HN Explorer

44 comments

[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 95.7 ms ] thread
raxxorrax
I don't know his show, but these are probably the episodes that are most interesting. Controversial stuff is often the most interesting...
mhh__
I think some of these might just be cleaning up for advertising? e.g. "Sarkon of Akkad" (Carl Benjamin) is an unpleasant liar who once declared "I wouldn't even rape you" to a politician online - not exactly perfect for advertiser's on Spotify Free?
raxxorrax
Hm, yes "cleaned up" content for advertisers would fall exactly into that category. I think he should prefer platforms where advertisers cannot make editorial decisions. This should be clearly communicated to users, so that animosity from controversial topics is not directed at advertisers.
Emphere
But in practice, directing animosity at advertisers and platforms is an effective way to remove content you don't like. It doesn't matter if the platform/advertisers says that they don't necessarily endorse the content--there's nothing stopping users from pressuring them regardless.
sfgweilr4f
Now we know which episodes are the most interesting. Also which guests reveal who/what can't be criticised or discussed.

That said, I'm not surprised that Alex "they're turnin' the friggin frogs gay" Jones is on that list.

gridlockd
I suspect this has to be more to do with particular things said on these episodes that may make Spotify legally liable, rather than a blacklist of people. Eddie Bravo and Joey Diaz have been on tons of episodes other than the ones listed. I can't even imagine JRE without Joey as a regular.

Some people strike me as particularly odd for blacklisting: Louis Theroux, Brian Dunning and Rickson Gracie must be politically uncontroversial, unless I'm missing something.

rbecker
> I suspect this has to be more to do with particular things said on these episodes that may make Spotify legally liable

Are those episodes listed on Spotify as "Censored to avoid legal liability"? Or perhaps as "Unavailable due to legal reasons"? Or were they just quietly disappeared, and it was up to a random redditor to reveal that censorship even took place?

aaron695
Yes, things being put into water were claimed by scientist to be turning frogs gay, which is why he made the comment.

"Scientists are continuing to sound the alarm about some common chemicals, including the herbicide atrazine, and link them to changes in reproductive health and development. Endocrine disrupting toxic chemicals have been found to feminize male frogs and cause homosexual behavior. "

(2011) https://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=11-P13-000...

He even goes to lengths to say he doesn't hate gay people, he just doesn't want to be turned gay without consent.

"And I'm not saying people didn't naturally have homosexual feelings. I'm not even getting into it, quite frankly. I mean, give me a break. Do you think I'm like, oh, shocked by it, so I'm up here bashing it because I don't like gay people?"

Him saying it, and I do get what he's doing, putting real media bullshit together to form a narrative -

https://youtu.be/THFoayEgsV8?t=291

So yes, I do want to see him, it's important to see what he's really like. It takes to seconds for his fans to know the frogs are gay from polluted water is a science thing.

gridlockd
I'm picturing some PR people at a major chemicals corporation, upon discovering that their product has the power to turn frogs gay:

"This is credible science, let's seed this to Alex Jones, he'll turn it into a laughing stock!"

It made the list:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/alex-jones-5-most-disturbing...

aaron695
From your link -

"One of Jones’ most notorious conspiracy theories is that the government is using chemicals in order to turn people gay, using a mysterious “gay bomb” devised by the Pentagon."

Except BBC also pretty much reported on that in 2005 - "The US military investigated building a "gay bomb"" - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4174519.stm

And that's why I want Joe Rogan to interview him.

I want to know why Alex Jones thinks the way he does and how much he is acting and is he manic or something. An attempt at something real about him. Not just shaming dumber people.

CNBC thinks they are clever but the garbage that comes from their site and the BBC is still garbage even if it has glitter on it.

gridlockd
To be fair, they admit that a potential "gay bomb project" was real. They didn't report that the "gay frog experiment" was real though.

Most conspiracy theories have some sort of factual basis. What makes them conspiracy theories is the wild exaggerations, unfounded extrapolations and unproven connections to all other conspiracy theories.

I have my own "conspiracy theory", which is that people like Alex Jones are assets to whoever wants to divert attention from the factual basis of all these conspiracy theories. Actual conspiracy theorists usually suffer from paranoid delusions and apophenia, they are incapable of maintaining credibility. The factual basis then becomes less credible by association.

So while all the "clever" people get to have a laugh about that clown and his antics, they forgot asking themselves why the hell taxpayer money might be flowing into gay bomb research, and what other ridiculous secret projects might be underway right now.

krapp
From what I can tell, there was never any "gay bomb project" to begin with. While the proposed cost of the project was estimated at about 7 million dollars, no taxpayer money ever flowed into gay bomb research, except maybe the cost of printing a three page proposal. It was one of hundreds of speculative projects deemed too problematic to be workable, and never funded or implemented - which the linked article actually points out.

Unfortunately, people see an article about "the US government once considered a 'gay bomb' but dismissed it as ridiculous" and read "the US government has a secret Manhattan Project for gay bombs" and conclude "Alex Jones wasn't entirely wrong because, you know, the government is building gay bombs like he said. And if they're doing that, maybe they are putting something in the water. "

The entire line of reasoning is specious.

gridlockd
I didn't say the project was undertaken, but it was real enough for someone to come up with the idea, ballpark the cost of it, write up the proposal and have a bunch of presumably high-paid decision-makers read it in order to come to the conclusion that it's just a little bit too ridiculous. That's all on the tax dollar.

Of course, of all the egregious military research that has been undertaken, that one is just a whimsical side note. It could serve as a red herring even without any conspiracy theorist. I'd certainly sleep easier believing that the military is busy researching the gay bomb instead of the doomsday device.

krapp
>but it was real enough for someone to come up with the idea, ballpark the cost of it, write up the proposal and have a bunch of presumably high-paid decision-makers read it in order to come to the conclusion that it's just a little bit too ridiculous. That's all on the tax dollar.

A research laboratory speculated about possible areas of nonlethal chemical weapons research, and created a three page proposal, among which was a reference to what would be called the "gay bomb." That's their job.

Here is the proposal[0]. That's how "real" the "gay bomb" was - a single brief paragraph on the second page.

This isn't "egregious military research," it's a step above a doodle scribbled onto a napkin that someone else threw into the wastebasket.

[0]https://web.archive.org/web/20060502201217if_/http://www.sun...

gridlockd
Of all the questionable claims that Alex Jones has made, you picked one that's actually true.

Endocrine disruptors should be a serious environmental concern, but now that Alex Jones talked about it, I guess we can safely ignore it.

krapp
The actual claim Alex Jones was making was that some feminist-homosexual-government conspiracy was deliberately dumping chemicals into the water supply in order to increase the homosexual population as an act of chemical warfare and genocide against straight males.

He wasn't simply voicing a concern about the environmental impact of endocrine disruptors, or corporate pollution.

1cvmask
Does anyone know if Joe Rogan allows for censorship on the part of Spotify?

Tommy Chong the comedian has managed to make the list of censored folks. Now I feel compelled to look up the others.

LatteLazy
When he first announced the move, he expressly stated they would not be censoring future episodes or interfering at all, he would maintain 100% control...

Edit, source in case it's relevant:

>"It will remain free, and it will be the exact same show," said Rogan. "It's just a licensing deal, so Spotify won't have any creative control over the show.

>"They want me to just continue doing it the way I'm doing it right now.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-52736364

srtjstjsj
How is that possible? What happened that guarantees every future potential episode is spotifyable yet past episodes weren't?

If he's telling the truth, why aren't his first 10 episodes him an past guests reading the transcript of censored episodes?

LatteLazy
Not sure, we will have to see.

I like Joe, so maybe Spotify thought they could pull this and no one would notice?

Or maybe they're replying on (I heard) $100m being enough money to buy some flexibility? Maybe they're making a show of it so he can make a show of insisting they're replaced so no one thinks he has sold out?

It's sort of confusing because Joe Rogan is Joe Rogan. It's not like he suddenly changes position or he's ever been PC and family friendly or whatever this edit is meant to get to.

Either way, something is dodgy as fuck.

polytely
Weird to see Louis Theroux on that list, who isn't that controversial at all, is Spotify afraid to incur the wrath of Scientology?
dogma1138
It looks like there was a copyright strike against that video which could be the reason why that episode wasn’t on boarded.
jasode
Fyi... part of Rogan's deal he signed with Spotify requires him to delete his videos from Youtube by the end of the year so Spotify becomes the "exclusive" place for JRE.

I didn't know about this until a few weeks ago. Apparently, some folks have already archived (i.e. youtube-dl) all of his old videos before they disappear.[0]

It would be interesting to check back next year and see if these Spotify rejected/censored podcasts remain on Youtube.

[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/gmuoyu/joe_rog...

hayd
I don't think this is the case. It's that new episodes will be exclusive to Spotify and won't be uploaded to YouTube.

edit: No, my mistake, the suggestion is that all but 100 or so videos will be migrated and then deleted from YouTube. I guess I'd misunderstood the earlier statements!

jcims
Full list from here: https://old.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/ikf9at/full_list_...

The Joe Rogan Experience - #1461 - Owen Smith

The Joe Rogan Experience - #1458 - Chris D'Elia

The Joe Rogan Experience - #1456 - Michael Shermer

The Joe Rogan Experience - #1303 - Tommy Chong

The Joe Rogan Experience - #1296 - Joe List

The Joe Rogan Experience - #1255 - Alex Jones Returns

The Joe Rogan Experience - #1182 - Nick Kroll

The Joe Rogan Experience - #1164 - Mikhaila Peterson

The Joe Rogan Experience - #1093 - Owen Benjamin & Kurt Metzger

The Joe Rogan Experience - #1033 - Owen Benjamin

The Joe Rogan Experience - #998 - Owen Benjamin

The Joe Rogan Experience - #980 - Chris D'Elia

The Joe Rogan Experience - #979 - Sargon of Akkad

The Joe Rogan Experience - #920 - Gavin McInnes

The Joe Rogan Experience - #911 - Alex Jones & Eddie Bravo

The Joe Rogan Experience - #820 - Milo Yiannopoulos

The Joe Rogan Experience - #750 - Kip Andersen & Keegan Kuhn, producers of Conspiracy

The Joe Rogan Experience - #710 - Gavin McInnes

The Joe Rogan Experience - #702 - Milo Yiannopoulos

The Joe Rogan Experience - #640 - Charles C. Johnson

The Joe Rogan Experience - #582 - David Seaman

The Joe Rogan Experience - #538 - Stefan Molyneux

The Joe Rogan Experience - #524 - Rickson Gracie

The Joe Rogan Experience - #520 - David Seaman

The Joe Rogan Experience - #487 - David Seaman

The Joe Rogan Experience - #463 - Louis Theroux

The Joe Rogan Experience - #461 - David Seaman

The Joe Rogan Experience - #454 - War Machine

The Joe Rogan Experience - #441 - Brian Dunning

The Joe Rogan Experience - #368 - David Seaman

The Joe Rogan Experience - #361 - Dave Asprey, Tait Fletcher

The Joe Rogan Experience - #331 - Dr. Steven Greer

The Joe Rogan Experience - #303 - Matt Vengrin, Brian Redban

The Joe Rogan Experience - #275 - Dave Asprey

The Joe Rogan Experience - #256 - David Seaman

The Joe Rogan Experience - #239 - Adam Kokesh

The Joe Rogan Experience - #213 - Eddie Bravo

The Joe Rogan Experience - #199 - Joey Diaz

The Joe Rogan Experience - #182 - Bryan Callen, Jimmy Burke, Brian Redban

The Joe Rogan Experience - #128 - Joey Diaz, Brian Redban

The Joe Rogan Experience - #119 - Jan Irvin

The Joe Rogan Experience - #108 - Joey Diaz, Brian Redban

The Joe Rogan Experience - #98 - Daryl Wright & Brian Whitaker

The Joe Rogan Experience - #97 - Freddy Lockhart, Brian Redban

The Joe Rogan Experience - #81 - Pete Johansson

The Joe Rogan Experience - #57 - Jayson Thibault, Brian Redban

chiefalchemist
I don't enjoy being the one to say this but censored is the wrong word. Censoring is something governments do. We can't keep using the wrong words and expect communication and discourse to improve. Words matter.
wccrawford
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor

As a verb, it's used the same as Merriam Webster defines it. There is no need for it to be the government, just someone that is suppressing or deleting things that are objectionable.

Everyone knows what is meant here, so there's no problem with the clarity of communication.

chiefalchemist
Here? Maybe. But here isn't always here. There is zero value in perpetuating a false narrative. We can't maintain an affinity for LCD and still expect positive change.

Finally, you're making assumptions. I'll leave it at that.

gridlockd
> There is zero value in perpetuating a false narrative.

I agree, it just happens that your narrative is wrong.

There are important distinction to be made between government and private censorship, of course. Nevertheless, the word "censorship" never implies "government censorship".

chiefalchemist
The point is simple:

Censorship laws do not protect against this type of "censorship". So yes, out of context it meets the vanilla definition of the word. Unfortunately, in the current sociopolitical environment where such things are front and center, the word is misleading.

Spotify is not Uncle Sam, and vice versa. Context matters, and therefore censor is an extremely poor choice. It hurts more than it helps. In fact, it's close to clickbait.

bluescrn
These days, corporations are arguably more powerful than governments. Censorship by big tech should be taken more seriously. It might be easy to cheer it on while it’s mostly right-wing voices being deplatformed, but it may not always be the case that these companies are on your side.
gridlockd
No, it isn't, please stop repeating this misconception. Censoring and censorship are not limited to governments.

Many TV stations literally have censorship departments, whose job it is to decide what is and isn't shown, in line with the agenda of the network, not merely what the law mandates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship

chiefalchemist
Context. It matters. It a clickbait-y word in the current sociopolitical environment. It intentionally leads the reader in an unnecessary and biased direction.

Therefore, it's the wrong word. Cencorship laws do not protect this type of "censorship". Now people get confused. And so on.

At best, this is self-sensorship. JRE, at will, entered into a contract. JRE was well aware some shows would not migrate.

It's clickbait. The headline should read: ".Spotify Declines to Migrate Some JRE YouTube Content." Full stop.

gridlockd
What you're saying there now could be said about basically anything. It's your opinion, I somewhat disagree, but also I don't care.

Your original claim is what I care about: "This is not censorship" is what you said (paraphrased). That's wrong. It's a misconception.

Why is that important? Because we should be worried about corporate censorship as well, not just government censorship. In fact, right now, the government is censoring almost nothing, but corporations are using censorship to maintain "good" ideas and narratives in the heads of their viewers while keeping out the "bad" ones. There is no space for "dissident" or "heterodox" views, neither on left-leaning nor right-leaning media. It's polarizing the country. I don't think that's their job.

thinkcontext
Really, a link to a reddit thread? Can't we get something resembling journalism instead of ranting fanboys spreading rumors.

I recognize few people on that list but I can see why Spotify wouldn't want the headache with advertisers over Alex Jones, Milo Y and Gavin Mcinnes. Rogan chose this when he went exclusive with Spotify.

haunter
>Can't we get something resembling journalism instead of ranting fanboys spreading rumors

I don't see ranting nor rumors.

Go to Spotify and you can see those episodes are missing.

Also what does "resembling journalism" mean? Reddit is a perfect to cover topics like that

swiley
The only thing surprising about this is how quickly it happened.

Podcasts are just RSS feeds with audio (or even video now apparently, no one seems to use that but it solves the “videos are only discoverable on YouTube” problem.) You don’t need to be part of any special platform to host them. Maybe someone should set up one of those PSA sites.

thelastinuit
Wth... i enjoyed JRE for the openness of having controversial people and a space for them to talk freely... seeing that list... well, i’m done with Joe. Sad. Very sad.
srtjstjsj
Joe has $100M to comfort himself with that loss.
bookmarkable
It is not a podcast, it’s a Spotify show. They can do what they want. A podcast is openly distributed.
dec0dedab0de
It is concerning that the last main stream sanctuary of free speech might have been compromised.

However, as of right now we dont know if Spotify censored these episodes, if Rogan censored them himself, or if they just didnt upload them yet. It's only 9 hours in to the first day, no need to jump to conclusions yet.

tmaly
I can still see these old episodes on my podcast app. I just tried downloading one of them and I was able to.