
Spotify reportedly fighting with employees about hosting episodes of Joe Rogan - Reedx
https://www.businessinsider.com/spotify-report-joe-rogan-transphobia-fight-employees2020-9
======
mikece
I’m curious what his contract with them stipulates on these matters. As for
the employees, they could contact Rogan and either ask to come on the show to
discuss what they find so offensive. Joe will talk to anyone, let them have
their say and explain their point of view. Arguing to censor his episode
history only sends the message that Spotify isn’t a platform for intellectual
curiosity and free speech.

~~~
omosubi
I like Rogan's podcast but he definitely won't talk to anyone - When was the
last time there was someone on that didn't agree with him on the major issue
or issues they were brought on the podcast to discuss? They may quibble over
certain things but at the end of the day he wants to have a fun conversation
and arguing with trans rights people for 2 or 3 hours isn't going to happen.
Also they've already censored his history and as far as I can tell he agreed
to it

~~~
hnzix
_> When was the last time there was someone on that didn't agree with him on
the major issue or issues they were brought on the podcast to discuss?_

Rogan's schtick is that he lets his guests explain their ideology without
directly attacking it. Instead he has an assistant fact-check any claims they
make, and Rogan is also very forthright about calling them out on logical
inconsistencies - "you said x just before, now you're saying !x, can you
explain how that makes sense?"

The spirit of open curiosity and honest discourse is important. It also gives
some ideologues enough rope with which to hang themselves, eg the Milo
Yiannopoulos incident.

~~~
xnxn
Why does he then use his own voice to breathlessly repeat debunked rumors
about left-wing activists in Portland? You think he'll correct the record in
the next episode?

[https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-rogan-podcast-forest-
fir...](https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-rogan-podcast-forest-fire-
portland-left-antifa-activists-debunked-2020-9)

~~~
mikedilger
(Washington, left-wing activist, forest fire):
[https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/police-arrest-puyallup-
man-...](https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/police-arrest-puyallup-man-starting-
large-wildfire/2IN46K5QV5GILLJZEJGMIS3L5Q/)

(Oregon, arsonist, forest fire) [https://thepostmillennial.com/arsonist-
arrested-after-using-...](https://thepostmillennial.com/arsonist-arrested-
after-using-molotov-cocktail)

I haven't found the trifecta of ('Oregon', 'Left-wing activists', 'forest
fires'). But I wouldn't have written an article making a claim that it
definitely didn't happen. "falsely claimed" and "debunked" are unjustified
claims themselves.

We are living in a strange time where many people think they know more than
they do.

~~~
srtjstjsj
Excuse me? Where is there "left wing activist" in the Puyallup brush fire?
(Not forest fire, but whatever.)

The article just says it was a streamer

~~~
mikedilger
Fair question (I've upvoted you). Here's more detail on the person that
started it: [https://heavy.com/news/2020/09/jeffrey-jeff-
acord/](https://heavy.com/news/2020/09/jeffrey-jeff-acord/)

------
graeme
This is rather funny, because all the incentives are backwards. Joe Rogan used
to be available on rss, and anyone could listen in any podcast player.

Now Spotify bought him out, limiting his reach and making him only available
on spotify. If the employees succeed, Rogan will revert to rss and
become....more widely available.

I am deeply opposed to Spotify’s efforts to close off the podcast ecosystem,
so I hope the employees succeed.

This does highlight a change in what Spotify is trying to do. They’re
attempting to become a podcast publisher, rather than an app with podcasts
available. With music they’re merely a conduit for the most part.

(Not sure if Rogan has left rss yet, but this wouldn’t change the argument.
He’s due to if he hasn’t)

~~~
whoisjuan
But RSS distribution is hard to monetize. That's why a big part of the JRE
podcast business model was uploading the videos to YouTube and also create all
the highlights and such.

But in YouTube they got several videos demonetized, so there's really no
escape.

This is the distribution problem. If you don't have distribution and rely on
others for that you have to play by their rules even if they are ridiculous or
broken.

I think that the canonical solution for Spotify would be to not run ads on the
"controversial" episodes. Either way it doesn't affect JR since his contract
seems to be lump sums of money for keep creating the content.

~~~
manquer
Being on Spotify and being exclusively on Spotify is not the same.

Given his reach he can make good money doing commericals within the podcast
itself and do perhaps commerical free deal with Spotify.

Distribution is not that hard, discovery is hard . Monetization is hard.

Distribution is fairly easy today , it is not like 80s or 90s where
distribution meant cassette and cd in every retailer. In 2000s the tech was
possible but not cheap enough for a independent producer. Today the tech is
accessible too.

~~~
whoisjuan
> Distribution is not that hard, discovery is hard

I think you and I have different definitions of distribution. I'm not talking
about being able to "distribute" your content per se. I'm talking about
getting enough reach which is a way harder problem.

Just because you can upload videos to YouTube doesn't mean that you will
automatically get traffic. Distribution in this context is not only the
podcast being able to have content in x or y platform, but rather having prime
time treatment so it reaches more audiences.

------
anonu
Cancel culture at it's best. What happened to freedom of speech, freedom of
opinion, freedom to choose.

If Spotify were smart they wouldn't censor any of the podcasts. Instead they
would put a Twitter like message warning the user... As a way to satisfy the
cancel culture crowd.

I don't care about Joe or his views. But I do care about people having choice
and freedom

~~~
threeseed
Spotify has the right to choose what is on their platform.

Spotify employees have the right to voice their concerns if the company they
work for is alienating them.

But I guess that's not the kind of freedom you are interested in.

~~~
liability
> _But I guess that 's not the kind of freedom you are interested in._

I do not see a suggestion by anonu that the people they disagree with should
be deprived of their freedom.

To criticize people for saying something is not the same as saying they
shouldn't have the right to say it. That would only be the case if somebody
had an absolutely authoritarian mindset. It unnerves me how quick some are to
conflate these positions, as though they view the world through an
authoritarian lens and assume others must as well.

 _" People shouldn't say mean things"_ and _" People shouldn't have the right
to say mean things"_ are not equivalent statements unless you are an
authoritarian.

~~~
mpalmer
I'm pretty sure threeseed is pointing out that anonu's comment is selective
about the freedoms worthy of defense.

------
specialist
FWIW, highest recommendation for Philosophy Tube and ContraPoints.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_Tube](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_Tube)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ContraPoints](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ContraPoints)

If you want to learn about something, go to the source.

I'm now +50/yo (SWM) and have had out LGBTQ friends, family, schoolmates,
coworkers most of my life. One of my cousins did gender reassignment 30 years
ago.

On one hand I can't believe we're still talking about this stuff. On the
other, I felt like I needed to understand what people are arguing about today.
(Recommendations please.)

For instance, to better accommodate some of my besties, I've been actively
practicing using singular they pronouns in my every day speech. Old dog, new
tricks. Fortunately, they're patient with me.

I keep thinking about something Marilyn Manson said in the aftermath of
Columbine. The reactionaries were blaming angry music and video games. (Of
course.) Michael Moore asked Manson what he'd say to the kids. Manson replied
that he wouldn't say anything, that he'd just listen. I agree.

So whenever one of these social, cultural food fights flares up, I really
don't give two shits what commentators think. I already know what the peanut
gallery thinks. I can't not know.

Rather, I just want to hear from the people affected.

~~~
moneytide1
The recent Rogan episode was a virtual call, and the guest at one point said
"it is not good that this is what we are spending time talking about". Then
they proceeded to talk about it for a few more minutes before I turned it off
and did something else.

They say many words with interesting variations and perspectives - they make
time for it on a weekly broadcast program for a few hundred thousand people
who also talk about it.

"Stop talking about it." -Morgan Freeman (when asked on 60 Minutes about
something else thought not to be discussed in polite company)

But if it should be discussed then we should make time for it. Sex (similar to
opioid brain response because evolution causes us to associate reproduction
with pleasure) is in the background of everyone's adult interactions by
default. You introduce your friends to each other and association allows you
to have a "vote" in the person that would be born in potentially 9 months from
that evening of acquaintance (1-2 years realistically, since there is the
expectation of courting around shared village getting to know each others
social circle). Therefore "sex" was discussed just by saying "Hello Sally,
meet my friend Harry."

Without saying anything about sex. Or variations on it. Or money paid for it.
Or ways. Crude jokes are rude. An expletive every 10 words is rude. Podcast
discussed that collapsing empires (post Nero Roman centuries) experienced
similar fetish advertisement and public displays, suggestions or anything
remotely topical in debates and decisions among elected officials and
lawmakers.

As a group of friends, in the past, you may have discussed the amount of doe
in the clearing next to your house, and by your friends knowledge of a herd
with mature bucks routinely grazing near their own prairie - food could then
be set out (Breadcrumb Trail) to introduce herds and increase the herd mass
over a few seasons.

There is a sweet spot, and some states have different kill limits set by using
tax revenue to curate&monitor local herds (that migrate across county lines),
but you are essentially "pruning" a population (overfishing takes much longer
to return from than if we allow the mass to hover at an ideal size to continue
to farm from. See Joel Salatin diaper/teenage/nursing home grass metaphor to
describe sigmoid curve growth rate of "solar collector" for optimal grazing
routine[1]). Ideal to lure the dense, seasoned buck that has fathered many
children using a female call away from where you know a herd could be so that
the productive mass never sees the kill and can feel safe enough around the
acreage to continue and remain "fenced" by comfort. They will nibble on
commercial farmland perimeter and thus there are higher kill limits in states
with lots of agriculture and intentional "buffer" land for herds to graze
(some farm plots are set aside and meant as feed for wild venison source).

Here on HN about a year ago there was a journal suggesting a link to several
decades of birth control in the sewage of cities running into natural water
drainage and increasingly feminized fish populations (therefore reduced
numbers).

Regardless of the sewage runoff, birth control has been available to several
generations of mothers. This means decades of manually overriding natural
hormone regimen to drastically reduce fertility "temporarily" (on purpose for
sex without "consequence") until the Pill's effect "wears off". Some mothers
had their children before trying "the Pill" \- maybe there are entire
generations of "pure" mothers who never used birth control. Could blood tests
verify this?

If Chinese one child per family era preferred male fetus, then there are fewer
fertile Chinese females now. If there are fewer potent American males (self
castration to change gender), then that means there is a surplus of American
females without fertile male mate.

[1] [https://youtu.be/O7KEHzUl0tg](https://youtu.be/O7KEHzUl0tg)

------
dx87
I guess they're focusing on the JRE podcast because it's so popular, but they
already host podcasts that you'd think their "LGBTQAI+/ally" employees would
be up in arms about. Just a quick look through the recommended podcasts in the
web player, and I see Ben Shapiro's podcast on there, who has much more
extreme views on LGBT rights than Joe Rogan does.

~~~
dogma1138
Rogan’s views aren’t extreme no sexual reassignment for minors and no XY in
female sports isn’t an extreme view.

~~~
sp332
I haven't seen any trans* advocates pushing for sexual reassignment for minors
either, so I think that's a straw man to make them look bad.

Edit: I should clarify that I'm looking for an example, if you have one.

~~~
np_tedious
[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sex-change-treatment-for-
kids-o...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sex-change-treatment-for-kids-on-the-
rise/)

And this is from 2012. I'm frankly not sure how I feel about this issue. On
the one hand, you could argue it's better to transition before puberty
solidifies the undesired sexual characteristics. On the other, certainly some
of these kids would end up feeling OK fine with where nature brings them after
puberty passes. It's a tough issue and I respect both viewpoints.

More broadly, your reasoning here is rather silly. Just because you haven't
noticed something yet doesn't mean it isn't a real thing.

~~~
sp332
I think the terms used in the article are confusing. The clarification is
about halfway through:

 _The drugs used by the clinics are approved for delaying puberty in kids who
start maturing too soon. The drugs ' effects are reversible, and Spack said
they've caused no complications in his patients. The idea is to give these
children time to mature emotionally and make sure they want to proceed with a
permanent sex change._

The sex reassignment doesn't happen until they are at least 16 (which is still
earlier than I expected).

~~~
dogma1138
That’s the thing puberty blockers aren’t exactly reversible when used for any
substantial duration and quite often cause developmental issues in general,
these aren’t cases of premature puberty you can’t just pause it for a few
years and expect things to go back.

~~~
666lumberjack
>Puberty blockers aren't exactly reversible

That's not what the medical consensus[1] says. I hope you have some damn good
evidence to the contrary if you want to deny tens of thousands of people
access to life-saving medical treatment.

[1]
[https://www.seattlechildrens.org/pdf/PE2572.pdf](https://www.seattlechildrens.org/pdf/PE2572.pdf)

~~~
dogma1138
It’s really not which is why medical associations are putting more strongly
worded guidance these days: [https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-nhs-has-
quietly-chan...](https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-nhs-has-quietly-
changed-its-trans-guidance-to-reflect-reality)

~~~
DanBC
Quoting the spectator destroys any kind of argument you're trying to make. The
Spectator isn't a credible source for any medical information, especially for
anything about GIDS and GICS.

They're an explicitly anti-trans publication, and have posted many articles
railing against trans acceptance.

James Kirkup spends his days posting anti-trans material on twitter.

Because he's driven by his ideology of hate he makes a load of mistakes
throughout this article. For example:

> Although the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) advises this is a
> physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the
> psychological effects may be.

This isn't talking about the effects of hormone suppressants, it's talking
about the psychological harm of discontinued transition for people with gender
dysphoria. If you start a course of treatment thinking you're finally on a
pathway to full transition, and then you have to stop for some reason, that
stoppage causes harm.

Another example is the way he claims to be talking about puberty suppressants,
but then links the list off effects for cross-sex hormones. Those are never
given to people under 16 in England, so they're not relevant to a discussion
of puberty suppressants.

> why has the NHS so significantly changed its main publication on hormone
> treatment for children without any announcement or fanfare?

Because that's how the NHS website works. This is, frankly, a silly point.

> Given that the NHS now says that hormone therapy for gender-variant children
> has unknown long-term effects on the physical and mental health of those
> children, why is the NHS still using such treatments on children?

We don't know if these are harmful or not (but all the evidence we have so far
suggests not). But we do know that denying children access to these meds
causes harm. There's not much difference here between puberty suppressants and
many other meds used for children. We don't know the long term effects of a
bunch of meds, but you don't hear the Spectator ever talking about those meds.

~~~
dogma1138
I’m not quoting the spectator I’m showcasing the changes the NHS has
implemented to their guidance following the investigation into the Tavistock
clinic and the studies the NHS commissioned.

We don’t know anything yet mostly because we don’t actually have studies in
which puberty blockers were reversed all the studies such as those in the
Tavistock clinic the the Dutch Study that showed that puberty blockers are
safe didn’t actually had cases where these were stopped but in all cases went
into cross hormone therapy and then surgical transition, those that didn’t end
in suicide or severe self harm at least.

~~~
DanBC
> I’m not quoting the spectator I’m showcasing the changes

Everyone can see the link that you posted. You could have posted links to the
Wayback machine, but you chose to post a link to a transphobic article in a
transphobic magazine written by a transphobic writer.

Your second paragraph is incoherent. I can't understand what you're trying to
say.

> We don’t know anything yet

This is wrong.

> but in all cases went into cross hormone therapy and then surgical
> transition

...because they're very careful about who gets those meds, and they're only
given to children with severe gender dysphoria.

------
t_sawyer
Lol but they’ve got no problem with Spotify hosting Eminem songs since it’s
inception? This is ridiculous.

~~~
grapehut
Eminem never said that trans-women shouldn't be allowed to compete in womens-
MMA fighting.

~~~
mikece
And Joe is an expert in the field of MMA. He didn’t just say that trans women
should not be allowed to fight in women’s MMA but cited medical science to
back his opinion. Outside of women’s MMA Joe is all for trans rights but in
the case of women’s MMA it’s his opinion that a trans woman will end up
literally killing someone born with XX chromosomes who still identifies as
female (I don’t know of a less clumsy way to say that which is weird).

~~~
DanBC
> (I don’t know of a less clumsy way to say that which is weird).

Cis-woman.

------
CivBase
Hosting content should not be treated the same supporting it. Plain and
simple. A host should have the right to curate the (legal) content they host
according to whatever rules they want, but simply hosting it alone should not
be treated as tacit endorcement. Otherwise, discenting voices will be left
without a platform.

~~~
mef79
Spotify should be permitted to host what it wants to. But they should also
listen to their employees who do the work that makes the platform run. This
article isn't about an angry Twitter mob making demands of a private company,
it's about workers raising an issue with the company leadership and expecting
an appropriate response (which does not necessarily mean removing content)

The article is pretty sensationalized - it does not explicitly cite what the
employees were looking for or what the leadership was willing to do. We've got
the content of two employees' questions, a comment from the CEO that doesn't
seem to be a response to either of them, a canned response from a comms person
after the fact, and a rehash of Rogan's latest controversies.

~~~
justapassenger
> But they should also listen to their employees who do the work that makes
> the platform run

Should they listen to all employees, about every single issue? What if only 1%
if employees ask for it? Or 10%? Where’s the line?

> This article isn't about an angry Twitter mob making demands of a private
> company

I don’t work at Spotify but worked enough at big companies to disagree with
that. Behavior of employees inside trendy tech companies is very much like
angry Twitter mob.

------
dmingod666
In most places and industries other than IT employees do their work and get
paid. IT is the only industry where they seem like they are activists first
and then employees later. I doubt they would be able to do this sort of a
thing in for example an insurance company or a petroleum company.

I probably think its a mix of scarcity of talent and the political leaning of
silicon valley. Either ways, looks like people hired to do something else are
calling the shots and people that are supposed to make decisions are getting
walked all over. Any other industry would put these activists in place and be
told to focus on doing work or quit and get into politics.

------
asquabventured
Identity politics will destroy our country. Whatever happened to freedom of
thought? Shameful

~~~
tootie
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.

Rogan is mostly an opinion guy but he has spread covid disinformation and
hosted guests like Alex Jones who say things like Sandy Hook was staged.
That's not harmless self-expression. Spotify is under no obligation to host
anyone's content and certainly not required to pay $100M for content that is
detrimental to society.

~~~
asquabventured
He has guests from all spectrums, I believe it's healthy to listen to all
sides and debate them on their merits.

Regarding your point about "harmful to society" I would argue that there are
plenty of individuals (not myself) who would claim vulgar lyrics or promotion
of drug use is "harmful to society" but I don't see those individuals having a
voice and trying to cancel and deplatform those ideas.

~~~
gadabout
> He has guests from all spectrums, I believe it's healthy to listen to all
> sides and debate them on their merits.

One could easily argue that Joe does in fact _not_ debate many of his guest
and instead allow them to use his show as a platform if they so desire.

> Regarding your point about "harmful to society" I would argue that there are
> plenty of individuals (not myself) who would claim vulgar lyrics or
> promotion of drug use is "harmful to society" but I don't see those
> individuals having a voice and trying to cancel and deplatform those ideas.

Those individuals are still alive and loud depending on where you live.

~~~
cipher_system
> One could easily argue that Joe does in fact not debate many of his guest
> and instead allow them to use his show as a platform if they so desire.

I haven't watched a lot of JRE but in general I see nothing wrong with people
having the time to layout their thoughts and opinions more or less
uninterrupted for an extended period of time and then listen to rebuttals and
debate in comments or separate blog posts, videos etc.

The other end is political debates or interviews with opinionated journalists
where they barely have time to say a sentence at a time. This doesn't have to
be bad but a lot of time its just bickering and platitudes. It doesn't provide
much depth.

------
zepto
This seems antithetical to everything Joe Rogan presents himself as in his
show.

I think it’s entirely reasonable for Spotify employees to want a catalog
without what they think of as transphobic material.

But it seems completely incompatible with hosting Joe Rogan’s show.

I would presume that the contract gives Spotify no editorial control over the
content.

This is going to be interesting.

~~~
dx87
Yeah, I don't know how it's going to work. He's said previously on his show
that he only signed the deal with Spotify because they were going to be hands
off and not control who he could talk to, including Alex Jones. As soon as his
past episodes were uploaded to Spotify, it was clear that someone was
mislead/lied to. Some episodes weren't uploaded to Spotify, like Alex Jones
and one of his friends who's a flat earther, but also some comedians that got
cancelled by twitter mobs.

------
StringyBob
As a Spotify premium subscriber, I don’t particularly like that a chunk of my
subscription is going to their ‘exclusive podcasts’, while musicians I listen
to are getting minimal payouts. I’d be much more comfortable with _my_
subscription being split amongst the things _I_ choose to listen to.

------
zepto
Also noticeable - business insider’s reporting on his recent episode with Tim
Kennedy is a total misrepresentation.

Edit: The vice piece also misrepresents him.

Edit: I’d go further than ‘misrepresent’ - they lied about what he said.

~~~
rbecker
Want to explain, for those of us not keeping track?

~~~
zepto
Sure - here is one of the claims made by business insider:

“Joe Rogan made the inflammatory and false claim in a podcast episode on
Friday that Caitlyn Jenner could be transgender as a result of living with the
Kardashian women.”

This is a false statement, which I would call a lie.

Joe Rogan spent 20 minutes talking to Tim Kennedy about how about the
difficulty of doing comedy in the environment of political correctness. He
illustrated this by talking about a joke he told during a stand up routine. In
that joke, he spent the first half talking about how his own masculinity was
being taken away piece by piece because he lives with 3 women by a process of
continuous attrition. Then he made the joke of suggesting that this might be
what happened to Bruce Jenner.

This simply isn’t the same as what the reports say. If you believe he was
making this as a ‘claim’, you would also have to believe that he was making
the same claim about himself. Both statements were made in the explicit
context of explaining the challenges of making jokes about socially sensitive
issues.

It’s more than just a misrepresentation - it’s a lie to say that he claimed
Bruce Jenner was turned trans by the Kardashian women.

He didn’t make that claim. He used it as an example of a joke which is hard to
tell because it’s politically incorrect.

It would be fair to say he made a joke that many people see as transphobic.

------
S_A_P
Joe is a centrist in leftist clothing. I honestly think this is a good thing.
I dont 100% agree with his point of view but we need to figure out how to
compromise or just expect a red vs blue civil war. I don’t want this at all. I
don’t want to shut down anyone that has a different point of view from me
either. Why are we so intent on being right and not compromising??

~~~
S_A_P
What specifically is middle of the road Joe Rogan saying that is “anti
transgender”? Serious question.

~~~
sp332
"They have this agenda," he said, "and this agenda is very ideologically
driven that anyone who even thinks they might be trans should be trans, are
trans, and the more trans people the better. The more kids that transition the
better."

[https://www.menshealth.com/entertainment/a33391944/joe-
rogan...](https://www.menshealth.com/entertainment/a33391944/joe-rogan-
abigail-shrier-interview-transphobia/) but you can probably find other
sources, it's a direct quote.

~~~
ALittleLight
That might be right or wrong, but I don't see how it's transphobic. If I said
Catholic people have an ideological agenda to make more people Catholic, they
want to make their kids Catholic, they want to make your kids Catholic, they
want to make YOU Catholic - that might be right or wrong, depending on the
Catholics, but I don't see how saying it would demonstrate a prejudice against
Catholics.

~~~
foldr
Catholicism is an explicitly evangelical religion. The idea that trans people
want to turn everyone trans is a scare story. We used to hear the same scare
stories about gay rights activists trying to turn kids gay. Generally, scare
stories like this don't come from a good place. If you're saying that someone
could be innocently misinformed, then sure, that's possible in principle, but
good intentions only go so far. They'd still be spreading damaging
misinformation about a highly contentious issue.

~~~
foldr
(Late correction: I meant to say 'proselytising', not 'evangelical'.)

------
fareesh
If you are a Muslim or Christian working at Spotify and Rogan hosts Sam Harris
or Richard Dawkins or (Hypothetically) Christopher Hitchens, who come on the
show and proceed to lambast the beliefs held by people of these religions, is
Spotify expected to seriously entertain this protest and take down the
episodes?

Frankly I see zero difference between this and what is happening here. It is a
protest against blasphemy.

If this is truly not a religious topic but a scientific one, then what is the
harm in a qualified person coming on the show and presenting some facts and
drawing conclusions?

Why not offer to go on the show, bring these people back on and challenge
their position? Rebut all of the points and present the flaws and reasons why
that conclusion is incorrect. That is part of the scientific method.

Or has western society reached a stage where the goal is to deplatform the
positions that don't align with one's own, instead of debating them and
prevailing through argument? Why is it that so often the first course of
action is to censor and deplatform?

There seems to be far too much dogma in the discourse. Furthermore small
fringe groups are claiming to speak on behalf of their entire identity group.
This too is extremely bigoted. Not everyone in the same identity group
believes the same things.

------
sneak
Spotify also have up a ton of gangsta rap about premeditated murder and
physical abuse of women. We don't need more censorship.

If you try to cancel publishing platforms like facebook or spotify for the
content they host, the end result of success there means that you won't be
able to listen to a single song with a swear word or sex/drug references it
in, as everything is now cloud based.

I hope that doesn’t happen. I don’t like Dr Dre or Biggie as human beings who
make bad moral choices, but I enjoy their music that describes violent and
abhorrent acts.

------
emmelaich
Sort of relevant. An Australian Press Council adjudication against "The
Australian" newspaper:

[https://www.presscouncil.org.au/document-
search/adj-1783/](https://www.presscouncil.org.au/document-search/adj-1783/)

> _The publication said the word “epidemic” is appropriate when reporting the
> exponential increases in those attending gender clinics and the term “social
> contagion” is an accepted term in social science and was taken from areas
> such as anorexia and suicide attempts, and where its relevance to
> adolescents, attitudes and behaviors is widely documented_

Adjudication:

> _However, the Council considers there is public interest in vigorous public
> debate particularly when it concerns submissions made to a parliamentary
> inquiry. The Council considers that to the extent there was offence and
> distress it was justified in the public interest._

------
dontcarethrow2
So what happens in the future when they have exclusivity and he throws another
similar joke in there? Skip the joke or not host the whole episode? Not allow
it to begin with?

~~~
notsuoh
Have you referred to the contract? What does the contract say about these
situations?

------
not_a_moth
As a long time listener I will go to bat for Joe's show, he is a loving,
rational, open person, and he simply does not platform hateful people or not
challenge unjust statements.

Some media, political actors, and certain people who don't listen to his show
want to spin him as a hate speech alt-righter, especially now on this election
year since he platforms Bernie and Tulsi but is against Biden.

Find the amount of baseless slander against him disturbing.

~~~
StillBored
Yah, people on both sides condemn him because he will have Alex Jones on his
show one week and then Bernie the next, two people about as far from each
other as possible.

He reminds me a bit of Charlie Rose's ability to just talk to people on both
sides of the political spectrum. And do it without creating a lot of drama.
And like Charlie Rose, he will call people's BS (and let them call his), but
then move on before it gets heated.

So everyone can find something to hate about him if they try for 1/2 a second,
but in reality I think those people are the problem, which is actually one of
ongoing central themes he carries, when he talks about how he doesn't read the
comments on his episodes/etc anymore. Personally, I believe there is a place
for the social shunning (and alex jones might be one of them), but I'm also of
the opinion its being wielded for petty/trivial things by people who are only
interested in censoring people they don't agree with. This article being one
of them. The guy literally has something like 3k+ hours of conversations
online, and they find a couple sentences they find challenges their world and
they are trying to deplatform him. I'm actually a fairly large supporter of
"you can do anything you want in your bedroom" which extends to marrying
anyone you please. But I don't really need gay pride flags, and lunch and
learns about it at work. The people trying to shout him down are doing more to
harm their cause IMHO than JRE ever could.

~~~
koonsolo
On the other hand, tons of people love his podcast for this (including me). To
me it really feels like he meets an interesting person at a bar and they have
a long interesting conversation.

I think we all are tired of journalists that are fishing and pushing their
guests.

There will always be haters when you are so popular. But don't forget that he
remains really popular.

------
slowhadoken
Some argue this issue is about free speech, others say it’s just business. I
believe in free speech so if Joe gets pulled down then I’m canceling my
subscription.

------
mikedilger
Joe Rogan makes an apology and a retraction:
[https://www.instagram.com/p/CFSYnUFA8Fb/?igshid=z7u5pv3sjemu](https://www.instagram.com/p/CFSYnUFA8Fb/?igshid=z7u5pv3sjemu)

Given the vast amount of conversations he records and releases, it doesn't
seem suprising in the least that he would make a mistake here and there.

------
Mathnerd314
"Vice reported", "Vice said"... link the original article:
[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xg8jq4/spotify-joe-
rogan-...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xg8jq4/spotify-joe-rogan-
transphobic)

------
lvturner
Perhaps I am naive, but for me something simple like:

"Warning, the following content may offend some listeners and contain factual
inaccuracies. The content presented does not represent the views of blah blah"

Would help

Certainly, I appreciate Facebook's "Sensitive Content" screen, and wish it was
used more widely on content.

~~~
linuxftw
This warning is implied for all information, all the time.

~~~
krageon
Originally this comment irritated me a little, but to be quite honest I think
it is reasonable and desirable to retrain everyone to think this way. If some
content is a big problem for you, then you can and should definitely stop
consuming it - warning stickers aren't going to help you do that and will
never cover the nuance of sensibility you have as a real human being anyway.

~~~
linuxftw
The problem people have with my comment is that it undermines the implicit
assumption that 'authorities' are inherently trustworthy. Sense of trust,
sense of authority, those are very powerful emotional motivators. Challenging
those ideas is cause to challenge one's self, and that's uncomfortable for
many people.

------
ALittleLight
There's a quote in the Vice article that this seems to be based on discussing
a recent guest Shrier who wrote a book against transgender youth.

"She also described wanting to transition as a "contagion" with the potential
to infect other children, an entirely scientifically baseless idea, Men's
Health noted."

The idea that transgender identification is, in part, a social contagion, is
the subject of academic research. [1]

It seems odd and inappropriate to me that Vice, and consequently Business
Insider, cite "Men's Health" magazine as the definitive source on what is or
isn't scientific and ignore actual academic research on the topic. It's also
dishonest that they phrased it to elide the "social" part of the phrase, to
make it seem as if the guest were claiming trans identification is
communicated as a disease is.

Articles like this are something of a depressing reminder that journalists are
basically bloggers who quickly bang out a story about current events for their
audience. I think, ideally, journalists would try a bit harder to be fair and
impartial.

1 -
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6095578/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6095578/)

~~~
4ggr0
This reminds me of people back in the day saying that homosexuality is a
"disease" which is being spread by homosexuality.

I'm not a scientist, but isn't it just the fact of being educated that such
exist? If I don't know about transgenderism, or I know about it but people
view it as a negative thing, I would never get the idea of being it myself,
right? I just live my whole life with a strange feeling of not really knowing
who I am. If, on the other hand, I know about it and the culture is accepting
of it, I can finally know who I am because I feel like I found myself.

I really doubt that people start hormone-therapy just because they heard about
transgenderism and were somehow brainwashed into thinking that they are trans
as well...It actually sounds like a disgusting theory to me, could come from a
certain german group in the 1930's.

If I was born 100 years prior, I probably never would've known that I have
ADHD or am Bi-Sexual. Now with the internet all the information is available
to me and I suddenly get to know myself. I doubt that the internet or the
culture made me bi or ADHD. I just found out thanks to those things :)

People back in the day were labeled as dumb people because they couldn't read,
now we know that there's a thing called dyslexia.

Anyways, sorry for going on a tangent, just what I thought when reading this
discussion.

~~~
auganov
> This reminds me of people back in the day saying that homosexuality is a
> "disease" which is being spread by homosexuality.

You're just assuming that the hypothesis of contagion necessarily carries some
negative connotation.

I generally tend to believe there's a strong contagion element to all kinds of
behaviors. But that doesn't inherently make them wrong.

A lot of the born-this-way arguments for all kinds of phenomena arose simply
in response to negativity. The point being "if I can't change it, you cannot
judge me for it". Almost implying that it is indeed a bad thing.

------
troughway
>"Many LGBTQAI+/ally Spotifiers feel unwelcome and alienated because of
leadership's response in JRE conversations. What is your message to those
employees?" another read.

Identity politics. Something tells me if JRE wants to go on Spotify he will
have to massively self-censor, which will ultimately make it easy for another
grassroots JRE-alike to take his place and do what he originally did - have
candid, open and honest discussions about whatever topics come up.

Shitty, but I guess he's laughing to the bank if he goes through with it.

~~~
mikece
I don’t think Rogan _needs_ Spotify’s money. If he continues as before with
zero changes then it’s on Spotify to send the message to all potential
partners wether they will be free to be themselves or if they will be
censored. I’m sure Spotify’s shareholders will have a lot to say if
editorial/censorship decisions reflect negatively on the bottom line.

Side note: it’s amazing to me we’re even having the discussion of censorship
about a self-described liberal. Imagine what Spotify’s staff would do if they
tried to land one of the biggest conservative podcasters?

------
iconjack
I wonder if any of these concerned employees have ever listened to the rap
songs Spotify so proudly hosts and promotes.

------
spodek
Do I misunderstand their motives or should we remove Huckleberry Finn and Mein
Kampf from libraries and school curricula too?

------
alphachloride
What constitutes transphobic exactly? Is it in the eye of the beholder, like
porn: you'll know it when you see it?

~~~
sp332
He had Abigail Shrier as a guest to promote her book called _Irreversible
Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters_ , so that's kind of a
bright line?

~~~
alphachloride
I do not agree. How is that transphobic? Is the action of inviting an author
motivated by irrational fear of trans people? Are the views[1] of the author
irrational and based in fear of trans people?

My understanding is the author is skeptical of the rise in reported cases of
gender dysphoria over time. She contends that the rise in cases is partly a
result of tangential social influences that are ultimately detrimental do
development of kids. Rational skepticism is not phobia.

[1]:
[https://www.amazon.com/dp/1684510317](https://www.amazon.com/dp/1684510317)

~~~
UncleMeat
> How is that transphobic?

This is a frustrating line of argument. What would make you the authority on
what transphobia is?

> Are the views[1] of the author irrational and based in fear of trans people?

To "arrive" does not mean "to cross a river". To be "awesome" does not mean
"to be terrifying". Meanings are not constructed by etymology. Transphobia is
not "the irrational fear of transgender people".

The author is not a "rational skeptic", as clearly evidenced by her wildly
biased choice of analysis presented as solid science. Her work has been widely
criticized by the scientific community and is not far off from forming
opinions about racial differences in IQ by asking aparthied leaders about
their opinions and experiences and taking it as gospel evidence.

~~~
alphachloride
I do not presume to be an authority. In fact, that is what my original comment
was asking: What is transphobia? You have rejected one definition but failed
to provide an alternative. That leads me to the second part of my original
comment: is it something subjective that you'll know when you see it?

I'll have to read her work in more depth to form an opinion on the rigor of
her work. Suffice to say, I view your evaluation of her work with skepticism
as well.

------
hervature
I am posting this because there seems to be a large misunderstanding about the
Alex Jones episodes being "removed" by Spotify. I am also going to give you a
warning. I am going to post a link to Infowars, yes, that Infowars. It is one
of the few sources that actually attempts to clarify the story behind the
"removed" episodes. If you are a reasonable person, you would take this
opportunity to reevaluate the sources you listen to that have been pandering
to their readers about how controversial Joe Rogan is and question why these
sources weren't interested in actually getting to the bottom of the removed
episodes instead of causing sensationalism.

Here it is, according to Alex Jones [1], the reason why certain Joe Rogan
episodes were removed from Spotify is because Joe Rogan gets to keep hosting
his favorite 100 episodes on Youtube. A shrewd business decision as Spotify
gets time to decide how to handle the Alex Jones episodes and Joe gets to have
his most profit making episodes still on Youtube. Now, ask yourself, why is it
that this news is coming from such a controversial figure? You may call him a
racist, bigot, transphobe, xenophobe, or whatever. But you can't deny that the
media failing to actually report on the story and the real story coming from
Alex Jones just adds credibility to all his other views. Be it Sandy Hook,
George Soros, or psychic vampirism.

[1] - [https://www.infowars.com/alex-jones-spotify-is-not-
censoring...](https://www.infowars.com/alex-jones-spotify-is-not-censoring-
joe-rogan/)

~~~
krageon
> If you are a reasonable person

Alex Jones plays an insane persona to make money off of his viewers. This is
an established fact that he himself has admitted to. Thus, taking the words of
what is essentially a cartoon character as any kind of truth is in itself the
evidence of someone who has lost touch with reality. If that is you, you need
(and deserve) help.

~~~
hervature
If you re-read my comment, the only thing that I am saying is why the
mainstream media is sensationalizing this event "OMG - Alex Jones removed from
Joe Rogan's Spotify :o!!" vs. actually asking for Spotify and Joe Rogan to
comment. If there is no comment, there is no story.

