> Whether Rogan understood that several dozen shows were being removed — and may still be getting removed — is also unclear.
42 of his shows have been removed. Even out of 1631 shows, that seems like more than a few. For $100 million he may not care, but for general listeners its a little unnerving that Spotify would be doing this. I'm a grown adult, I can decide what I want to listen to - why are they getting in the way? One of the main of appeals of his program is that he's having interesting conversations with interesting people. He's willing to talk to people with wildly different view points. When Spotify's editors start removing shows they don't like, they also remove part of the appeal of the show. If they find so much of the show unpalatable, why did they make the deal in the first place?
I'm also a grown adult. I can stop paying money to those that host content with Alex Jones (and indirectly basically pay Alex Jones). Not sure I'm representative or part of a larger group than those that want to pay Spotify to hear Alex Jones. Hard to say.
> If they find so much of the show unpalatable, why did they make the deal in the first place?
Completely agree. That said, this is 2% of the content. There is some fraction of the content that makes sense to cut out. It could be zero or one episode, or 2% or half of them. But there is a point where the trouble they get into on some level is just larger than the gain. And I think they just played it safe here.
Also, when other outlets (Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, whatever) ban something or someone, it becomes even less comfortable to keep them on. So it's pretty understandable I think.
If you won’t use a service that lets you make custom playlists just because they also serve stuff that you don’t like to other people, and others do that, we’re going to only have terrible content.
Will you not shop at a bookstore that sells Alex Jones books?
Will you not ride on a bus that allows Alex Jones?
If people expect this level of micromanagement of content platforms then we’re doomed to only have content so boring that no one complains about it.
Shows how protocols are more important than platforms.
> Will you not shop at a bookstore that sells Alex Jones books?
It depends. I’m not going to judge a store by having a large selection of books including things I disagree with. But if the store has a huge display of Jones books on a big table in the center? An Alex Jones book signing is taking place in the store? Yeah I’m probably going elsewhere.
The risk here I think is that people like Alex Jones are included in what we call “the political spectrum”. He’s not part of it. Booting him isn’t a political stance. He’s not some voice of right wing politics or even extreme right or “alt right”.
My concern with your reasoning, and if enough people think similarly to you, is that people don’t like lots of people.
So if people skip a bookstore because they have a JK Rowling signing, they lost customers. And if people skip for a Ben Shapiro signing. And if they skip for a Hemingway signing (raised for the dead through necromancy just for a signing). Etc etc
Bookstores like money so rationally they’ll stop having signings from people who could alienate customers.
I like having lots of choices for books and worry that eventually there won’t be stores that carry the books I want to read. So I tolerate the availability of lots of stuff because that leads to books I like being available.
Spotify being responsible for lyrics is a bad thing. I remember in the 80s and 90s when Congress tried to pressure music labels to censor lyrics on albums. That sucked. Not just because it was Congress but because it made it harder for artists to express their ideas. Companies like Walmart would only carry censored versions or not carry albums at all. That sucked.
People were butthurt about curse words and devil references back then. Being butthurt about gay frogs and Sandy hook stupid conspiracy theories is today’s version, replacing alt right for satanists and cop killers.
I think this collaboration goes a bit further than their regular catalog but ok I agree there is a difficult line to draw here
> My concern with your reasoning, and if enough people think similarly to you, is that people don’t like lots of people.
I think that’s unavoidable that people object to a tiny bit of content so much that they reject a whole company based on it. And it’s also unavoidable that a company would adjust their catalog.
> So if people skip a bookstore because they have a JK Rowling signing, they lost customers.
Indeed. I’m sure there are people who are offended by JKR who would boycott a store that invites her.
> And if people skip for a Ben Shapiro signing. And if they skip for a Hemingway signing (raised for the dead through necromancy just for a signing). Etc etc Bookstores like money so rationally they’ll stop having signings from people who could alienate customers.
Of course. But I’m guessing book signings also drive customers. So the sensible thing commercially is to invite everyone but the alienating ones. Thus creating a set of non-offensive book signings that drive more business than they alienate. I don’t really see the alternative to this setup? Is it forcing book stores to carry books? Banning boycotts by customers? What?
It’s one thing to say “I don’t like this it’s a worrying trend” and another thing entirely to argue the alternative. I can’t see one! (I’m not worried half as much by tech giant censorship as I am about the effect of spread of the content like Jones’ though obviously which is why I’m not concerned about this)
> I like having lots of choices for books and worry that eventually there won’t be stores that carry the books I want to read. So I tolerate the availability of lots of stuff because that leads to books I like being available.
I too like having lots of choices for content. I’m however more than ready to sacrifice a bit of content to remove the platform for some other content so that even people who like it aren’t reached by it. I don’t see a big problem with arbitrarily having someone like Spotify being allowed to decide what falls into the category that should be marginalized.
> Spotify being responsible for lyrics is a bad thing. I remember in the 80s and 90s when Congress tried to pressure music labels to censor lyrics on albums. That sucked. Not just because it was Congress but because it made it harder for artists to express their ideas. Companies like Walmart would only carry censored versions or not carry albums at all. That sucked. People were butthurt about curse words and devil references back then. Being butthurt about gay frogs and Sandy hook stupid conspiracy theories is today’s version, replacing alt right for satanists and cop killers.
Oh I don’t think government should make any laws here. That’s censorship. That’s positively dystopian. But the same works in reverse - should Spotify be forced (by who?) to promote something? I just don’t see why they can’t be free to associate with whatever content they want? Of course there are limits to speech also for book stores (there are a few countries that have extreme free speech protections without many restrictions, such as the US, but even there no one is forced to say or promote anything.)
That I hold them morally responsible for their platform doesn’t mean I think they should be legally responsible or that there should be censorship laws. Free speech is important in the negative, possibly more so. Being able to not promote something is important.
I think the issue is that there’s no single moral authority and if I expect companies to meet my moral standards then maybe one day they meet someone else’s and that will suck. I’d rather companies not try to match what I exactly have and stick to some more objective level like what’s legal/illegal. That’s still subjective but less likely to change.
> should Spotify be forced
Of course not, but I’m suggesting that Spotify not try to micromanage content by removing specific content from artists for arbitrary reasons.
I’m not talking about legal responsibility, I’m taking about them not being jerks and positively contributing to society. I think it’s a net negative for society when Spotify tries to remove stuff like Alex Jones. Or if they were to remove explicit lyrics and curse words.
I’d rather have a protocol that doesn’t differentiate and just lets me choose.
I remember AOL before the web was widespread. It sucked and they literally blocked curse words from their pages. The web was better because it let users choose. Stuff was still taken down when criminal, but in general, I didn’t have to worry whether AOL “promoted content on their platform.”
Spotify is like the legal version of Napster, but Napster was better because it didn’t try to limit or promote content. I liked that it just connected people together and let me discover music. Any lists or promotion was a layer applied on top of Napster.
I think the concept of promoting is also something I don’t want. I don’t want Spotify promoting specific content.
Comically, stuff like this moves me closer to piracy as it just gives a better user experience.
Radio stations are more careful about music selection than record stores, because they are seen as choosing their music making it an expression of their opinion and not their customers. They play it next to messages from sponsors who don't want to be associated with everything and so on. Spotify is obviously closer to record store than radio station, but they do have commercial messages.
(A note for younger readers, a "record store" was a kind of brick and mortar shop where songs were sold engraved onto physical artifacts).
But (and this I think is key): Even record stores have always entirely stayed away from some material. Not just the material that is illegal, but also material that is simply offensive or objectionable. They put Parental Advisory stickers on rap albums, but no main street record stores carried nazi music, for example, even though there was never a shortage of it, and it was never outlawed in many countries. If a band was known as a nazi music band, they weren't showing up on record store shelves with their non-nazi album either. That is - they were boycotted as artists, not merely some objectionable content. I'd put Alex Jones (but not many more of JRE guests) in the "Nazi band" bucket. The ones that record stores didn't have on shelves because customers, owners, employees etc wouldn't stand for it.
My point is: this isn't some "woke" phenomenon of cancel culture. It's the way it's always been.
For many he was one of the last credible places that would give a place to more extreme voices, even if he might not agree. For years he actively advocated free speech and integrity. Commercially it might be part of the deal, but it's understandable many of his listeners feel like he sold out.
Still, Joe openly being an absolute COVID Karen should give people some idea about how much influence Spotify has on what he says.
It's weird that folks are pointing to a phenomena that's been going on for generations as if it is something novel. There have always been winners and losers in who controls the message. While tech companies seem to be aggregating control over some of the message, it's not like corporate America hasn't had control for a long, long time.
Whether it was print, radio, television, cinema, blogs, podcasts, music, or some other media, there's a centralization tendency. We've had breakout periods of democratization along the way, and today I think we're more democratized than we were historically. I'd wager that diverse views are more available today than they were in, say, the 80s.
I think the framing that he was somehow unable to succeed without accepting censorship is a little off the mark. He made what appears to be a deliberate choice to limit his speech to make more money. Is that a failure? I dunno. It seems like part of freedom of speech should include the freedom to make the decision to stop talking about some things in exchange for cash.
The current state of social media and online discourse is causing some serious problems, but I am not so convinced we are going about fixing it in the right way.
Large companies are least able to remove someone from public discourse today than at any other time in the past. The internet is wide open for people to shout into, although it requires work and money to host content. But it’s still far cheaper and easier than its ever been to reach basically anyone around the world.
How do you today compares to historical American freedom of discourse? For example, I look at things like the House Committee on Un-American Activities, where stating pro-socialist/pro-communist views might get someone fired or imprisoned in the 40s-50s. [1] Or the 'Comics Code' of the 60s-00s, where comics publishers agreed to self-censor. [2]
Or the Hay's Code from motion pictures in the 20s-60s, where things like 'Ridicule of the Clergy' were strictly forbidden? (The Supreme Court even deciding that Freedom of Speech did not apply to motion pictures in 1915.) [3]
Or the Parents Music Resource Center who applied the 'Parental Advisory' sticker to music? [4]
You could be murdered or beaten for being pro-union in the 1900s-1910s.
I bring out these examples not to try and add some whataboutism, but rather to try and connect the Spotify/Tech company case to a broader historical context. Yes, these things are bad, and it may also be bad that we're seeing that consolidation today. It's important to be educated about historical precedents, about who had the authority and who was silenced, about which groups held power of which others, and about how we should holistically look at the problem of limiting public discourse.
Far too often I see people narrowly focus on the now, focus on specific recent events and say, "This is an unprecedented shut down of discourse." (And to be clear, this comment is not aimed at you, skohan, but more broadly.) Or, "This is not who we are as a nation!". When in fact, looking through the historical record, we've absolutely been disallowing certain discourse in pretty much every decade for at least the last century.
It may be that it's a different group this time, it may feel novel to folks because they are young and haven't experienced it firsthand, it may feel different because the underlying technologies are different, but fundamentally there is a throughline of shutting down discussions when 'the powers that be' dislike it, and we should be, imo, discussion that broader trend as much as the moment now.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_C... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Music_Resource_Center
I do think that tech control of discourse is an important thing to watch. I don't yet believe that it's impossible for people with extreme views to find a host; I am right now looking at a Google Podcasts page hosting an unquestionably white supremacist, Holocaust-denying podcast. When I was younger, you had to go find yourself a dingy mimeographed snail mail catalog of books to get a copy of Ragnar Redbeard's book. It's way easier these days.
But yes. Even if you think that the danger of conspiracy theories is such that it warrants restraints on free speech, it is also true that you should be extremely concerned with how those restraints are determined and enforced.
That said, if you're not looking at trends over decades, you are likely to overreact to the short term.
I think a huge factor that separates the current state of media from the pre-web-2.0 era is the rise in algorithmic content feeds. It's not just the fact that Google and Facebook allow extremist content on their platforms, it's the fact that they actively promote it to millions of consumers. Those looking to radicalize can find ways to game the algorithms and get their content put in front of massive numbers of users, often with the endorsement of a friend or family member.
I think this is a problem, but I think the current solution is also not a good one. These same organizations which in some ways created the problem have proposed that the solution should be enforcing unilateral control over which speech should and should not exist on their platforms. And as I have said in other threads, this is especially relevant now because the ability to exist on these 4-5 platforms essentially does amount to existing in public life during the pandemic.
I am not attributing malice to these organizations, but I do think we should work towards defining some rules of the road for online discourse, and that these rules should be defined by the public rather than by unaccountable teams inside corporations.
Since we're talking about the past, in the past centuries we defined a legal framework around libel and slander. We also had laws in the 20th century (which have been substantially weakened) which prevented one entity from owning too high a percentage of the media outlets in a single market. I think it's time for us as a society to think long and hard about what rules should be put in place to make online discourse safer and healthier. I am not saying I know what those rules should be, but I don't think it's a responsibility we should just hand to the organizations which have had the most success in the market.
To make an analogy, the average life expectancy has increased massively since the iron age. That does not mean we should not be worried if we observe a decrease in average life expectancy year over year.
Meanwhile, podcasts generally continue to become dramatically more popular, thus taking more and more media consumption time away from the large networks.
"All I know is that first you've got to get mad. You've got to say: 'I'm a human being, god-dammit! My life has value!'" is as relevant in 2021 as it was the 1970s, apparently.
Spotify is not above criticism, I think it is entirely legitimate and called for to criticize Spotify without overstating your case.
The story here is that Rogan took his show off YouTube and onto Spotify as part of a huge licensing deal. Nothing was stopping him from controlling his work prior to that deal.
The other side of the coin is that everyone is selling out. We're just returning to the patronage (clientela) model where everyone parrots the patrons for a cut of the profit, legal contract and everything - except Joe Rogan isn't at risk of dying destitute if he doesn't comply and his patrons are faceless corporations.
If there's an implicit argument in that question I'm not able to discern it.
Nothing to see here from a legal viewpoint, yes. Ethically it's very much looking into how a big platform is using its power to hide certain kinds of content from its viewers.
That's not true. When Joe moved to Spotify his entire catalog didn't move, that's what he "didn't care about".
This is a new wave of canceled episodes. And there's no telling if these "activist" employees will find future episodes or more past episodes "problematic", in which case they may also be removed.
I think it should!
It's disconcerting to see the expansion of platform censorship even if the censored party is aware of it, "doesn't care," and was in on the deal. That "it's just business" doesn't make it a neutral development. Spotify gets to decide what ideologies are acceptable for Spotify listeners. This is just one point on the graph. The overall picture is more and more of this stuff, with little or no resistance.
You like that? You feel nothing either way? There is a moral and political valence to this stuff.
What makes Spotify different from, for example, radio stations deciding which music I should listen to in the 50s? Or TV stations deciding which shows I should see in the 80s?
Media companies have always cared and deliberately curated the ideologies they present -- whether that's a political ideology or a marketing one. (I know that a whole lot of the TV shows of my childhood were aimed at selling me toys, for instance.)
Spotify only cares about the episodes because of concern about injuring their brand via giving offense, which is as close to an ideology as any large corporation gets, to the point where folks (such as you, in this case) get offended by their clumsy attempts to avoid offense.
Rogan doesn't care because it's always been about money. He doubtless took a haircut on his audience by moving to Spotify, all in order to get money up front for less effort on his part.
> In September 2015, Martin launched The Empire Files, an interview and documentary series. She has hosted guests including Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Richard D. Wolff, Ralph Nader and Jill Stein.
I can't tell whether you're running a satire account.
From the articles linked it's almost as if half of Spotify went "yes! Finally we'll have the power to reign that monster in, and silence him. We'll make him our PC puppet! Muhahahaha"
I think it's new. It was intended as a business deal, but the activist-firsts are seeing their chance to silence an enemy.
It's part of their deal. Nothing to see here.