This event served to reinforce my belief that while streaming services and subscription-based platforms are nice, you should endeavor to download local DRM-free copies of the media you consume (wherever possible).
Spotify has actively been embracing/extending/extinguishing podcasting for years, even calling their DRM-encumbered shows "podcasts" to confuse the technically illiterate. If you care about this, don't listen to DRM-encumbered shows. Cracking their DRM or transcoding the audio into a non-encumbered format does nothing because they still get their engagement data.
We are slowly loosing ownership of our things. Cars don't work without cloud updates and roadside service when we get a flat, we can't play music that we've bought 3 times over on 3 different media's in our car without paying for it yet again, we can't even repair our own tractors.
That's the model of https://resonate.is/ but I don't think they have the clout to license most of the major label music that the masses are interested in.
Very nice to see the Joe Rogan I listened to back in 2015-2018 era. One who wasn’t afraid to apologize. Probably won’t bring me back to listening, but hoping new listeners get that golden era of JRE back
I’m not very familiar with JRE but your comment makes me curious about his influence and following. What made you stop listening after 2018? Did he adopt some new ideas? Would be interesting to know if his audience has changed much in the past couple years.
I don't subscribe to Spotify for Neil Young or Jodi Mitchell, but I do for Joe Rogan. If he pulls back we will have no voice bringing alternative views. I really hate the media landscape today with its monochrome set of carefully curated information which is incomplete.
> carefully curated information which is incomplete
Its curated because people attempt to confirm and verify the information. Nonsense like Joe Rogan has no verification - instead it has him Googling the subject for a few hours while doing a lot of drugs. To wit, here is a call of his where he discusses the now-debunked bondo ape: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__CvmS6uw7E. During the call, an expert phones in and he ridicules her without even listening to anything she has to say.
It's okay to interview "crackpots". There is this pervasive notion that merely letting such people voice their views to a wide audience is a moral hazard. That these people are so obviously wrong that they need to be silenced because the public at-large is so simpleminded they cannot reason for themselves and will ultimately believe whatever is presented to them.
I think "ridicules" is a bit of an understatement. He continuously shouts her down, mocks, and insults her before cowardly hanging up on her. How people respect this guy, I don't understand.
Listening to that, I think it's fairly safe to assume that anyone who listens to him through choice should have their ability to reason for themselves questioned.
Not claiming anything, just want to bring more context to the link you posted, since I'm seeing it's being shared all around, with no references what the video is.
The video/audio in question is from September 27, 2005, from the show called _Opie and Anthony_ [1]. The guest was Bill Burr. The full show is here [2], the segment starts at 2:00:17. Also, during that time, it seems that some "mystery apes" were a thing [3].
> Its curated because people attempt to confirm and verify the information
Isn't the Tom Brady retirement news fiasco enough to convince you that most media does not confirm and verify information?
For those not familiar with this...
"NFL Twitter Revels in Tom Brady Retirement Fiasco: ‘Gisele Asked Tom to Take the Garbage Out Now That Hes Retired and Tom Had Second Thought’s Real Quick’"
When you say crackpot you are referring to a highly published cardiologist and an epidemiologist whose work is used in the vaccine. In the world today actually being expert enough to work on teams that create a vaccine does not give you the status to hold a differing opinion without being labeled a "crackpot".
theres a difference in a difference in opinion and putting on the 3-5% of people that disagree and can't bring facts and evidence to the table constantly.
I challenge your assertion that between 3-5% of people disagree. Would you stake your life on that claim or is that simply more fake news you are spreading without verifiable sources?
As for Joe Rogan and his controversial guests, one was Dr. Peter McCullough, the most widely published cardiologist in the world. He brought many claims to the podcast - all included citations and verifiable sources - from his grand rounds slides.
Did you watch the podcast so you could criticize it intelligently or are you purely spewing hate based on what you read/heard in MSM? Seems the latter.
Are you ignoring the fact that Joe was well-known before Spotify picked him up as exclusive? It's not like he wasn't the biggest name in podcasting pre-Spotify.
What changes is him and Spotify making $$$, not whether his voice being heard or not.
We are in a pandemic, which is roughly akin to being in a crowded burning building. When authorities are directing you to an exit, this idiot Joe Rogan stands up and yells on his megaphone that there is an exit in the opposite direction. People are dying because of it. This is not a matter of free speech, or incomplete information, he is killing people. Public streaming services owe it to the public to not endanger them or kill them with misinformation. Rogan podcasts are pure garbage, interviewing fringe and long discredited crackpots in obviously weak attempts to offer ‘alternative’ views in a bid for more viewers. The general public is clearly not equipped to ascertain the difference, and as such he is clearly a danger to the public. It is erroneous to consider Rogan’s podcast as a ‘source’ of information, it’s an entertainment show that wants to believe it’s truthful. It’s not, and your reply proves he’s a danger to society in general. I stand with all artists that are doing what the government should have done months ago, cancel misinformation so we may exit this burning building safely.
Whatever your opinion of Rogan's ideas - I find this to be misleading. Joe is 100% trying to be controversial, it's why he brings these guests on. It gets listeners. Howard Stern followed the same formula.
"I'm not trying to promote misinformation, I'm not trying to be controversial," Rogan added.
I had to search a bit for the right word to explain Rogan. He's being obtuse.
When he says he's not trying to be controversial, he doesn't mean that. It means he appears, exdternally, to not be controversial, but internally, he has an entire viewpoint and goal when he runs his interviews. Part of that is to get more people to believe his viewpoints, and part of that is to make more money by getting more viewers.
We can see through his act of playing dumb and "just letting people say things".
It's pretty interesting to see the same approach on a new format.
Stern did well by promoting sex and pushing the FCC limits which gave him huge notoriety. Rogan obviously capitalized on the new podcast format.
That begs the obvious question of what older enterprises would translate to Internet distribution. Stern -> radio.. Rogan -> podcasts.. Trump -> Twitter..
I remember the research being done on Ivermectin and found that the reasons a de-wormer helps fighting against Covid was due in part that many of the places that the study was performed, were in non-Western Europe countries. Places where worms and parasitic diseases are common, where getting one of two fights removed from your body will incredibly help the other fight.
So I either have to picture Joe as someone who's been infected with worms to the point that he needed a dewormer to help him, or he's giving a poor amount of anecdotal evidence. While the first is certainly able to exist, it's highly unlikely given his chances of having the parasitic infections are incredibly reduced in the United States.
He thinks monoclonal antibodies made the biggest impact for his recovery. He points out that ivermectin was one of a list of things his doctor prescribed, yet the media and you focus on just one of those items to stir the pot
what happened in the past few years where we suddenly care about misinformation to the point of demanding censorship, but only for certain classes of content (individual podcasters) as opposed to, for example, corporate media networks? it's interesting because the implicit assertion is that corporate media networks only ever 100% dispense the absolute truth, because if they didn't, they would get the same treatment as Rogan, right?
from my perspective, the best way to counter "misinformation" on Rogan's show would be to push for people with opposite viewpoints to go on his show and refute claims made previously. even better, try to get a show going where people with opposite viewpoints hash them out live for all to see, with Rogan acting as the average guy neutral moderator! weird how that's never an option, instead the only possible solution to "misinformation" is to push for outright censorship.
Whoa, calm down there with arriving at a perfectly reasonable solution to challenging ideas. /s
Honestly though, if you have an argument that is so concrete and based on facts and verifiable statistics, there should be no need to silence dissent. Challenge them, and let the audience form their own conclusions, and question how they arrived at sed conclusion. People have been so conditioned to just believing news links and talking heads to arrive at the conclusions for them; they don't even want to think.
I've been getting the vibe (which is being reinforced by the downvotes) that there's a sort idea going around that we've reached some kind of critical juncture in online discourse where mere dissent doesn't work, or somehow is not good enough, when it comes to combatting mis/disinformation, and thus the only solution is silencing anyone who says anything outside of the accepted orthodoxy of "truth." I find this general mindset more broadly harmful than any specific ideas that are touted or espoused by any content creator.
when did we start implicitly believing in the societal necessity of Truth Police?
Here's somebody with an "opposite viewpoint" (ie: educated knowledge of actual facts) going on his show. Lemme know how well you think it turns out. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30150390
Is there a summary of what exactly was the misinformation in the Robert Malone episode? I tried to watch it all but its like 3 hrs long. I want to weigh the misinformation with the truth contained in the episode and compare with the response from the last few weeks. Are other sources of information being held to the same standards here?
Readit News
Deleted Comment
I did find him kind of repetitive at that point. He always made the same arguments, same stories, etc. Not much growth on his part.
I think you mean crackpot views.
> carefully curated information which is incomplete
Its curated because people attempt to confirm and verify the information. Nonsense like Joe Rogan has no verification - instead it has him Googling the subject for a few hours while doing a lot of drugs. To wit, here is a call of his where he discusses the now-debunked bondo ape: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__CvmS6uw7E. During the call, an expert phones in and he ridicules her without even listening to anything she has to say.
It's okay to interview "crackpots". There is this pervasive notion that merely letting such people voice their views to a wide audience is a moral hazard. That these people are so obviously wrong that they need to be silenced because the public at-large is so simpleminded they cannot reason for themselves and will ultimately believe whatever is presented to them.
The video/audio in question is from September 27, 2005, from the show called _Opie and Anthony_ [1]. The guest was Bill Burr. The full show is here [2], the segment starts at 2:00:17. Also, during that time, it seems that some "mystery apes" were a thing [3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opie_and_Anthony
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXX0J6d0i6s&t=7217s
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bili_ape
Isn't the Tom Brady retirement news fiasco enough to convince you that most media does not confirm and verify information?
For those not familiar with this...
"NFL Twitter Revels in Tom Brady Retirement Fiasco: ‘Gisele Asked Tom to Take the Garbage Out Now That Hes Retired and Tom Had Second Thought’s Real Quick’"
https://www.essentiallysports.com/nfl-news-twitter-revels-in...
As for Joe Rogan and his controversial guests, one was Dr. Peter McCullough, the most widely published cardiologist in the world. He brought many claims to the podcast - all included citations and verifiable sources - from his grand rounds slides.
Did you watch the podcast so you could criticize it intelligently or are you purely spewing hate based on what you read/heard in MSM? Seems the latter.
What changes is him and Spotify making $$$, not whether his voice being heard or not.
Deleted Comment
"I'm not trying to promote misinformation, I'm not trying to be controversial," Rogan added.
When he says he's not trying to be controversial, he doesn't mean that. It means he appears, exdternally, to not be controversial, but internally, he has an entire viewpoint and goal when he runs his interviews. Part of that is to get more people to believe his viewpoints, and part of that is to make more money by getting more viewers.
We can see through his act of playing dumb and "just letting people say things".
Stern did well by promoting sex and pushing the FCC limits which gave him huge notoriety. Rogan obviously capitalized on the new podcast format.
That begs the obvious question of what older enterprises would translate to Internet distribution. Stern -> radio.. Rogan -> podcasts.. Trump -> Twitter..
Joe isn't unbiased here, he claimed Ivermectin cured him (doubtful) when he had COVID and remains unvaccinated.
I don't think it's just the Howard Stern formula.
Do Sanjay Gupta and Michael Osterholm fall into that group?
So I either have to picture Joe as someone who's been infected with worms to the point that he needed a dewormer to help him, or he's giving a poor amount of anecdotal evidence. While the first is certainly able to exist, it's highly unlikely given his chances of having the parasitic infections are incredibly reduced in the United States.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
from my perspective, the best way to counter "misinformation" on Rogan's show would be to push for people with opposite viewpoints to go on his show and refute claims made previously. even better, try to get a show going where people with opposite viewpoints hash them out live for all to see, with Rogan acting as the average guy neutral moderator! weird how that's never an option, instead the only possible solution to "misinformation" is to push for outright censorship.
Honestly though, if you have an argument that is so concrete and based on facts and verifiable statistics, there should be no need to silence dissent. Challenge them, and let the audience form their own conclusions, and question how they arrived at sed conclusion. People have been so conditioned to just believing news links and talking heads to arrive at the conclusions for them; they don't even want to think.
when did we start implicitly believing in the societal necessity of Truth Police?
https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/robert-malone-mislead...
https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/joe-rogan-interview-w...