You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
So obviously a couple of big names have withdrawn their music from Spotify because they disagree with allowing a platform to some "dangerous" podcasts.
As I was reading about it I wasn't surprised to see megs and Harry are being paid by the platform but although they have concerns are still happy to take the money. I'll bet not many artists are take what they are. An actual "how much and for what?" moment.
"The couple said they were "committed to continuing" a content deal worth an estimated $25m (£18m) and will continue to lobby Spotify bosses for changes."
allowing a platform to some “dangerous” podcasts.
a think there’s more to it than ‘allowing’. Spotify is pumping some pretty serious money into commissioning some of these podcasts, so there’s more to it than just turning a blind eye
I wonder if I can get some of their money for an "Are you bored enough to listen to me talk about..." series
I promise, as with my videos, there will be nothing of real interest included.
I have a notion that you could be the next Electroboom.
"I have a notion that you could be the next Electroboom." well I have been googling for crashed Telsa's to drop the batteries and motors into something else. Could make an interesting series and without Electrobooms actual electrical and technical knowledge it will be a lot more authentic although possibly not run for many episodes.
I think the former royals have a different lever to pull than the various recording artists that are withdrawing content. In most instance and for most musicians Spotify is a market place and they get a few pence (ir fractions of a pence) per click. They are getting a few pence from a whole bunch of different platforms - they can take their music elsewhere - but it would take a fairly sustained movement by the majority of musicians (many of whom dont actually have control over their music and where its sold and so can't actually flounce) to make any really dent. Theres already swathes of music absent from Spotify and it doesn't really seem to matter to their customers.
In the case of Rogan and Megs/Harry they're both commissioned and exclusive content creators for the platform not just something that's being given shelf space. So there's is an editorial decision to have them both on the platform.
In the case of Megs and Harry they've got a deal that involves payment up front for new content - Spotify obviously think its worth it to them. They also think its worth their while to put millions of dollars Joe Rogan's way too. The ex-royals have a more powerful lever for change than the various boycotting musicians if they make staying put conditional on Spotify changing its editorial policy
don't use Spotify so couldn't care less. The people that are up in arms are getting some good media coverage. Good advertising
Why de-platform yourself because you don't agree with one or two pieces of content hosted by the platform.
You can share a platform with someone and disagree with what they say.
don’t use Spotify so couldn’t care less.
Great, thanks for posting!
Why de-platform yourself because you don’t agree with one or two pieces of content hosted by the platform.
Why not, if it's something you feel strongly about? It's, like, a principles thing?
As I understand it, the Joe Rogan podcast had an episode with (a discredited) scientist who is currently making money by using the politicized atmosphere in America to oppose vaccines.
Is Spotify doing anything different to what the BBC has done in platforming climate change deniers for the past 40 years or Farage for the last 20?
As I understand it, the Joe Rogan podcast had an episode with (a discredited) scientist who is currently making money by using the politicized atmosphere in America to oppose vaccines.
I don't particularly care for the guy but he has nearly 2,000 podcast episodes, many of them with some very positive people like prof Brian Cox, surely people should assess it on the full guest list rather than one or two guests they don't agree with.
Maybe because this time he’s spreading dangerous misinformation about the virus and vaccines.
Is Spotify doing anything different to what the BBC has done in platforming climate change deniers for the past 40 years or Farage for the last 20?
That's obviously different... 😜
According to the BBC…
Rogan made the comments during a 23 April episode of his podcast, which was first reported by Media Matters this week.
In that episode, Rogan told listeners that he would not suggest the vaccine to a healthy 21-year-old. "If you're a healthy person, and you're exercising all the time, and you're young, and you're eating well...like, I don't think you need to worry about this."
Which sounds reasonable, I’ve told my kids repeatedly they don’t need to be worried about Covid. (As in, not to worry that they’re going to die of it, because the odds are very much in their favour).
Responding to the criticism on his podcast on Thursday, Rogan said the argument that young people need the vaccine "for other people" made sense.
Which it probably does.
"But that's a different argument," he added.
Which it is.
I’m not really seeing the need for a big fuss.
Why not, if it’s something you feel strongly about? It’s, like, a principles thing?
Posted 52 minutes ago
Is free speech a principle?
That was my take on his comments as well thegreatape
Maybe because this time he’s spreading dangerous misinformation about the virus and vaccines.
I've read about what he's said and nothing he's said is either factually incorrect or indeed misleading.
Young healthy people are not at risk from covid that is a simple fact that is easily established through data (assuming you take the time to look). However even though it is true, it not the same thing as saying you 'shoudln't' get vaccinated; that is however a matter of opinion and one that anyone should be allowed to express in a free society. However, he's never said you shouldn't get vaccinated; he's only said 'young people are not at risk'.
I get that people don't like him (Joe Rogan) because he interviews people with views quite different to the mainstream. But that is a reason to like him in my view (which I do).
The Dr’s letter sent to Spotify makes it clearer. If you think none of the comments they have concerns about aren’t misinformation than you’re sadly mistaken.
https://spotifyopenletter.wordpress.com/2022/01/10/an-open-letter-to-spotify/
Again not defending him as such but claiming he promoted the use of ivermectin is wrong, he explained that he was prescribed it by a medical doctor. I don't recall him making any claims as to its effectiveness or suggesting others should go and use it.
He himself was the subject of a misinformation campaign about ivermectin where the New York times ran articles saying he used horse dewormer. Sure, the drug is also used for that but it's been used on humans for decades.
He also backed down on the vaccines for children, in this own words
"I'm not a doctor, I'm a ****-ing moron,"
At least he got that right.
His repeated platforming of (also super racist) snake oil supplement pills salesman Alex Jones who literally incited harrassment and threats against the parents of children massacred in Sandy Hook is enough for me.
Is free speech a principle?
Are you saying Neil Young shouldn't be free to express his opinion about Joe Rogan or choose where his music is streamed?
The Dr’s letter sent to Spotify makes it clearer. If you think none of the comments they have concerns about aren’t misinformation than you’re sadly mistaken.
I read their open letter just now. Thank you for sharing it. Their open letter is the misinformation piece. None of the claims they make are things he's said but rather it is their interpretation of those claims.
Oh it’s Jude our very own Joe Rogan.
Hey he just thinks outside the mainstream maaaan. Wake up sheeple. Do your own research.
Here's one of the free thinkers he promotes and classes as a friend.
Is free speech a principle?
Sure. Who do you think has been silenced?
On the subject of misinformation, it seems that the 270 medical professionals might not all be medical professionals dealing with humans, or even medical professionals full stop.
I might do some cleaning with my Dyson later, despite the head honcho being a Brexit fan.
It is what it is, sometimes people are dicks but there's no point cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I like it. Very old school rock star thing to do a slightly egocentric protest but hey, it raises a bit of awareness. In this case, awareness that the meagre amount of money paid to artists by spotify is made even less than on other platforms partly because they pay some idiot a load of money to do a podcast.
Gave me the kick up the arse I needed to try a different music streaming app. It wasn't that hard to move, and I feel good that more of my money is going to actual musicians.
Put it this way, if you're on the side of spotify and joe rogan then maybe...you don't like music as much as you thought you did?
It wasn’t that hard to move, and I feel good that more of my money is going to actual musicians.
AIUI all the streaming services pay roughly the same and the main problem is the record labels get a much bigger cut of streaming revenues than from sales.
AIUI all the streaming services pay roughly the same
Nope. I mean none of them are great but Spotify one of the worst
Is free speech a principle?
If by ‘free speech’ you mean ‘freedom to speak/freedom of speech’ then yes that is a principle (albeit with slightly varying definitions)
But expecting people to morally and financially support your opinions and your platform just because ‘freedom’ is a different proposition.
On the subject of misinformation, it seems that the 270 medical professionals might not all be medical professionals dealing with humans, or even medical professionals full stop.
Probably why it says [i] A call from the global scientific and medical communities to implement a misinformation policy [/i]
Why de-platform yourself because you don’t agree with one or two pieces of content hosted by the platform.
You can share a platform with someone and disagree with what they say.
Why not. Christ, Neil Young has expressed strong opinions about a lot of things throughout the decades he’s been a recording artist, he recorded an album called ‘The Monsanto Years’ about genetic manipulation of crops to benefit the developers, along with support for farmers, etc., so the fact that he’s kicked off about deliberate dissemination of false information about Covid and vaccines should come as no surprise to anyone with any knowledge of his history. Same with Joni, although she’s not as much of an activist, it’s two world-famous Canadians making a clear point against what they consider to be dangerous mis-information.
And now Nils Lofgren has joined them. 1% of the artists on Spotify make the greater majority of the money, the other 99% make the grand total of ****-all, due to how Spotify and the record industry has fixed the payout process, plus Spotify is seeded with tracks churned out en mass by artists nobody has ever heard of, because the artists are made up, like lift music, and Spotify gets all the money when they’re streamed. Screw Spotify, and the nag it rode in on.
I get that people don’t like him (Joe Rogan) because he interviews people with views quite different to the mainstream.
I don't mind the guy in small doses, but he does have a problem with objectivity.
Anybody he disagrees with gets a real hard time, whilst anybody he does agree with can say what they like and he'll champion them.
I've mixed feelings on the subject generally. There does seem to be a refusal to take responsibility for the massive power of influence he has over people. But I do also wonder if people like Neil Young have spent any actual time listening to him. It's just a bloke talking to people about stuff he's interested in, and most of it isn't anywhere near as bad as what's made out in the media.
I'd argue the Daily Mail publish more dangerous and almost certainly more immoral information each day.
he recorded an album called ‘The Monsanto Years’ about genetic manipulation of crops to benefit the developers
Oddly enough, I only really know about this stuff because of Joe Rogan...
Oddly enough, I only really know about this stuff because of Joe Rogan…
Oddly enough, I only really know of Joe Rogan because of these people making a fuss (possibly legitimately) about his content.
Maybe because this time he’s spreading dangerous misinformation about the virus and vaccines.
Pretty much this. It troubles me greatly that our media isn't focused on objectivity much these days.
I’d argue the Daily Mail publish more dangerous and almost certainly more immoral information each day.
There's a lot I like about this graph
This was fun today... probably pulled from Spotify by now.
“We figured most of Rogan’s audience is so gullible it’d be easier if we just pretended to be Joe for a day and declare that vaccines are safe. Knowing how quickly his fans fall for most scams, we expect they’ll all be fully vaccinated within the next six to eight hours.”
Neil's given me the final nudge to bin my Spotify sub. It's not the best for various reasons, both user experience wise and ethically so will take my £9.99 elsewhere.
Not really a free speech issue as such. The middle of a pandemic isn't the time to promote the
"just asking questions [in bad faith]" pish mongers. Especially when the host is incapable of understanding or interrogating what they're saying.
To be absolute clear, Spotify promote and sponsor Joe Rogan's output. They're not a passive repository of podcasts.
To me this is the "no platform" argument which has been going on my entire life. I remember it from the 70s with " no platform for racists"
To me the issue with it is where do you draw the line? Who decides? Thats a real murky ethical issue to me and one I have never seen a solution to that sits well. If you "no platform" anti vaxxers then who next?
Is it better these views are out in the open where they can be soundly bebunked or kept in little bubbles where they are never challenged?
There’s a lot I like about this graph
Is there also a graph that shows visits to Mail online over the same period. You may not like that one as much.
Is it better these views are out in the open where they can be soundly bebunked or kept in little bubbles where they are never challenged?
During a pandemic when information is critical I would say they should be kept away.
Whereas I don't care that he has a chat with Jordan Peterson as although dangerous in another way it is not the same thing or the same scale.
TJ that's a but of a slippery slope argument. If you go into Spotify Joe Rogan's podcasts are top of billboards front and centre. They pay the guy specifically to create exclusive content. If you have never listened to a podcast on Spotify and log in for the first time there is a good chance you will pick his podcast.
No one says he shouldn't be able to interview obvious shysters, frauds and crooks but more that it's completely irresponsible to do it in the middle of a pandemic and then actively promote the shite for profit.
An analogy would be this is like whether cigarettes should be sold at all without regulation vs whether we should restrict their sale and ban promotion.
Tom.d - but where do you draw the line? And who decides what is either side of the line?
Looking at Rogan ( who I have never listened to) it may seem obvious he should be "no platformed" but how do you make a robust rules on that is applicable to all content? Thats the difficult bit to me. there will always be marginal or edge cases
I don't buy the "free speech" argument - thats bogus as folk remain free to make their points elsewhere and the platform is a private company with its own rules
Its a question I have no answer to
I listen to a lot of rogan to get opposing view points to my own current view points. I don’t agree with a lot of stuff he says but that’s life. I do however agree with some stuff he says. Taking someone’s platform away probably won’t change their point of view. They will just go to a different platform that allows them to speak. Probably reinforcing their stance and bolstering their following and support for what they are saying.
I’m not sure where the line of free speech and not being able to say certain things should be.
That’s a big debate!
I get that people don’t like him (Joe Rogan) because he interviews people with views quite different to the mainstream
Mallone (the idiot doctor in the episode in question) compared the vaccine programme and COVID in general to Nazi "hypnotising" the Germans via a (need I actually say?) crackpot theory of "mass formation psychosis". That's not a view that's "quite different to the mainstream" it's pulled straight out of thin air . Which Rogan does nothing to challenge as he's not a journalist. I don't mind JRE, it's pretty dull by the most part, but if he's going to have these sorts of guests on his programme than he needs to make sure of his ground, and he needs to challenge the more outlandish crap they come up with.
Spotify has deleted some of the more offensive Alex Jones episodes on the JRE, I think it's probably time to have a better editorial stance for it's podcasts.
In that episode, Rogan told listeners that he would not suggest the vaccine to a healthy 21-year-old. “If you’re a healthy person, and you’re exercising all the time, and you’re young, and you’re eating well…like, I don’t think you need to worry about this.”
Which sounds reasonable, I’ve told my kids repeatedly they don’t need to be worried about Covid. (As in, not to worry that they’re going to die of it, because the odds are very much in their favour).
He's not saying don't stress over catching Covid if you're young and healthy - he's essentially saying you don't need to worry about getting vaccinated - that's a very different thing. Getting vaccinated isn't just about protecting yourself from ending up intubated in intensive care. If you told your kids don't worry about catching it (but take reasonable precautions and get vaccinated) that's one thing (and irrelevant to a discussion over the content of JR's podcast), if you told them not to bother getting vaccinated then frankly you're an idiot.
I don’t really see what this has to do with free speech and platforms and stuff. It’s all choice:
1. Spotify choose to pay huge fortunes to Joe Rogan, Harry and Megan etc for exclusive rights to their podcasts. They aren’t forced to do this “cuz free speech”.
2. Musicians have (some) choice on where their music is streamed from.
3. We have complete freedom to choose where we get our music and podcasts from.
I’d rather spend money on a music streaming app where more of the money goes to the artist, and have a separate podcasting app where the creators can make money via advertising or direct subs.
I’d rather spend money on a music streaming app where more of the money goes to the artist
The % is determined by the record companies not the platform.
if you told them not to bother getting vaccinated then frankly you’re an idiot.
That's pretty harsh - it's never been black and white for young people eg until the Delta variant came along the chance of dying from the vaccine was higher than from Covid for young people, hence they weren't offered the vaccine. Now Omnicron has replaced Delta, the odds are probably back where they were.
Anyway I think Joe Rogan has now apologised
Got about two minutes into that without any apology emerging and gave up. All I saw was someone trying to justify his guest selection with some misleading remarks about the shifting data on transmission, vaccination and masks.
Anyhow, the central issue is not about which guests you have, it's about the journalistic responsibility to place their views under scrutiny. Joe Rogan is not equipped to do this job well, and doesn't seem to show any inclination to do it when the guest is in front of him throwing out obvious nonsense. It's a criticism you can level at many mainstream journalists too - not doing your homework on your guest, their previous comments, and the evidence against the arguments they are likely going to make.
Joe Rogan is the end product of years of decline in journalism, and the emergence of the idea that opposing ideas should be given equal weight, even if one of them is that the earth is flat.
The % is determined by the record companies not the platform.
You keep saying this but it isn't true. If Spotify pay far less per play to labels than other platforms do you really think that's not going to significantly impact how much goes to artists?
Got about two minutes into that without any apology emerging and gave up. All I saw was someone trying to justify his guest selection with some misleading remarks about the shifting data on transmission, vaccination and masks.
THis very much sums up the crux of many of the problems. People comment online about issues have only read the clickbait headline, or heard some tiny out of context soundbite.
I've been listening to Joe Rogan for the last 10 years. From day 1 I knew he was an idiot and his own chat and insights are generally pretty awful and also very repetitive. He has however had some amazing guests over the years that I've loved hearing a 3-4 hour conversation with them with no agenda around promoting a an album, tv show, book etc. For example he had James Hetfield on for about 3 hours, they didn't talk about music and they spent about an hour talking about bees. That's pretty cool.
He's also had a ton of awful guests that I have no interest in listening to: Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, the awful Ari Shaffir etc so I completely ignore those episodes.
If you go back and watch the Rogan video fully, he does apologise although not for "spreading misinformation" but he outlines what his show is about, and that he gives equal time to multiple viewpoints, he apologises for how he's presented some of the controversial guests and makes a commitment to do better around that. He apologises to Spotify and that he supports their stance in putting disclaimers in front of the podcasts that are offering different views on the covid situation. I don't think that's an unreasonable response from him at at all.
The problem is you have a large group of poorly informed or uneducated people with mass suspicion of covid, governments, ("mainstream") scientists, the media etc then you have the podcast hosting undoubtedly qualified people presenting contrarian views that align with their own, and the fact they're qualified adds credibility to their own position.
It's true, perhaps I should have kept going, but I was hoping he would be a little more direct with addressing the issue. The problem is that, like me, a lot of people don't have the inclination to put up with a longform self-justifying spiel to get to the point which a link has promised (has the link disappeared now?). That's just the way media consumption works. Obviously some people are prepared to keep going, or he wouldn't have an audience for longform podcasting!
I'm glad if he's acknowledged that he needs to do better with the way he presents certain guests, he undoubtedly has a huge reach and influence, which would continue even if he got kicked off Spotify.
And the other issue, is that, like me, a lot of people would consume Joe Rogan mainly via short clips on other social media, and be influenced in that way. So a shortish clip of him insisting that the covid vaccine is more likely to cause myocarditis in the young than the virus itself can still be problematic, even if the rest of the show involved some backpedalling.
Spotify have made a rod for their own back here.
They are paying Rogan an absolute fortune and I understand they've given him total editorial freedom.
So they have to balance losing a fortune and one of their most-popular assets with appeasing public opinion.
Shows up their lack of experience as a content organisation that they've put themselves in this position TBH.
His interviews with Brian Cox are really good.
He has had some excellent guests, Johann Hari, Brian Cox, The Innocence project, Tristen Harris, Lawrence Lessig and a few others. I highly recommend that anyone seeks out those podcasts, they are extremely enlightening and every bit as informative as much more supposedly credible journalism.
However the hit rate is pretty low and he has far more faux intellectuals, bro scientists and grifters selling snake oil. His MO is an everyman who just lets his guests speak, he doesn't censor or challenge them too much just creates an atmosphere to let them say their thing. The trouble is I think the audience needs a certain amount of sophistication to sort out the good from the grifters. Apparently the average age of his audience is 24, I don't think I would have had the experience to differentiate at that age. And his defence of Alex Jones was unforgivable IMO.
Johann Hari
faux intellectuals... and grifters
I'd put these words together personally.
But I didn't hear it. Did Hari make a convincing defence for himself?