Louis Theroux did two interviews. You linked to the second one.
I don’t know why it would be cancelled. I seem to remember they discussed Alex Jones in the interview so that could be the reason.
Edit to add: Reddit suggests it was taken down due to copyright issues as they used clips from Theroux’s documentaries. I would think this would be obvious fair use but I guess they don’t want to risk it.
Some of the episodes removed don’t make any sense to me. Several removed today feature mainstream comedians, some of whom have their own podcasts on the platform. I don’t listen to JRE, so maybe something is in the content I’m unaware of.
These just stuck out to me as it seemed the removals are focused on people rather than guests considering repeat guests had all episodes removed.
> Some of the episodes removed don’t make any sense to me. Several removed today feature mainstream comedians, some of whom have their own podcasts on the platform. I don’t listen to JRE, so maybe something is in the content I’m unaware of.
Maybe it has to do more with what was said rather than who said it.
Then why are repeat guests who have one removal having all episodes removed, I doubt they’re saying something horrible every time. Many are mainstream like Tim Ferriss, Bill Burr, Dan Savage, Amy Schumer, et al.
It’s not hard to figure out why some of the more controversial figures might have been removed, but it seems like this was definitely targeted at people, not content.
Given how political the guy itself is, and in which direction, those are the first episodes I'd expect to be removed from the platform. Do yourself a favor and avoid Spotify if you really want your due entertainment.
He spoke about this (I’m not sure what episode) and they asked him if they could skip some of those episodes (Milo and a few others from this post). Rogan agreed. Jones has been on since and agreed he’s entertaining and knows he fucked up about the Sandy hook being staged thing (and obviously right about a bunch of others).
No one can tell you here without passing for either a robot who just agrees with everything the mainstream media says or a nazi who also believes the earth is flat, you should research it yourself, it's honestly not that difficult but you might not find his old content since they removed him from everywhere.
It doesn't matter how much research I do, I'll never be as knowledgeable as a medical professional. That's due to the sheer fact that they have internal mental models based on first, second and third-hand experience which make them capable of intuition on their specialty.
Something that seems incongruent to me might be a product of those intuitions. Intuitions I can't build from reading alone.
I can't think of anything, but people undersell how reasonable his misses are.
Eg, there was the Pizzagate thing where he apparently claimed that there was a child sex trafficing ring with political involvement in some pizza shop, but the actual child sex trafficing ring was Epstein. Or the war in Afghanistan was a disaster because it was an inside job when it turned out to be a disaster for more mundane reasons.
So on the one hand he's wrong about everything, and on the other hand it is entertaining trying to keep score of which bits of the madness turn out accurate. There is a hilarious argument that someone starting from his position and then taking a levelheaded approach to policy could get a better outcome in many instances than what actually happens.
But none of the bits in your example turned out to be accurate? Afghanistan was a disaster for a long time, and child sex traffiking rings involving the powerful have been around for a long time (Dutroux). He just adds conspiracy nonsense to these old stories?
The worst impact Rogan has is the normalization of paranoid-conspiratorial logic under the guise of critical thinking. I mean, he's basically primed millions of people to be ready to eagerly accept bullshit.
If child sex trafficing rings are so common among the powerful then that then that should indeed be a top topic of conversation. If there was a more reasoned voice than Jones who wants to talk about that continuously then they should be getting a lot more press.
Wasn’t there a big thing about him retaining editorial control? Seems like that went out of the window on day one.
Easy for me to say, but he should have stayed independent and tried to avoid dependence on one platform. He could really have put a dent in the MSM model, probably ultimately made even more money and not be answerable to anyone.
Public taste is unpredictable. Podcasting success depends on so many little factors going right. I imagine it's like a developer doing freelance work. Inevitably they have to spend time managing the flow of work instead of actually developing. Getting money from Spotify probably meant "Hey, we don't need this whole folder of spreadsheets anymore. Let's redirect that effort toward a better production!"
I don't know. I'd probably fine with taking the guaranteed $100 million and let my publisher decide what they do and don't want to publish and not worry about it in the least bit. Turn down $100MM on the speculation that I might make more? No way. I thought I saw a comment by Rogan saying that he doesn't care about the removed episodes. Why would he? It's just a podcast. He's not trying to change the world. He's just an actor/entertainer. (Which is fine; I'm not saying "just" like that's a bad thing. I think he doesn't give a shit, that's all.)
Almost certainly not. Spotify would never agree to such terms.
Joe Rogan is not quite an employee of Spotify, but he does now have an exclusive agreement, and can't publish anywhere else, and so his show and any other show he might like to make is essentially controlled by Spotify for the length of the contract and published at their pleasure. It would be extraordinary if Spotify agreed to publish anything he wants.
Spotify paid Rogan a tremendous amount of money for the privilege.
Regardless of if you hate or like him. His shows give a glimpse of what people are talking about. Some of the conversations are revealing. I enjoy many of the science topics that have come up.
Atom, Electron, Plasma, Chrome, Java, Crankshaft, V8, ... I think software folks aren't really the ones that should call out others for using preexisting names.
He wanted to point out, that he is several layers of counter-culture above other people. A phenomenon on the internet often described as being an edgelord.
This despicable arbitrary woke driven censorship is bound to really piss Joe Rogan off. Will be interesting to see if they remove the recent highly controversial but fascinating episodes with Dr Malone and Dr McCullough.
If they do, I think Joe will leave Spotify and claim breach of contract.
keep buying gorilla mind keep the movement going guys, buy this colloidal silver tincture it may or may not work, buy my patreon now they deleted me from spotify, buy my premium content, buy my unique insights and concerns, the man keeps trying to censor me, a humble open-minded critical thinker, a rarity these days for sure, fight back at all costs, the more you listen the more wise you will be, keep truth alive! we are the watchmen! /s
I don’t remember Joe Rogan having said anything close to this, but I haven’t seen him a lot besides some random highlights. Is this an accurate representation or is it your wild media-induced fantasy of a Nazi alt-right reincarnation of the devil?
Joe Rogan endorsed Sanders 2 years ago, not 2 decades. And from the little I saw of him, he still supports Universal Basic Income and other socialist measures. This is so weird in the US, if you're not 100% on the same page with the party, you're the enemy.
Don’t think of it as a quote nor an an accurate representation nor something media induced. Think of it as a vibe or gestell or a ploy on my part. Maybe I am the real charlatan after all.
Anyone who knows, how will censorship play out in the future? Even censorship by private companies, I don't care how people are silenced, I'm still curious about the effects. Edit: can someone explain the effects of this kind of event that the thread is discussing? whatever you want to call it
How do you define censorship vs content editing?
Rogan and Spotify made a deal, he gets lots of money, they rather not host some of the content. Rogan was free to negotiate that, he chose to take the money.
I think we're seeing this with Rogan.
These ppl, if outrageous enough and friends with other well connected individuals will become very rich. The rest of us will live with the scorched earth left behind.
This is why platforms still try to cater to both sides as much as possible. Watch how uncomfortably the giant platforms handle political squabbles. They don't know how their actions will be taken, so they try to come across as inoffensive as possible.
What do you mean by playing out? There will be censorship, and people will live with it. One of the effects on people's self expression is the chilling effect, whereby people self-censor in hope of avoiding threats. In extreme cases this can evolve into people expressing themselves in doublespeak; in a way when there are two realities, one that is, and an another that's permitted to be spoken about. In between there is loaded language, coded language and ultimately dogwhistles, whereby people are using words that seemingly have one meaning that passes as neutral speech, but in fact has an other meaning to those "in the know".
It would be interesting to see the list of topics / keywords / conjectures in the "missing" episodes so that we know roughly which ones are "off limits".
More insidious than the removal, is how Spotify conceals it. We shouldn't need a 3rd party website - the episode titles should remain in the list, among those not removed, but tagged with a big red CENSORED, along with a specific reason for the removal.
If they want to censor, fine - but don't lie by omission about it.
What other platform does something like this? The closest thing I could think of is how Google will have a message at the bottom warning that some results were removed due to DMCA violations
Nobody is censored here ... Spotify decided that they don't want to distribute them anymore.
Rogan can say what he wants.
Even the missing episodes are still on archive.org and other places.
Is a movie/show season is no longer listed on Netflix because of some rights issues also censoring in your opinion?
There are some albums not visible in some countries on Spotify. For the longest time, i could not listen to the metal versions of Ghibli songs in Japan (they are offline, online several times already, potentially due to rights issues):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXB35-cYVMU&list=PLmsGXAySkD...
My spotify playlist was suddenly empty /filled again.
Is that censorship?
As a result, I payed for the albums and canceled my spotify account.
There is no sharp line between censorship, curation, and mere omission for unrelated reasons (e.g. limited shelf space, or unawareness by the curator that a work even exists). But this example falls close enough to the censorship side that it can be called as such. Because if this doesn't qualify, then it would take a literal government ban to count as censorship, which is a uselessly narrow criterion in our corporate-dominated society.
Edit: To elaborate: To suppress a work, government censorship is simply not necessary. If Amazon refuses to list it, Youtube removes it and Google downranks it, Spotify and Netflix drop it, or Twitter or Facebook ban it, then it'll reach 1% or less of its audience than if it were treated generically (ironically this doesn't apply so much to Joe Rogan, since he already has an established audience. But it does for less known creators).
I agree, but I would limit this reasoning to co,panties that essentially are infrastructure although policy makers refuse to treat them as such ( Google etc).
It's always been like for platforms before the internet, no? I couldn't just publish whatever I wanted in print, there was always curation and editing. I couldn't spread whatever words I wanted on NYT, I'd have to write and publish on my own, people are still allowed that, there's no right to use media vehicles to project your voice.
You are correct that nothing illegal happened, no legal rights were violated (except possibly Rogan's contract, which is irrelevant to a discussion about principles). You may even be correct that it has always been like this - yes, media are far more consolidated than in the past*, but new entrants to the media landscape (Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc..), while even more consolidated, don't control their platforms as strictly as traditional media, so it's hard to judge if dissenting speech is more or less suppressed than in the past.
But that doesn't make it not censorship, or justify concealing it.
*In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called "alarmist" for pointing this out [..] In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth. - https://www.corporations.org/media/
You want a clear-cut rule that can, without any context or nuance, categorize something as "censorship" or "not censorship"? I'm afraid I don't have one. Is that what it would take before you admit anything other than a government ban is censorship?
To answer your question - if it was my article? No. But suppose I wasn't a random person on the internet, but a journalist, and, after spending a lot of time investigating and writing a story on, lets say, the health risks of bovine growth hormone, my employer makes me go through 83 rewrites over 8 months, then fires me, and never airs the story [1] - is it censorship then?
Or what if I was hired to make a documentary on child abuse, but my employer decided that, "as a responsible broadcaster", they would censor it (sorry, delay publishing until after the election), to not inflame racial tensions [2]?
The word censorship usually means removed for political reasons, not commercial disputes. It's obvious from the list that these episode removals are targeting very specific kinds of people, in an attempt to prevent people hearing their ideas. It's censorship by Spotify and it's disgusting and immoral - a complete failure to learn the lessons of the past.
Why are their intentions important at all?
Can you show they follow some government orders?
If Spotify censors Joe Rogan's speech, it would mean they suppress or prohibit him to speak about a particular topic /content etc.
They made a couple of episodes unavailable on their service (that happens all the time with other content as well, and Spotify didn't even touch the recent ones dealing with COVID). I cannot see how this constitutes to censorship.
Which ideas/concepts are censored in the episodes taken down?
Also, the episodes and clips are still available if you search for them, and Joe Rogan can say anything he wants on other channels ... Or did I miss something?
Yeah, definitely a user-hostile experience. You can see this dark pattern everywhere. Amazon hides items that are out of stock by default, which is especially annoying if you attempt grocery shopping on Amazon Fresh.
If I can boil it down to a UX maxim, it would go something like, "The absence of a positive is no substitute for a negative".
Probably because most people actually don't give a shit and that it would be really user hostile to list a lot of content that actually don't exist (on the platform).
If you cant play it then don't bloat up the GUI with it, it's as simple as that.
Also if you want to crowdfund something there's much better ways to do it than an NTF, though in this case it's unclear that you need to do any kind of funding because people are can just donate time.
Most NFT don't save the content of the image/audio/text whatever in the blockchain. Most don't even save a hash of the content to ensure what they are pointing too. They only save an URL that will show you the content, or whatever the owner of the URL wants to show you.
It is possible to store the content of the audio files in the blockchain, but it will be very expensive. Storing the transcript would be expensive, but not so expensive.
I'm not sure how a NFT would be useful here. If you split the talk, perhaps someone can buy the NFT that point to the fist minute, and then only listen to it???
There are some really interesting removals on this list. Michael Malice, who is a very reasonable and interesting commentator if unorthadox, stands out to me. This is a long, long way from the days when the debate was about whether Alex Jones was in our out of the boundary of polite society.
I'm glad that Joe Rogan at got vast amounts of money out of this; it makes the situation a bit more tolerable. But Spotify are not behaving like a responsible editor.
Anyone has a guess as to why federated alternatives to youtube like odysee haven't caught on already ? So much content censored in the last years, there should be a lot of reasons to move.
If anything, the trend is in the other direction: podcasts were once federated, but it’s getting rarer and rarer to be able to get the raw feed instead of going through a platform tied to a client (Spotify, Apple podcasts etc)
End users are conditioned to think of the WWW as a monolith rather than a network of smaller networks, so they don't want to visit "myfriendsfederatedpod.net", they want to visit "platform.com".
Also on the content producer's side, server administration is scary and/or biz-admin overhead.
What is the rationale for deleting those episodes? One of the deleted episodes is an interview with Mike Ward, a Canadian humorist who got sued over a joke. I don't understand.
Yup. Yet another shitty 2022 website that displays content for a second on my phone and immediately clears the page afterwards. How hard is it to create a https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/?
What about the "entitlement" of the web developer who tries to dictate what client (user-agent) may use to retrieve public information. Some users like me have very low requirements for websites. All I need is the text. It takes minimal effort to satisfy those users, much less than using a Javascipt app framework.
Really? Of course you can always do things in a cleverer, more technical, less visual, better performing, "look-everyone-how-i-can-do-it" kind of way.
But I really don't get the point of your comment. It's 2022. If some people publish work that visualizes information for all of us, I'm glad they have Javascript helping them do it.
I think this somewhat misses the point. The content is clearly there. When it fails to load javascript, instead of leaving the content there, it replaces the content with a message about requiring js
That line of thinking is why you need gigabytes of RAM just to check social media, all for a few kilobytes of text. HTML and CSS already give you all the visuals you'll ever need to display a little text.
The "look-everyone-how-i-can-do-it" idea is likely part of the reason that sites like this use an "app" framework. There is nothing sexy about simpler, less technical websites that do not use "app" frameworks.
The issue however is not the use of an Javascript app framework, the issue is that it is falsely pronounced to be "required" and users are shown a blank page or some other ungraceful failure when they turn JS off. Clearly, JS is not required to retrieve the information, as demonstrated above. Yet, the web developer is hostile to users retrieving the information with clients (user-agents) that do not cater to advertising.
Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—things like article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
Might have to do with him using the n-word. He used to use it when describing/talking about the word in a few episodes. Someone went back and made a compilation of every time he did it. Here is his apology/explanation: https://www.instagram.com/p/CZlnH8MAb8L/
This is beyond messed up that he has to apologize. In a way for me the message is : "no matter how decent of a person you are, how appropriate the context is, no matter what the target and the subject of conversation was, one wrong word and you will end up having to beg for the apology"
In that way, I respect Ricky Gervais way more and his policy of not apologizing for a joke just because someone got offended. Unless you said it in a totally wrong context and time, then it's the other's person job to figure out context, subject and the target of the joke.
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you expressing that Spotify taking down episodes is not censorship? Or that a popular podcast with 11-million listeners is not a significant cultural node?
OP's joke is to maintain that JRE is Java Runtime Environment. In that context, a tech support complaint about missing that dependency is something you would not expect to see on hacker news.
Was just a light-hearted joke about JRE. I was first thinking this post is about the Java Runtime Environment.
Considering censorship ... not sure if it is, seeing that Rogan also seems to condemn some language he used in those episodes now. Maybe it's just a change of heart :) How do you know?
The link was just a slight quip, about what the biggest, recent news about censorship for me was: if you are a school teacher in McMinn County, Tennessee, you are not allowed to use "Maus" anymore in class.
There are really worse things going on than a couple of old episodes with profanity being taken down by spotify or by Rogan himself.
I was at a party in Western PA where some friends of family were hosting a UFC party. At the party was a guy with a JRE shirt. While Java's not my favorite, I was happy to at least meet another developer and talk about tech stuff. It took around 3-4 sentences into that conversation to find out it mean Joe Rogan Experience instead of Java Runtime Environment, and there are few times I've been that disappointed.
Related to this topic. I wonder how many of you agree that this cancellation business is just an extension of puritan/protestant ideology masked as social progressivism.
Are they giving any rationale for removing each episode? I would be interested to see why the Tim Ferris episode didn’t make it. Or Bill Burr for that matter - was he not funny enough?
Makes me question the accuracy of the rest
reply