to of the following concepts (i) one race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith is inherently superior to another race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith; (ii) an individual, by virtue of his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex or faith, is racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously, (iii) an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex or faith, (iv) members of one race, ethnicity, sex or faith cannot and should not attempt to treat others as individuals without respect to race, sex or faith, (v) an individual's moral character is inherently determined by his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith, (vi) an individual, by virtue of his or her race, skin color, ethnicity, sex, or faith, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, ethnicity, sex or faith, (vii) meritocracy or traits, such as a hard work ethic, are racist or sexist or were created by a particular race to oppress another race.
To bring it even more on point, CNN said Rogan took horse dewormer, an obvious lie. A petty lie to boot. That's from a corporation that advertises itself as a trusted news source.
He appeals to the crowd that seems to think the contrarian stance is always the smarter stance. If the mainstream reports Ivermectin is for horses and doesn't treat covid, they latch onto one half-truth that it's for horses like they cracked the code and use this to undermine the credibility of anyone telling them it's not useful for treating covid even if there are human applications.
I've realized in my conversations with Rogan fans and Fox News fans alike, to them all lies are equal, everyone lies, nothing is true, so they pick the things they like as truths. These people will tell you Joe Rogan is an entertainer not to be listened to, and then spout off a bunch of opinions they got from his show as their reasons for all kinds of decisions.
Saying that Ivermectin is for horses is like saying penicillin is for horses. True, but deliberately deceptive.
They carried out a disinformation campaign using half-truths. They could complain that this tactic is valid because Ivermectin is ineffective for Covid. But they junked their credibility with the horse nonsense.
> It's mainly just him hanging out with his buddies smoke'n (sometimes literally) and joke'n.
> That's the entertaining and appeal of the show.
Facebook's press releases talk just like that. They also pretend to be "neutral".
But Rogan, Facebook and Spotify made choices with repercussions and consequences. They just don't want to bear responsibility/accountability for those consequences.
> That's the thing though. Joe doesn't see himself as a credible news source, a voice of a movement, or any of those other things because accuse him of
When you have an audience numbering in the millions, and have a long term presence (unlike old school radio), you are a news source, whether you like it or not.
And you have a responsibility to be careful with your words, whether you want it or not.
In this age of boundless social media, where what is true, what is false and what is mis-leading is non-existent, it is pertinent for people like JRE to absolutely not go into topic they don't know or knowledgeable about.
I would really like to see him bring on Dr. Fauci, and have a good listen to him.
He recently did a full podcast with CNN's chief medical correspondent Dr Sanjay Gupta. I'd imagine Dr Fauci would be welcomed as well to the show.
Joe's conversation with Dr Sanjay covered a variety of topics (Covid, marijuana policy, CNNs representation of Joe). On all these topics Dr Sanjay was definitely given an opportunity to make his argument - and I believe he probably reached a good number of people through Joe's platform.[1]
It is unfortunate that CNN's unprofessional representation of Joe's personal experience with Covid sucked up so much of the conversation around the episode. Dr Sanjay wasnt a part of this (until after the podcast...) And on the podcast he also took issue with CNN's coverage. Obviously this didn't go well over at CNN and I truly felt bad for Dr Sanjay being publicly steamrolled by the networks own talking heads in the days after. [2]
On their Covid discussion Joe raised some points that he has spoken about in other forums - they shouldn't surprise anyone. Primary among them are how we should account for natural immunity, clarity on the risk of side effects for children versus the risk of Covid, and treatments beyond vaccines (which given how frequently breakthru cases occur should be important conversation for pro/hesitant/anti vax alike).
These are things that Dr Sanjay (or Dr Fauci) should be able to have a meaningful discussion around. Dr Sanjay did a good job in my opinion (and his own opinion [3]) Honestly I think the feedback that talking heads should not speak with authority they don't have is something Don Lemon needs to reflect on. I think there is general disappointment in the mainstream press for not asking challenging questions and that it is related to the growing distrust of the 4th estate. Today's media has soundbytes, cheer leading puffery, and context free gotchas.
But why? Joe Rogan doesn’t publish news. The podcast is in the form of a conversation between two people. He does talk about current events, just as everybody else does when they have a conversation.
He doesn’t make any claim that is show is anything more than two people chatting. If anyone is using JRE as a trusted news source, then they are an idiot. You can’t stop people from being idiots, nor should we attempt to childproof the entire world on their behalf.
That I agree with, but that wasn't what I meant, and judging from anecdata, not everyone can make that distinction. It's easy to be convinced by presentation rather than content.
> Everyone I've ever talked to that listens to JRE thinks what they say on it is generally correct.
"Generally correct" is a much lower bar than "always correct". It might even be a bar that JRE can pass.
Edit: where they're talking about factual matters I mean, not where they talk about aliens, big foot, and other obviously outlandish ideas where they're clearly just shooting the breeze.
A few weeks ago, 270 doctors, scientists, healthcare professionals and professors wrote an open letter to Spotify, expressing concern about medical misinformation on Rogan’s podcast.
Rogan is a greedy dckhead monetizing on pandemic.
Spotify should have kicked his ass out the platform a long time ago.
Let me ask you this, why do you give a shit 270 (gasp) doctors and sCiEnTisTs wrote a letter? Why do you give these people so much weight?
Would you care if 300 professional typescript engineers wrote an open letter and declared javascript should no longer be used? I wouldn't they are just human beings and 270 is NOTHING in the total number of professionals who all share different opinions.
Why do you put these people on a pedestal? Wise up.
> A few weeks ago, 270 doctors, scientists, healthcare professionals and professors wrote an open letter to Spotify, expressing concern about medical misinformation on Rogan’s podcast.
Does he really "Listen to everyone"? Or does he give more of a platform to the more outlandish while not really getting scientists in?
You can claim he giving another side to the "Mainstream media", but does he give in depth interviews with scientists who are little more than quotes in the media? or is he more focused on giving the "Other side"
Eg, he just had that idiot Peterson spouting climate rubbish, has he had credible climate scientists on his show?
Peterson's claims about climate objectively match leading science. You may disagree with him, but what he says is not rubbish. (For credibility, see the studies included in IPCC reports.)
Jordan Peterson is a world-renowned Canadian professor of psychology, clinical psychologist, and bestselling author. He has published over 100 scientific papers. You make a great point about him being an idiot.
If they have salient points that stand up to rigor, then yeah? This is pretty much an appeal-to-authority argument, isn't it?
FWIW, I have no context on the specific claims made by Peterson, but I've increasingly seen a line of logic that suggests you need to have a PhD in a topic in order to think critically about it.
Not sure what analogy I made, but in this case, you can weigh how much you want to consider either opinion:
Sample Weather Channel Guy:
- No history in psychology
- Citing papers that are not highly respected under peer review
Sample Psychologist:
- Has a long history in the field
- Ideally has references available for their own claim
In this case, you'd probably want to err on the side of trusting the second person in the chart. What didn't happen, though, was a complete dismissal of the first person's claim based on credentials alone. If you have to make a decision on something quickly and authority is the only way for you to judge it, then sure, go for it. But appeal-to-authority doesn't belong in open-ended debates.
Joe Rogan isn't as fair and balanced with his guests as you're giving him credit for. He doesn't equally listen to "everyone" or have "everyone" on his show. When was the last time Joe had a pro-vaccine expert on his show to ask them about the real science of vaccines? It doesn't happen.
He had Sanjay Gupta on just a couple of months ago.
Joe Rogan isn’t anti-vaccine. His stance on the Covid-19 vaccine is if you’re older, fat, or with an existing comorbidity you should go get vaccinated. For everyone else it isn’t strictly necessary and shouldn’t be a requirement.
It basically comes down to individualist versus collectivist. If you’re a collectivist you think JRE is spreading misinformation.
I noticed the same. It gives some hard insight into their present audience. I remember when it used to be more tech based and now there is an increasing political tone.
You're not alone, I just avoid it. I'd rather hope to see the same news or topics here and see what people have to say. The Ars comment section is scary and just makes me lose hope in humanity.
Those of us who live in the US enjoy free speech, which clearly allows types of speech that are considered misinformation. In order for a platform to censor speech that is otherwise legal, they must either do it out of principle (they simply don't like a certain kind of speech) or as a calculated business decision because it's what their customers want.
It turns out s significant number of people who support free speech also want their favorite platforms to not allow speech they don't like. The argument is "this is not free speech, it's misinformation and it's damaging." If there were valid scientific arguments proving that what we call misinformation is actually damaging, that would be a reasonable position. However, so far I have not seen anything that convinced me.
All I've heard are "just so" arguments akin to "TV/videogames cause violence." What if fake news do not change people's minds as much as it may appear? We tend to listen to viewpoints (fake or not) that confirm our beliefs. All the information confirming our beliefs is out there, cannot be removed from the internet, and we will gravitate towards it. If that is true, then we are paying a high price (asking platforms to police speech beyond the law) for little or no benefit.
Edit: downvoter, I would appreciate if it you could explain how you disagree with my comment.
Of course. What does that have to do with my comment? Spotify wants to carry Joe Rogan, and they also want to carry Neil Young. Neil Young is the one who wants Spotify to choose.
You're confusing free speech with the American first amendment.
Free speech is an universal principle, probably best expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which the US signed):
> Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
I didn't know about this, actually. Nice! I mean that's as clear-cut as it can get, although media might mean format rather than platform, otherwise all moderation is technically a breach of this right: though I suppose if it's in the terms and conditions then all parties must agree to the use of moderation for specific cases.
I agree with what you are saying, but I'd say that it's specifically the progressive side that benefits the most from the censorship, even if it may be bad for society as a whole. Plenty of people out there aren't really actually devoted to free speech, they are moreso dedicated to this new totalitarian ideology, and would be happy to throw free speech out the window if it means nobody can rebut their claims. I'd guess that they think it benefits their political goals more than it hurts society. I'd also guess that they are the same people downvoting your comment.
> I'd also guess that they are the same people downvoting your comment.
I've noticed this trend on HackerNews in recent years of downvoting without providing a substantive criticism. I'm curious if HN has plans to curve the upvote/downvote system against tyranny of the masses because it seems the principal of charity is not being respected much more
I'm sure none of this has anything to do with Neil Young having a competitive streaming service named Pono and the huge amounts of publicity that comes along with such a public spat with the most popular Podcaster on the planet (I am a cynic, though):
I have never listened to a single episode of Joe Rogan. I still don’t understand why would someone waste their time listening to someone who is not an authority on anything and doesn’t add any value to the audience. There are literally thousands of better podcasts and audiobooks that enhances your knowledge 10x on many subjects.
> never listened to a single episode
Then maybe that’s why you don’t understand why people would listen. I only listen to Rogan occasionally but he’s a decent interviewer and does long (3-4 hour) interviews. Many guests are mainstream personalities like Neil deGrasse Tyson but he also invites people the mainstream shuns.
To me, who hasn't heard much of Rogan, it seems like the appeal _was_ largely in the same vein as Channel 5 currently operates: Going to all sorts of interesting subculture events/personalities and just letting them talk. Rogan seems to give individuals much more time, while Channel 5 will just give 20-30 minute skims of the wild parts, but I think they tickle the same part of the brain.
Your statement about not listening much to Rogan shows with this comparison. I don’t think the two are alike at all. Channel 5 lets the crazies talk while he stays silent for the most part, which says everything about his subjects. Rogan on the other hand lets his grifter repeat characters talk and then he himself talks and parrots all sorts of insane disinformation and obviously reactionary nonsense and neatly justifies it all away by saying “but don’t listen to me, I’m an idiot” all under the guise of rational dialogue and all the while elevating his guests who all conveniently have something to sell you.
> all conveniently have something to sell you
He's interviewed:
- Elon Musk
- Tim Ferriss
- Neil DeGrasse Tyson
- Sam Harris
- Matthew Walker
- Mike Tyson
- Many more
I guess they all conveniently have something to sell(?) but they also have interesting things to say.
> insane disinformation and obviously reactionary nonsense
Put another way, he's a person you disagree with on many issues. So should we cancel him now? I guess the principle of free speech is only important when your ideas are repressed.
Joe Rogan has transformed slowly but surely from a liberal who smoked weed to a somebody who appeals to conservative fervor. For example, he will rail against the vaccine because “big pharma.” Then he “throws the kitchen sink” at COVID when he gets it, including flaunting the ridiculous ivermectin BS that us chimps will be laughing at ourselves over in 50 years, ironically a product of big pharma. So what is it, does he support or not support big pharma when he leverages ivermectin and monoclonal antibody treatment.
Now, you list off a few names like Elon Musk, Tim Ferris, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Sam Harris, all of whom have companies to market, images to sell, podcasts to peddle, speaking tours and appearance fees to offer, and ideologies to impart. Yes, they’re all selling something to you, and Rogan fans delude themselves if they think they’re simply consuming pure intellectual discourse. This isn’t Dialectic, and nobody is Plato here.
Do you think it’s any coincidence that after Jordan Peterson - a guy who sells himself as a clinically-minded intellectual and liberty defender with liberal aesthetics - went on Rogan the other day, conveniently after stepping away from his teaching post at the U of Toronto. He’s got a speaking tour lined up. Do you think it’s a coincidence that Jordan Peterson, after resigning immediately released an article in the National Post about how “appalling” diversity, inclusion and equity is?
I’ve got a bridge to sell all the Rogan fans. It was fun to listen to him back in 2016 when he smoked weed and talked to writers and doctors. But it’s no longer 2016. And this isn’t an approval to shut him down or even shut him up. It’s simply criticism of misbehavior.
I regularly listen to podcasts from people I don't agree with, some across the political aisle. It helps me to understand why other people think as they do, and sometimes I might even adjust my position on some topic.
Rogan has a solid podcast. He's interesting, has interesting guests, and brings to light lots of salient points (and a little humor).
Alexa, set a reminder for 3 years from now...
reply