You mean by clicking a link on his website?
How likely is it that google would block joe rogan's website from search results for joe rogan?
I feel like people keep dodging a central issue here - joe rogan is not an independent being silenced on the open web by centralized platforms - he effectively sold the show to one of the platforms. They decide what happens with it (specifics of the terms of their agreement notwithstanding).
this isn't the first controversial audio programming on the internet, but it is the first one that is effectively owned by one of the listening platforms that actually has the power to do something without wading into unfathomably complicated waters, if they want to. that they (until today?) seemed not to want to - or to pretend that their relationship to the show is the same as twitter's relationship to me - is what is keeping this in the news.
To be 100% clear - it's not obvious to me what anyone should do in this case; joe, spotify, etc. I have my own opinions about the cost / benefit on the content but I also know enough to expect that things are probably more complicated than the popular narrative I have access to.
What I do know for sure is that Joe would have more control of his show's destiny, not less, if he had decided to keep distributing in a way that did not give a single entity complete control over whether a given piece of content could be distributed at all.
But why would nobody do that? How hard is it? Maybe it's too much trouble for something you don't care about, but for a content you enjoy, doing one copy-paste isn't very difficult?
Personally I resent Spotify for the whole move to podcasts.
There is still so much to do with music (streaming quality, music videos, lyrics, chords...)
Instead they choose to publish recordings of guys talking -- not experts in any subject, but random guys who are pretty ignorant of everything, and who, because they don't know anything, tend to have a very political conversation. This isn't art. This is just another way of wasting time.
As a result, Spotify is now in the business of policing content. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Correct, but:
1. Everyone wants to be the Netflix of podcasts. 2. It's premium advertising real estate. The ad formats you can chuck into a podcast have higher CPM.
Caveat re 2.: I'm not sure how much advertising contributes to Spotify revenue, so take this one with a grain of salt. It used to be the next hot thing in adtech when I worked in the industry before 2021.
Remember: why charge the user directly, when you can charge them indirectly using a bunch of random middlemen (DAAST, VAST, potato, potahtoh)!
> Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Example of a slightly less stupid* game: The Apple Podcasts app. The UX is mediocre, but the ability to pay for series/bundles is something I'd like to see more. Just let me pay for the content. As much as podcast content can be decoupled from the user agent, I'd like to see the same done with payments.
* or differently stupid
Not for long. I'm already starting to skip algorithmically inserted ads in podcasts because they're annoying claptrap like terrestrial radio ads. Adtech companies don't just come along and "use" ad space. They actively ruin its original value with their tactics.
I'm far more concerned with the terrible search function which puts all sorts of user created crap at the top that pretends to be what it's not, rather than album names.
By the way, based on your standards main stream news and most media content should be discouraged. The vast majority of it is “guys talking -- not experts in the [any] subject, but random guys who are pretty ignorant.”
But yes, as a user and subscriber, Spotify's business decisions matter to me. Because of their decision to host podcasts, which are low-content content and have nothing to do with music, I can't listen to artists who choose to dissociate themselves with that.
It's a loss for me, and the culprit is Spotify.
I have a problem with a service that I thought was all about music, hosting talk shows -- and talk shows that are US-centric, and controversial -- because as a consequence, said service becomes involved in a myriad of controversies and serves less music.
Of course I don't control what Spotify does; I will simply need to take my business elsewhere. It's not the end of the world; but it's annoying.
Now the home page is a bunch of podcasts they're trying to get me to listen to. Even though I've never listened to a single podcast through them.
It's really annoying that recommendations, which are the primary reason I use Spotify, have gotten worse, and the UI has gotten worse, and I now have to scroll past podcasts just to get to music. I cancelled my account because of it.
Spotify is NOT the open web. Rogan can host the audio files on his own site. That’s the open web.
Spotify is under no obligation to offer him or anyone any sort of service if they don’t want to.
I know. My point is that he can do that, and he'd lose most of his reach. Or he can keep his reach, by staying on the big (closed web) platforms, and be at these corporations' mercy. Users have been trained: they want to watch videos, they open youtube.com, maybe TikTok, and start clicking and scrolling. Most people won't expand the effort to keep up with you if you're not on the big (closed web) platforms, who have effectively taken over the web and discoverability of content.
It's like Cloudflare's free speech argument: if you're big and controversial, you essentially need DDoS protection, meaning you're dependent on the goodwill of a few big corporations. From their corporate blog[0]:
> Increasing Dependence On A Few Giant Networks
> In a not-so-distant future, if we're not there already, it may be that if you're going to put content on the Internet you'll need to use a company with a giant network like Cloudflare, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, or Alibaba [to prevent being taken down].
> For context, Cloudflare currently handles around 10% of Internet requests.
> Without a clear framework as a guide for content regulation, a small number of companies will largely determine what can and cannot be online.
[0]: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/
How is this any different than in the analogue world? If you want to rage against "the system" in a local bar or in your living room with a few of your friends, nobody is going to bother you. If you have a large following, you are likely to face counter-speech or even moral suasion by others who don't like what they are hearing.
You're free to speak, but as speech is centralized on private platforms, they get to make sure that nobody will ever hear you. This is good (tm).
And the American left, the ones who used to fight for free speech are perfectly fine with this, so long as they own the platforms. After all, the boot of authoritarianism is fine when you're the one wearing it.
Second, the idea that platforms are reacting to public opinion precisely goes against the idea of authoritarianism.
If we're going down this path -- why don't we talk about talk radio in the US, which is essentially a precusor to Joe Rogan style content and is dominated by right-wing shock jocks. Does the absolute dominance of the right wing on talk radio and the absence of left-wing content mean that there is no free speech? Or I guess to take it to the level of your dystopian fantasy, should we live in a world where cars are programmed to require the listener to listen to talk radio and prevent anyone in cars from turning off the dial?
Oh no, 99% of communication is on private platforms, surely this mean that topical discourse is extremely free as you can always scream into the void.
Pardon my sarcasm, but Freedom of Speech is fundamentally tied to the right to be (reasonably) heard as otherwise you'd have freedom of speech in almost every dystopian setting, provided nobody else hears you.
The reality of the situations is that these private platforms are the public squares of today, and like it or not, they represent the vast majority of communications. As such, the ability to censor across these platforms is vastly more powerful than any private censorship due to it's lack of constraints.
>Talk radio
Are there significant barriers to a left wing talk radio show? From what I understand, the issue isn't in institutional barriers, but instead a lack of a market. However, we've very much seen the inverse for right-wing platform, with anything from payment processors to cloudflare and other core infrastructural components locking them out.
Even better, your horrendous strawman of the cars which force said show upon listener neglects the fact that the Spotify user, if he wishes not to listen to Joe Rogan can... just not hit the play button?
At least in small-l Enlightment liberalism, there is no such "right to be heard" except in the context that people have a right to petition and speak out against the government. You can't compel an audience -- this is why there is a corrolary freedom of association.
I agree with you that what tends to foster healthy social relations and civil society is where there are social norms that encourage debate and opportunities for people from different backgrounds and experiences to interact.
There's a lot of scholarship on that topic and where those spaces exist there are freedoms associated with them, but I think it would be extreme to say that people have a right to an audience.
>The reality of the situations is that these private platforms are the public squares of today, and like it or not, they represent the vast majority of communications.
Internet platforms are a cheap imitation of the town square and I don't see why we should effectively compel speech in order to maintain something like this. Even talk radio is closer to the public square in that much of the programming is live and they take (curated) calls from the listening audience.
The Internet has failed as a viable alternative for the public sphere for a number of predictable reasons. If your argument is that we should have a public square where ideas are openly contested, it's far easier to do that when the decisions are made locally in a manner that's closer to the public.
>Are there significant barriers to a left wing talk radio show? From what I understand, the issue isn't in institutional barriers, but instead a lack of a market.
Talk radio used to be closer to a public square but due to consolidation of local stations under basically a couple of owners starting in the 1980's, right wing shock jocks dominate the schedule. So, to the extent that there isn't a "market," it's for the reason you complain about regarding tech platforms and the result has been the absolute opposite of your complaint -- right wing speech is constantly present there. And frankly, take a look at tech platforms and you'll see that there are huge volumes of right wing content.
>However, we've very much seen the inverse for right-wing platform, with anything from payment processors to cloudflare and other core infrastructural components locking them out.
Those platforms are the opposite of a public square where ideology is contested rather than explicitly defined.
To directly address your point -- a lot of those were shut down for reasons beyond their politics. You can find any number of expressly right wing forums and websites on the Internet. As I've pointed out, talk radio has far more reach and impact than some of these tech platforms for better or worse.
> I know. My point is that he can do that, and he'd lose most of his reach.
The open web never promised that reach in the first place.
Previously, the "open web" was all there was, before the online walled gardens. Users were trained to get information that way. Now that traffic's been captured by the walled gardens that optimize for engagement. There's a reason Google Reader died, Google stated it: "declining use and relevance".
Going viral is essential to growing an audience. TikTok, YouTube, and Twitter offer that. The open web doesn't.
This is revisionist bullshit. Before Facebook et al AOL was the major walled garden. After AOL's star began to fade they and everyone else focused on becoming "homepages" with integrated search. They even provided helpful search toolbars! Social media is just the latest walled garden on the web.
Don't pretend the majority of web users have ever been bravely exploring the corners of every dark nook of the web. The majority has always been on some curated site with little deviation.
But he already had massive reach, that’s why Spotify paid $100 million. If his fans can be relied upon to sign up for Spotify and enter their credit card details you can bet they can be relied upon to click a link on a web page.
I know it’s a weak analogy but look at something like Wordle. It’s not on Steam, or in the App Store. It’s just a web page and it spread like wildfire despite what users are supposedly “trained” to do. We’re not giving people enough credit.
And? If a company spends money building a platform, including infrastructure, they can host whatever they want on it. They also don't need to host what they don't want. It doesn't matter if it's a hosting service or search engine or just a simple directory of links. No one owes anyone else their audience.
You're complaining that people might need to do work to get an audience.
Maybe if he was starting out. At this point his audience would follow him. That's not to mention that while he was a "traditional" podcast anyone could just add his RSS feed and listen. Indeed many of his listeners did just that before the Spotify deal. We're not yet at the point where client software is filtering content for us.
Maybe Joe's bigger problem is he talks too much. He ought to spend time thinking about his business not seeing himself as a celebrity. You know, in a lot of places, stupidity is not well tolerated.
And Joe? Maybe think about something to say. Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr (boxer eg Ali), MLK, Federal papers, Shakespeare, Voltaire are remembered. In the daily spoken world, you'll accumulate many data points. Eventually turn to analysis, reflection, meaning.
Cause if you don't? I can still go back to the good guys above or merely talk to your guests myself. And we'll move on.
> Unidimensional people are boring
Joe has the biggest podcast in the world so obviously people don't find him boring.
> MLK or Ali would figure out how.
Figure out how to what?
"Just host your own website bro."
You'll get unbanked, say you move over to Bitcoin.
You'll then get banned from hosting company because they got a call from somebody, or they themselves were threatened with unbanking.
"Just use your own bare metal bro."
Say, data center will get a call from somebody and will drop you as a client.
"Just build your own data cecnter bro."
Cool, doable, who will uplink you? Comcast? They will drop you as well.
"Just build your own internet uplink bro."
Now this one is hard.
Here's where Web3 comes in, Rogan can host his content in IPFS and accept Bitcoin payments.
If that were to happen, he or his family wouuld probably get physically threatened then, sadly.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. You reap what you sow.
Of course it is not.
It is bait and switch process.
First you get a company create a large platform that makes it very difficult to for individual people to thrive in the space around it.
Then the large company starts deciding what can or cannot be published, effectively making it impossible for some people to even be present in that space.
Now, imagine the same happens for every possible space you could use to contact other people. Videos, podcasts, have a web page searchable on search engines, tweet, instant messaging, and so on and on. You are effectively excluded because your views do not match mainstream or touch controversial or taboo subjects.
I may not agree with Rogan or other people that are being excluded but that does not necessarily give me right to decide whether they shouldn't be heard by other people.
I strongly believe this is where judicial system is supposed to represent us to follow laws to judge which instances of speech are and which are not lawful.
What we have now is effectively mob rule.
Imagine some people win and decide that talking about racism should quieted down. Is it that hard to imagine?
It would be bait and switch if they changed their terms unilaterally. In this case, they always had the right to remove content from their platform whenever they consider it harmful to their platform.
Win what exactly?
Say you are leader of your tribe and you get bit by a dog. Then you decide all dogs should be removed from your village because dogs caused harm to you.
That's what the current social justice machine looks like to me and I don't think they are right.
Aren't right-wingers already forbidding schools from teaching about racism and sexual orientations in many states?
I'm not saying the far right are good either but right now you can't say they have as much an impact on the culture as the far left.
And then you can always rely on multiple options for all of that. That's how we did stuff in the mid-90's.
For example:
https://web.archive.org/web/20040622121025/joerogan.net/main...
You'll get unbanked, say you move over to Bitcoin.
You'll then get banned from hosting company because they got a call from somebody, or they themselves were threatened with unbanking.
"Just use your own bare metal bro."
Say, data center will get a call from somebody and will drop you as a client.
"Just build your own data cecnter bro."
Cool, doable, who will uplink you? Comcast? They will drop you as well.
"Just build your own internet uplink bro."
Now this one is hard.
Here's where Web3 comes in, Rogan can host his content in IPFS and accept Bitcoin payments.
If that were to happen, he or his family wouuld probably get physically threatened then, sadly.
It's only a matter of time before Google Chrome bans viewing url that Google considers harmful, as they already do with phishing URL
A podcast with 10,000 listeners? Wow! Who'd have ever thought our little Joey would attract so much interest? Two years later, Joseph Productions is struggling to keep the doors open with only 500,000 listeners.
Back in the day, people found a website by word of mouth and bookmarked it. 100 page views a week was awesome. 1000 a month was maybe even better than all that money spent stuffing mailboxes with flyers. This internet thing has a lot of potential.
Today? If you can't break into the front page of a Google search, what's the point?
An automaker that sells $1 billion of product is in deep trouble because growth is flat. A city that hosts 2 million convention visitors a year is "struggling" and needs a new Chief of Tourism. A town with a population of 10,000 with clean streets and no crime is at a dead end because they don't have a Walmart and can't attract new businesses.
Human discontent is fascinating.
I see a whole lot of podcasts out there. They're mostly either something that someone does on the side either for fun or as part of their jobs or they're ad supported. (Honestly, I'm often a bit surprised that modest advertising supports obviously sizable staffs--even if I'm sure no one is getting rich.)
YMMV.
Unfortunately, this is the case. As someone who graduated uni in 1995, I pine (lol) for the days where the internet was largely Usenet, IRC, and email listservs followed by the early days of the web. Social media and especially social media apps on mobile devices completely ruined it.
He doesn’t know how to set that up? Oh… that’s sad.
Heck I do it, but I do it for very few podcasts that I already know I like, mainly because discovery is so awkward.
This is easy, they just have to put a widget tile the pod love subscribe button on their site, which makes it relatively easy for the user (if they know which podcast app they are using)
Unless Spotify hired a potato for counsel, no, Rogan probably can’t do that.
And that’s without talking about lots of other sketchy podcasts that have good followings and haven’t been banned.
I'm not so sure. Just put the non controversial episodes on YouTube, then link and advertise the "problematic" episodes that are only available on your own platform.
This is what the Lotus Eaters do:
But as far as I remember it, mask wearing was seen first as being something for paranoid conspiracy theorists, then selfish people, then the narrative was reversed.
Experts were invited on primetime TV to say masks are not recommended to the general public.
I distinctly remember arguing with educated people at work, online, with relatives, that masks should be worn in enclosed public places, months deep into the pandemic.
We would see old people, barely managing to walk, not wear masks while going grocery shopping, because government experts told them they didn't need to. All the while China was in total lockdown and victim counts exploding.
I fear most people would prefer to forget because they played a part in it and it makes them feel dumb. We might get collective amnesia, ensuring this part of the story never reaches the history books. We shouldn't be ashamed though, we've all been victims of misinformation and cultish behavior at one point, the important thing is to draw lessons from it.
In the right wing circles I was familiar with, they did talk about this, and were basically labelled conspiracy theorists or trolls. Then, if you remember, anti-Asian racists for associating it with China.
Masks were also ridiculed early in the pandemic, where authoritative recommendations were explicitly NOT to wear the mask [1]. Funnily enough, the response in said right-aligned communities was to wear masks. This flipped to opposition once govt recommendation flipped and mandates were implemented.
[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-mas...
The social media sites offload their moderation to volunteer tin pot dictators or third world sweat shops.
At the time, the surgeon general cautioned the general public to stop buying masks because, "they had not been proven effective in preventing the spread of coronavirus."
> https://gothamist.com/news/subway-train-operator-says-mta-wo...
Trump's banned on practically all platforms. How many of his fans added his RSS to their app? (Wait, they don't use RSS apps). His only platform is now his website, where he publishes blog posts.
Did his fans follow him to the "open web"? Nope.
> Trump’s Website Traffic Dove a Yuge 99% Year Over Year
> DonaldJTrump.com went from 14 million unique visitors in April 2020 to just 161,000 in April 2021
It's likely Rogan would have been banned from YouTube and Apple Podcasts had he not moved to Spotify. He could have moved to tiny platforms like Odysee or Rokfin that would likely have poor retention rates, or just relied on people adding his URL manually to Apple Podcasts, but come on. Nobody would do that.
The "death of the open web" problem isn't creators somehow consistently choosing to empower companies that keep hurting them. Users are doing that, and creators follow.
Imagine Tim Ferriss gets banned from all "non-open web" platforms today: podcast app indexes, Google Search, Twitter, Facebook, Spotify. We'll imagine he gets banned for zero reason: did nothing wrong, did nothing different, isn't any intrinsically less relevant or popular than he was yesterday. What's left is his website (if you remember the URL), and newsletter if you're already subscribed. You can add his podcast URL to your podcast app, but his podcast doesn't appear in Search. How much of his reach does he lose, overnight? 50%? 75%?
Google Search isn't the "open web", and if they don't list you, you don't exist. How can one creator fix that?