Page 5 | Do you think Spotify should continue to host Joe Rogan's podcast?

lonelyapple · 2022-01-30T17:34:57+00:00

Quite a few singers (Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, Nils Lofgren to name a few) have said they want to have their music removed from Spotify as a protest against Spotify hosting Joe Rogan's podcast (they think he is spreading covid vaccine misinformation), so Spotify will have to choose between hosting their music or Joe Rogan's podcast. I personally think this is ridiculous as Joe Rogan talks to a range of people about a range of different subjects and his podcasts are interesting and popular and people can always choose not to listen to them and even if they do, it doesn't mean they believe everything being said. I don't think Spotify should cave to such threats and I think this would set a dangerous precedent. [[https://www.ft.com/content/a9fdaf0d-8d46-4a16-881f-a1b0635d3ce3]] YANBU - Spotify should keep Joe Rogan's podcast. YABU - Spotify should not keep Joe Rogan's podcast.

FrippEnos · 30/01/2022 20:06

Pumperthepumper

You are making massive leaps in what you are trying to push that I am saying.

An artist removing their own music isn't censorship (and you know this)

and my post wasn't about the company hosting who they liked it was about a person trying to make them do something.

As for the racism reference, what are you on?

Crimeismymiddlename · 30/01/2022 20:06

Of course JR should not be be removed from Spotify, not a big fan of him, but some guests are really good. However I LOVE his friend Tim Dillon, who can be really offensive, but so so funny. I don’t agree with everything he says but it is
nice to hear someone freely airing opinions.
Harry and Megan wedging themselves into it all has given me such a laugh. Say what you like about JR he is earning his 100 million with two many hours long podcasts a week. While H&M have definitely not with one 35min podcast that seems to have cost Spotify 18 million.

LondonWolf · 30/01/2022 20:07

You can’t set up racist usernames on mumsnet, is that censorship?

No because these are agreed, long term values, established in society. Almost everyone agrees on this. Thus adhering to this social norm is not censorship. Issues arising from a recent pandemic are new and need to be discussed and agreed, see also gender ideology and other new-ish social justice causes. The majority must agree for values to become established.

Pumperthepumper · 30/01/2022 20:09

[quote 1dayatatime]@Pumperthepumper

"No, it wasn’t ok then either. Again; free speech isn’t a licence to say whatever flits across your mind without consequence."

+++

So if I was someone influential ( which I'm definitely not!) do you think I should be blocked from saying that "I believe Boris Johnson has lied about the various parties at Number 10 and should resign / be removed", or that " SportsDirect treats their staff appalling and people should try to avoid shopping there".

Or would you allow such comments on the grounds that although they do have consequences , they are "free speech" of views that you agree with and therefore that makes it alright?[/quote]
I don’t understand your logic. You can say whatever you like, you just can’t say it wherever you like or without consequence. So if you said that ok Sports Direct, they could ask you to leave. If you said Boris Johnson was a liar and a cunt in McDonalds, they could do the same. That’s not censorship.

You could start your own multi-million pound social media platform and say what you like. But you’re not entitled to Facebook’s audience, that’s not against free speech.

LondonWolf · 30/01/2022 20:09

Harry and Megan wedging themselves into it all has given me such a laugh. Say what you like about JR he is earning his 100 million with two many hours long podcasts a week. While H&M have definitely not with one 35min podcast that seems to have cost Spotify 18 million.

I'd really love to know if these two sat and listened to multiple 3-4 hour podcasts

Pumperthepumper · 30/01/2022 20:10

@FrippEnos

Pumperthepumper

You are making massive leaps in what you are trying to push that I am saying.

An artist removing their own music isn't censorship (and you know this)

and my post wasn't about the company hosting who they liked it was about a person trying to make them do something.

As for the racism reference, what are you on?

He’s allowed to make them do something though — you’re also allowed to ask Mumsnet if you can be racist. They just don’t have to let you. That’s not against your rights to free speech.

Pumperthepumper · 30/01/2022 20:11

@LondonWolf

You can’t set up racist usernames on mumsnet, is that censorship?

No because these are agreed, long term values, established in society. Almost everyone agrees on this. Thus adhering to this social norm is not censorship. Issues arising from a recent pandemic are new and need to be discussed and agreed, see also gender ideology and other new-ish social justice causes. The majority must agree for values to become established.

Why?

LondonWolf · 30/01/2022 20:12

Why?

You don't understand that social norms become established through wide agreement of the majority?

Pumperthepumper · 30/01/2022 20:13

@LondonWolf

Why?

You don't understand that social norms become established through wide agreement of the majority?

No, I don’t understand why you think private platforms give any attention at all to people’s views becoming mainstream before they decide to host them. Because that’s not true.

FrippEnos · 30/01/2022 20:14

Pumperthepumper

He’s allowed to make them do something though

He is allowed to try and make them do something. There is a difference.

As you said they are a private company they don't have to do it.

Still not sure why you are flogging this link to racism BS.

Pumperthepumper · 30/01/2022 20:14

@FrippEnos

Pumperthepumper

He’s allowed to make them do something though

He is allowed to try and make them do something. There is a difference.

As you said they are a private company they don't have to do it.

Still not sure why you are flogging this link to racism BS.

I don’t know what you mean. I don’t think he can force them to do anything.

Pumperthepumper · 30/01/2022 20:15

Ah, it’s because I didn’t say ‘try’

tttigress · 30/01/2022 20:18

Harry and Megan showing "concern" makes me laugh.

At least Joe Rogan actually manages to put out about 10 hours of content per week.

Tealightsandd · 30/01/2022 20:18

I read elsewhere a good point made by someone.

Sreisand effect. I'd never heard of him before now.

rubicscubicle · 30/01/2022 20:19

Harry and Megan wedging themselves into it all has given me such a laugh. Say what you like about JR he is earning his 100 million with two many hours long podcasts a week. While H&M have definitely not with one 35min podcast that seems to have cost Spotify 18 million.

You can pipe down with the H&M hate wagon, they criticised him long before.

As for their podcasts, all it's saying is that they command a higher premium per podcast than others. So while some have to make daily shows, they don't. Michelle Obama made a big pocket for just a season of 13 episodes. So what about it.

Do you think Spotify should continue to host Joe Rogan's podcast?

LondonWolf · 30/01/2022 20:19

No, I don’t understand why you think private platforms give any attention at all to people’s views becoming mainstream before they decide to host them. Because that’s not true.

I don't think that. I think you're having that discussion with another poster. However I do think that some views - racism for example transgress an accepted social norm by the majority and that is why it is not censorship not to allow it.

Pumperthepumper · 30/01/2022 20:20

@LondonWolf

No, I don’t understand why you think private platforms give any attention at all to people’s views becoming mainstream before they decide to host them. Because that’s not true.

I don't think that. I think you're having that discussion with another poster. However I do think that some views - racism for example transgress an accepted social norm by the majority and that is why it is not censorship not to allow it.

But that doesn’t matter. They don’t have to host them regardless. Because they’re a private company.

LondonWolf · 30/01/2022 20:22

But that doesn’t matter. They don’t have to host them regardless. Because they’re a private company.

I didn't say they did. I was responding only to the point being made about whether not allowing racist usernames was censorship as I believe that to be a false equivalence.

LondonWolf · 30/01/2022 20:23

As for their podcasts, all it's saying is that they command a higher premium per podcast than others. So while some have to make daily shows, they don't. Michelle Obama made a big pocket for just a season of 13 episodes. So what about it.

12 more than H&M...

HeyBlaby · 30/01/2022 20:23

Mitchells stance is a bit strange given her 'Morgellons' claims tbh.

Pumperthepumper · 30/01/2022 20:24

@LondonWolf

But that doesn’t matter. They don’t have to host them regardless. Because they’re a private company.

I didn't say they did. I was responding only to the point being made about whether not allowing racist usernames was censorship as I believe that to be a false equivalence.

It isn’t though. If you believe in ‘free speech’ (in that you can say whatever you like, wherever you like and too bad) then surely social norms don’t come in to it at all? Surely it’s all (freedom) or nothing (censorship)?

TheScenicWay · 30/01/2022 20:30

I’m glad he didn’t get removed. I don’t like this route we’re going down of cancelling, deplatforming and censorship.
We’ll be convicting people for wrongthink ir thoughtcrimes soon if some people could have their way.
It’s not at all the same as racist or sexist content and ridiculous to make that comparison.

steff13 · 30/01/2022 20:31

@AgathaMystery

I don’t care if they remove him or not.

I care a lot about the pregnant women I speak to every single day who remain unvaccinated. I could bore you all with takes of human tragedy surrounding unvaccinated pregnant women but what’s the point.

I do not believe Joe is medically trained so he should not be giving out medical advice.

Well, good thing he doesn't, then.

LondonWolf · 30/01/2022 20:31

It isn’t though. If you believe in ‘free speech’ (in that you can say whatever you like, wherever you like and too bad) then surely social norms don’t come in to it at all? Surely it’s all (freedom) or nothing (censorship)?

I've already explained this. Twice. Of course social norms come into it. And no where have I asserted that free speech is all or nothing. I wouldn't because I believe that to be one note, limited thinking on these matters. I am not going to keep repeating myself. You're trying to have a discussion with me on points I have not made so I don't see any point in explaining myself further.

rubicscubicle · 30/01/2022 20:33

@LondonWolf

As for their podcasts, all it's saying is that they command a higher premium per podcast than others. So while some have to make daily shows, they don't. Michelle Obama made a big pocket for just a season of 13 episodes. So what about it.

12 more than H&M...

So?

I'm quite sure she got paid more than them anyway.