Wasn’t there a big thing about him retaining editorial control? Seems like that went out of the window on day one.

Easy for me to say, but he should have stayed independent and tried to avoid dependence on one platform. He could really have put a dent in the MSM model, probably ultimately made even more money and not be answerable to anyone.

Public taste is unpredictable. Podcasting success depends on so many little factors going right. I imagine it's like a developer doing freelance work. Inevitably they have to spend time managing the flow of work instead of actually developing. Getting money from Spotify probably meant "Hey, we don't need this whole folder of spreadsheets anymore. Let's redirect that effort toward a better production!"

He spoke about this (I’m not sure what episode) and they asked him if they could skip some of those episodes (Milo and a few others from this post). Rogan agreed. Jones has been on since and agreed he’s entertaining and knows he fucked up about the Sandy hook being staged thing (and obviously right about a bunch of others).

I don't follow Alex Jones or Joe Rogan. What has Alex Jones been correct about?

I can't think of anything, but people undersell how reasonable his misses are.

Eg, there was the Pizzagate thing where he apparently claimed that there was a child sex trafficing ring with political involvement in some pizza shop, but the actual child sex trafficing ring was Epstein. Or the war in Afghanistan was a disaster because it was an inside job when it turned out to be a disaster for more mundane reasons.

So on the one hand he's wrong about everything, and on the other hand it is entertaining trying to keep score of which bits of the madness turn out accurate. There is a hilarious argument that someone starting from his position and then taking a levelheaded approach to policy could get a better outcome in many instances than what actually happens.

>which bits of the madness turn out accurate.

But none of the bits in your example turned out to be accurate? Afghanistan was a disaster for a long time, and child sex traffiking rings involving the powerful have been around for a long time (Dutroux). He just adds conspiracy nonsense to these old stories?

If child sex trafficing rings are so common among the powerful then that then that should indeed be a top topic of conversation. If there was a more reasoned voice than Jones who wants to talk about that continuously then they should be getting a lot more press.

The worst impact Rogan has is the normalization of paranoid-conspiratorial logic under the guise of critical thinking. I mean, he's basically primed millions of people to be ready to eagerly accept bullshit.

television does that way more than joe rogan.

It appeals to a certain demographic that television doesn't. Whataboutism at its worst.

You can search this pretty easily but the most obvious one is he was taking about Epstein years before the rest of the media.

No one can tell you here without passing for either a robot who just agrees with everything the mainstream media says or a nazi who also believes the earth is flat, you should research it yourself, it's honestly not that difficult but you might not find his old content since they removed him from everywhere.

It doesn't matter how much research I do, I'll never be as knowledgeable as a medical professional. That's due to the sheer fact that they have internal mental models based on first, second and third-hand experience which make them capable of intuition on their specialty.

Something that seems incongruent to me might be a product of those intuitions. Intuitions I can't build from reading alone.