You can't stand, not even listening, but having opposed views sharing tenancy in the same software as where your music is?

Not just sharing the same "software". If the parent has a paid Spotify subscription they are directly funding his podcast.

Admittedly there are probably other podcasts they might not like too, but Joe is certainly the biggest ass on platform and got a mountain of subscriber money for the exclusive deal.

Biggest Asset on the platform as well.. That exclusivity deal definitely retains people to Spotify.

how exactly is he an ass? He brings in people he likes to talk to. They spit out bullshit sometimes, interesting stuff other times. He happens to record those conversations and make shit ton of money out of them. I'm sure there are far whorse podcasts and content online and on Spotify (a lot of black metal is straight up racist shit yet its on Spotify). Rogan gets shit for being the archetype of everything the left hates.

Just turn off your internet services if you don't want to fund differing points of view.

You can be OK funding differing points of view but not OK funding a specific differing point of view.

We just live in a world now where propagating false and dangerous misinformation is merely offering a differing point of view.

We were happy to let subject-matter experts help build the modern world, but then turn on them as we seek out the information that comports with the way we wish the world to be. It's good to be skeptical, but a very significant portion of the population has serious epistemic deficiencies.

I am not interested in engaging on identity politics.

Just turn off your internet services if you don't want to engage with differing points of view.

Luckily,I am fine with people having different points of view, even when they are wrong. I have the right to see them but not engage or to point and laugh and move on, they don't reserve the right to force me to engage. This person wishes to take the right away from people to even know of the differing point of view, never allowing dissent or support. Good effort though.

The original post you were responding to was talking about making an individual, private choice not to fund something they dislike. It was voting with their wallets. That is completely in the same voluntary spirit as you have, (it just happens to be a differing opinion from yours), which makes your overreaction all the more ironic.

Choosing to not patronize a business is not “taking the right away from people”, and to characterize it as such goes against the very ethos of consumerist-oriented postwar capitalist America.

It's worth noting that a business, just like any other organization or individual, should not be held responsible for the views or actions of every individual or group associated with it. A business's primary responsibility is to its shareholders and stakeholders, not to moralize consumers. Furthermore, it's important to keep in mind that censorship and restriction of speech goes beyond consumer choice and has much broader implications for society as a whole.

It is crucial that platforms like Spotify provide a space for a diverse range of voices and perspectives, even if they may be controversial or unpopular, in order to foster open and honest dialogue and the exchange of ideas. As a consumer, one has the right to make their own decisions, but businesses also have the right to make their own editorial decisions without being pressured by consumers to conform to their moral or political views.

I do not see the irony.

On principle I get it but who cares, canceling a subscription is such a minute act it’s like getting mad at a third party voter. It’s a quixotic act of protest that outside of an organized mass movement is unlikely to bankrupt Spotify. So perhaps you being so zealous about your stance is, appropriate enough, mirroring that same poster’s beliefs. That you cannot see the irony is telling, indeed.

> businesses also have the right to make their own editorial decisions without being pressured by consumers to conform to their moral or political views.

If consumers cannot voice their expression via consumer choices they will attempt to do it at the legislature, courts, or the ballot box, and I doubt that state regulation is something you’d prefer.

Free market choice is the purest form of American expression, outside of over-litigation, and the fact that you denounce it marks you as naive about the alternatives that people will pursue instead if they are denied such.

I honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about here.

My point was that you can think Elon Musk is a jackass and not buy a Tesla even if you do think Jeff Bezos is a jackass and still shop at Amazon.

I responded to a comment upstream from yours on your comment, because yours was the last I read and I was continuing the train of thought. Sorry for the confusion.

Ah "misinformation". (Which seems to be far-left speak for "has a different opinion and I'd rather censor them than argue with them".) Rogan is a comedian and has never claimed any special expertise. If you're worried that people listen to him over the legacy news media, well, what does it say about them that somehow a comedian has more credibility than they do?

There will always be an acceptable range of discourse in any society, and those that in their own ignorance and confusion spread ideas that hurt the stability and well-being of that society can expect pushback. Sorry if you wanted to say whatever bullshit you want without a challenge.

If you don't like it disconnect your internet, as you'd say.

Never said it should go unchallenged. What a lovely strawman you've built. Free speech is great, and if someone says something incorrect, the solution is more speech to counteract it. I think part of why Rogan is so popular is because legacy media and woke activists have such a bad reputation for trying to control the narrative rather than engage in discourse, which is what he does. I just said I don't have a problem with him stating his opinion and I'm sick of people trying to censor a goddamn comedian because they're jealous he built a large audience.

I fail to see how Rogan threatens the stability of society. I mean, it's hilarious other than that you're actually serious about that. I'm far more afraid of censorship than I am of Rogan talking to some goofball. (BTW, you haven't even stated why Rogan threatens the stability of society or what he's done).

I think I'll keep my internet connection friend.

> If you're worried that people listen to him over the legacy news media, well, what does it say about them that somehow a comedian has more credibility than they do?

It says absolutely nothing about the "legacy news media". It just means that many people are incredibly gullible.

Joe Rogan does not have more credibility, but some people THINK he does, and that's the problem.

I think that's frankly a condescending world view. Who made you the arbiter of what's true and what's not? Listening to Joe Rogan doesn't mean you agree, it just means he brings on interesting guests and trusts his viewers to make up their own mind.

Who do you think people are more inclined to listen to, someone that treats their audience with respect, or someone that calls a broad swath of the population idiots?

> Who made you the arbiter of what's true and what's not?

Nobody. But I'm going to trust the opinions of people who are experts in their field much more than some comedian.

> or someone that calls a broad swath of the population idiots?

If you trust Joe more than the experts, then well, if the shoe fits...

Just a quick glance at his podcast shows his last 5 guests: famous comedian, ancient civilization researcher, wildlife conservationist, UFC fighter. The horror! Please don’t venture out of whatever bubble you live in or you might find some podcasts there you REALLY disagree with, and you clearly don’t do well with that. I mean honestly, the guys not even a political commentator, just has opinions that are occasionally outside the liberal current thing.

I have no bone to pick when it comes to Joe Rogan (love Newsradio) but to continue the sibling post:

> wildlife conversationist

As host of the Extinct or Alive series, Galante has been seen negatively by ecologists for being a "parachute scientist".[46] Galante's website stated that he personally captured the first video footage of a Zanzibar servaline genet,[47] which is contradicted by Zanzibar researchers.[48] Galante has also claimed that he personally rediscovered the Fernandina Island tortoise [49] and the Rio Apaporis Caiman,[50] both claims which have been contradicted by the leaders of their respective expeditions,[46] the latter of which published their findings and exploration prior to Galante's trip to Colombia.[51] As of 2022, Galante has not outlined his claimed discoveries in any scientific journals.

My bubble (not gp) is that i just can't stand jr podcasts - especially when interviewing people i make time for. Perhaps the bubble isn't the content but the presenter?