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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hey if I start spewing misinformation about my opponents while accusing them of not providing sources, all while failing to provide sources for my baseless claims like OP, then you can hold me to account. I never made such statements.
Perhaps you or OP would like to share details of the misinformation you claim was shared on Joe Rogan’s show? I watched both episodes and found lots of controversial claims - all backed by citations.
I would challenge that most of Joe Rogan’s critics have never watched the episodes in question. I wouldn’t be willing to stake my life on it however.
It’s more about challenging hipocricy. The OP boldly claimed that Joe and his guests were spewing misinformation. OP provided no evidence for their claims, nor did they provide specific criticisms. Instead they spread FUD and misinformation of their own.
Really? exactly 3-5% disagree with the majority?
OP made bold and uncited claims amounting to disinformation and I called them out asking for them to back their claims or back down.
The idiom of ‘betting’ or ‘staking’ one’s life on a claim is common where I’m from. To clarify, my intent was to call into question a claim by OP and asking OP to back up their claim or stand down.
Instead of watching his episodes, I read descriptions of them on both the NY Times and Fox. By comparing how the two sites pull quotes and interpret them it's pretty clear what rogan does and says on his show. In fact I read a wide range of content. If I watched his show I imagine I'd last about 5 minutes before having to turn it off (I don't like the tone, the attitude, etc. What little I have seen seems to turn my brain off or into some sort of nonthinking being).
I think he once said his show is the intersection of meatheads and potheads, but I think it's really just WWE.
Instead of getting direct evidence from the source I got all my information from their opponents. I don't need to review the source material. Instead I trust the opponents of the original source material to tell me the truth. Tell me I'm naive without telling me.
> 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?
I'm refrencing over all also, I should have specificed scientists. I'm pulling those numbers from having climate skeptics on...
>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.
I'm sorry I upset you... However I do listen and I had to stop cause I fact check if I have a question so naturally I started hating it. The podcast cause instead of having interesting scientists on that are controversal cause they speak on risky new research and techniques, he brings people that spew fake info on covid a life or death severity repeatedly.
> 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 keep seeing the same general sentiment through these types of threads, something in the nature of "if the scientists are so sure they're right, they shouldn't be afraid of mis-information because only their data will stand up to scrutiny."
The fact that Rogan has these types of people on his show is not the issue, and just as you say it's fine to interview them. The issue is that he tends to take a backseat and let the interviewee make whatever claims without any push-back[1]. Simply having an episode with a pro-vaccine person and another episode with an anti-vaccine person is implying that both viewpoints are equal, which in my opinion they are not. HN is sort of unique in that likely a large portion of the user base is interested in researching claims more in depth after hearing them; I would wager that your average person does not do this and will likely take what they hear at face value. If they did that due diligence for any claim, it's unlikely we would have such a large list of "common knowledge" that is actually false.[2]
W/R/T Rogan specifically, his show reminds me of a decade-old Youtube comedy video, "Both Sides" by SMBC Theater[3]. In it, the show host organizes a debate between a Caltech Biologist, and a "Scientator" from the "Christ Rode a Dinosaur and I Have Pictures Institute," another debate between an MD and a man who believes all ailments can be cured by sticking steak knives in your eyes, and a final debate between an actual journalist and the host's intern, who is described as "anti-rape, bedwetting, and dreaming about their own mother naked," implying the journalist is of the opposite viewpoint. This is obviously farcical, but is meant to prompt the question: at what point does someone with a large viewer base have a responsibility to curate themselves and their guests?
Circling back, again, I don't think hosting people with fringe-views is an issue. I do believe a host has a responsibility to critique all viewpoints on their show, or to bring in someone who can do so if they are not able to. In my opinion, re-establishing the Fairness Doctrine[4] is a necessity and would satisfy both sides of the free-speech / censorship debate. Non-mainstream views would be able to be explored as long as there is an opposing viewpoint there to critique it at the source (as opposed to the "mis-information" warnings now that show up after the majority of exposure has already passed). I also believe that it should be expanded to apply to web-based media, though I don't have any good ideas on what exactly the criteria should be for it to apply (ie, a Youtuber with 100 subscribers probably shouldn't be, but Joe Rogan and other large podcasters probably should be). Advertising in large web services (ie, Google, Facebook, Youtube, etc) should probably also be subjected to this rule.
---
[1]: From what I've heard from discussions of Rogan (I'm not a fan of podcasts in general), he tends to go even further by pushing back against science based interviewees while letting anti-science interviewees basically have an open platform. However, I'm trying to make this comment assuming I'm mis-informed about that and he simply lets all guests say their peace.
Did you actually watch the episodes in question? The big difference is that those Rogan has on actually have credentials to back up their claims, and they provide evidence in the form of studies, it is the opposite of what you've laid out here. On the other side the expert from CNN seemed extremely uninformed.
From what I can tell (I don't watch Rogan, so I get a lot of this indirectly through articles) at least some of the experts on the show make claims and then cite work that has been retracted, or is trivially verifiable as pseudoscience, or just not convincing/supporting. But it's presented uncritically as such and the viewers really have no way to make a reasoned decision one way or the other.
If you watch the episodes that are controversial the citations are WHO or studies from Israel / Great Britain / Canada (I don't know them verbatim but this is what I remember - been a month or so). I would make the claim that if you actually watch these episodes the two guests sound very reasonable and have no citations that are "crackpot" in nature. Getting information indirectly is a big problem. He talks to people for three hours, how do you condense this to a five minute read? Before dismissing actually take a look. Watch the episode and see if anything they say sounds unreasonable.
"the citations are WHO or studies from Israel / Great Britain / Canada". Discreted doctors can cite discredited studies on Rogan's show with absolutely no pushback. They can also cite good studies but suggest a wrong conclusion based on their own interpretation.
Note: I'm a PhD-trained scientist with extensive background in medical biology. I'm obviously not the target for Rogan's show, but what I can say is that I'm a damn good judge of bullshit and Rogan is allowing people to state total bullshit with zero checking if the statements are scientifically accurate or not.
You want me to... highlight the details from the fact-checking report?
OK. Here's the ones I ignore:
He misreprented himself as the inventor of mRNA vaccines. He was involved, not "the inventor", but that's not important here.
False tweet to paper that was later retracted which made extremely big statement about vaccine-caused deaths: https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%252F%252Fdoc.afp.com%252...
I also won't count this against him because I didn't check if he later deleted the tweet and/or corrected it in a follow up tweet.
False claims about vaccine-induced viral enhancement, although that was based on rapidly moving science and I'm truly curious if anybody could ever prove that vaccinated people lead to more virulent strains, in a general sense) https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/covid-19-vaccines-eff...
Here are the serious ones:
Claims vaccine causes fatal damage to children's organs:
https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/child-vaccination-video-fai...
"A viral gene will be injected... This gene forces your child's body to make toxic spike proteins. These proteins often cause permanent damage in children's critical organs," he said.
I think from just generally reading what he has to say, he's positioned himself as antiestablishment and is actually saying things that could induce people into making poor decisions about vaccines and treatments. He cherry-picks studies and misinterprets them.
If you're a troll, I just wasted my time above.
If you're not convinced by the BS above, it seems unlikely you will ever change your mind and again, my time was wasted.
If this contributed in any way to a greater undertanding of Malone and Rogan, then maybe my time wasn't completely wasted.
If you read this far and noticed that I explicitly disincluded several items fact checkers cite about him, because I think they're not relevant to him being wrong, or because the statements are Not Even Wrong, or that some of his statements may even be correct though they disagree with the scientific establishment, then congratulations! You were paying attention. Have a golden apple.
Not a troll, appreciate you taking the time to respond. Believe the thread is too deep to respond directly to you. Another question if you have the time - what makes you trust one source over another? For instance when the WHO and CDC don't agree what makes you trust one source over the other?
I trust the NIH over the CDC over WHO, generally. But actually my trust model for science is very complex because I was trained as a scientist and know how to interpret what they say, including pseudoscientists and well-meaning but clueless doctors. I also keep a close eye on how mainstream changes over time by reading the blogs of various doctors and watching grand rounds. Most of these things wouldn't make sense to a typical Rogan viewer (and would be super-boring anyway) but they do sort of show how the process of beliefs change over time and how to work within the system to get people to agree with you.
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.
Sorry, I thought it would be self-evident for anyone who listened to the clip. The man shouts endless, provably false nonsense, and when an actual educated person calls in to try to tell him actual facts, he loses his shit, shouts at her and hangs up on her. If anyone is choosing to listen to that, they surely must share that rather loose relationship with reality.
Let’s provide some context, this was on Opie and Anthony years ago which was a pretty toxic show. Do you actually think current JRE episodes are like this?
Of course not. On other episodes of his show he tells us that the moon landings were faked, 9/11 was an inside job and repeats the long since disproved claims of disgraced former doctor Andrew Wakefield that vaccines cause autism.
> 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’"
"Tom Brady wraps up an unprecedented NFL career. His TB12sports Twitter account wrote: “7 Super Bowl Rings. 5 Super Bowl MVPs. 3 League MVP Awards. 22 Incredible Seasons." Still at the top of his game, he had cited a desire to spend more time with family."
"Despite reports that he is retiring, Brady has told the Tampa Bay Buccaneers he hasn’t made up his mind, two people familiar with the details told The Associated Press.
It’s unknown when he’ll make an announcement, leaving his team guessing and fans hoping for one more run that seems unlikely considering his age and family situation."
Right. So it looks like they found out they were wrong and then reported that. Joe Rogan, on the other hand, finds out that he's wrong and then screams and yells until he drowns out everyone else.
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".
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].
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.
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.
What does this even address? Your original implication was that JRE is doing this for the bux, but my comment is saying he may well have done this deal to protect his platform. Now you say this? What exactly is your point?
Is there a way to get the textual transcript? I don't want to a video of somebody holding a mobile phone to their face while apologizing for being obtuse.
They mean that the process of listening to Joe Rogan causes brain cells to die and therefore you get more stupid. It's hyperbole and has the causation backwards, but it's quite clear in terms of being an english idiom.
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.
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.
I think it would absolutely awesome if somebody on youtube or elsewhere just sort of made up a long video where they explained that Joe got better from COVID because he had worms (possibly). IE, raise the idea in people's heads that Joe is a parasite-infested person. That sounds like absolutely the sort of thing that Joe would be totally OK with.
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
Right, but he took them in a way that nobody could say for sure what helped and what didn't. The problem is that he's not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong . I think it was a mistake for the press to criticize him for taking "horse pills" but it's fine to criticize him for making pseudoscientific statements about what made him feel better.
Sadly, it's recently been concluded that monoclonals are completely ineffective against Omicron [1]. So if Joe got Delta, and people today believe his take that Regeneron will save them, they're in for a bit of a surprise.
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".
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?
This started with Twitter's cancel culture. They gamified it in the earlier years, and saw it as a challenge (mostly teenagers and trolls), and now it's used to actually silence dissenting views. It's ingrained in the population that this is the new way of handling disagreement.
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
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.
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?
Looking at Parliament Hill where this "trucker" protest is happening, where some literally cite the crackpot on Rogan's podcast as gospel that the mRNA vaccines are bad.
That and Rogan basically put more fuel to the fire by saying 50,000 trucks are heading here, when it's mostly yahoos in coal-rolling pickups or RVs.
These people are pissing on the National War Memorial; berate and assault hotel staff for enforcing a Provincial mask mandate; barged into a homeless shelter to demand food, and assaulted the homeless and security guard; and a literal Nazi flag was flown.
Rogan knows he's courting controversy without regard of what it may do. Spotify is choosing money and views above all else.
I've deleted Spotify and closed my account. I know others who have cancelled their subscription. Their words are not going to reign in what was unleashed.
The big issue here is that the audience struggles with risk assessment and various levels of confidence.
The idea of limiting the spread of ideas and hypothesis and research that is most controversial is that most people implicitly attach a confidence level to information based on how often and loudly it is repeated to them, or based on their existing bias, like a distrust for institutions or authority or a political party affiliation, etc.
This is true of most everyone, our subconscious does this assessment, and it takes a lot of effort to re-calibrate our confidence levels and assessments in ways that don't match 1:1 with "how hot of a topic it is, and how often we came in contact with it".
What happens then is that a lead such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine get attached in people's mind an innacurate confidence interval. The level of public discourse around them is outsized to the real raw factual data and the experimentation and theory that has been accrued and tallied till now.
When I then try to talk about it to someone who say succumbs to this bias, they'll say, what if it works? Why not explore it further? Why are "imaginary evil group" trying to silence and stop this? And you want to say, yes off course, it is being explored further, but there are also other opportunities being explored with already existing higher confidence in their success such as vaccines and masking. And if in the future the exploration of those lower confidence leads also proves to be fruitful then the current consensus will change and the current recommendations will update.
But this risk assessment process seems to confuse a lot of people. If any of those leads does turn up good later and consensus change, they then make people believe that those more controversial initially low confidence and more outlandish claims are therefore true and so now they will again be biased to have higher confidence on anything controversial, even though the reason for it being controversial at that time is the lack of raw data, experiment and theory behind it.
That creates a weird mismatch, and it's not following the scientific process. This is dangerous bias to have, and I believe it is important for all media when they share information to reflect more precise confidence intervals.
This starts by hearing and talking about things in proportion closer to the current confidence interval. So we should hear about one thing every day when it is high confidence, and only hear about something else once a month if it is lower confidence.
But because media is driven by money, you get a skewed ratio, where low confidence leads that are sexy, dreamy, have a lot of hope attached to them, or seem to have a good conspiracy story around them get published and promoted a lot more.
The second thing is media should be explicit about confidence intervals, Joe Rogan should mention how sure of these things are we? What amount of due diligence has happened? What is left unknown? How likely is the possibility this if a false lead? Etc.
So what some people can see as censorship, in my opinion is about having a responsability towards factual information, which includes current confidence and assessments.
Now I don't know about Joe Rogan, but if he for example had 10 podcasts all done with other scientists about vaccines, and then the one about ivermectin, that would already be a better representation of the factual confidence interval known at the time. And then if in each one of them, he'd clearly articulate or ask about how sure each statement is, which one is a potential lead waiting to be explored, and which are leads that have begun being explored and been reinforced, to what extent, what is left to be more certain, and how likely are they to be dead ends? Well I would say he's being responsible with the power he yields. Anything short of that he'd be less and less responsible and more and more a simple for profit willing to spread whatever information gives him the most power and weal...
83 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 156 ms ] threadAs 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.
Perhaps you or OP would like to share details of the misinformation you claim was shared on Joe Rogan’s show? I watched both episodes and found lots of controversial claims - all backed by citations.
I would challenge that most of Joe Rogan’s critics have never watched the episodes in question. I wouldn’t be willing to stake my life on it however.
Really? exactly 3-5% disagree with the majority?
OP made bold and uncited claims amounting to disinformation and I called them out asking for them to back their claims or back down.
I think he once said his show is the intersection of meatheads and potheads, but I think it's really just WWE.
I'm refrencing over all also, I should have specificed scientists. I'm pulling those numbers from having climate skeptics on...
>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.
I'm sorry I upset you... However I do listen and I had to stop cause I fact check if I have a question so naturally I started hating it. The podcast cause instead of having interesting scientists on that are controversal cause they speak on risky new research and techniques, he brings people that spew fake info on covid a life or death severity repeatedly.
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 fact that Rogan has these types of people on his show is not the issue, and just as you say it's fine to interview them. The issue is that he tends to take a backseat and let the interviewee make whatever claims without any push-back[1]. Simply having an episode with a pro-vaccine person and another episode with an anti-vaccine person is implying that both viewpoints are equal, which in my opinion they are not. HN is sort of unique in that likely a large portion of the user base is interested in researching claims more in depth after hearing them; I would wager that your average person does not do this and will likely take what they hear at face value. If they did that due diligence for any claim, it's unlikely we would have such a large list of "common knowledge" that is actually false.[2]
W/R/T Rogan specifically, his show reminds me of a decade-old Youtube comedy video, "Both Sides" by SMBC Theater[3]. In it, the show host organizes a debate between a Caltech Biologist, and a "Scientator" from the "Christ Rode a Dinosaur and I Have Pictures Institute," another debate between an MD and a man who believes all ailments can be cured by sticking steak knives in your eyes, and a final debate between an actual journalist and the host's intern, who is described as "anti-rape, bedwetting, and dreaming about their own mother naked," implying the journalist is of the opposite viewpoint. This is obviously farcical, but is meant to prompt the question: at what point does someone with a large viewer base have a responsibility to curate themselves and their guests?
Circling back, again, I don't think hosting people with fringe-views is an issue. I do believe a host has a responsibility to critique all viewpoints on their show, or to bring in someone who can do so if they are not able to. In my opinion, re-establishing the Fairness Doctrine[4] is a necessity and would satisfy both sides of the free-speech / censorship debate. Non-mainstream views would be able to be explored as long as there is an opposing viewpoint there to critique it at the source (as opposed to the "mis-information" warnings now that show up after the majority of exposure has already passed). I also believe that it should be expanded to apply to web-based media, though I don't have any good ideas on what exactly the criteria should be for it to apply (ie, a Youtuber with 100 subscribers probably shouldn't be, but Joe Rogan and other large podcasters probably should be). Advertising in large web services (ie, Google, Facebook, Youtube, etc) should probably also be subjected to this rule.
---
[1]: From what I've heard from discussions of Rogan (I'm not a fan of podcasts in general), he tends to go even further by pushing back against science based interviewees while letting anti-science interviewees basically have an open platform. However, I'm trying to make this comment assuming I'm mis-informed about that and he simply lets all guests say their peace.
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions
[3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGArqoF0TpQ (NSFW)
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
"the citations are WHO or studies from Israel / Great Britain / Canada". Discreted doctors can cite discredited studies on Rogan's show with absolutely no pushback. They can also cite good studies but suggest a wrong conclusion based on their own interpretation.
Note: I'm a PhD-trained scientist with extensive background in medical biology. I'm obviously not the target for Rogan's show, but what I can say is that I'm a damn good judge of bullshit and Rogan is allowing people to state total bullshit with zero checking if the statements are scientifically accurate or not.
OK. Here's the ones I ignore:
He misreprented himself as the inventor of mRNA vaccines. He was involved, not "the inventor", but that's not important here.
False tweet to paper that was later retracted which made extremely big statement about vaccine-caused deaths: https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%252F%252Fdoc.afp.com%252... I also won't count this against him because I didn't check if he later deleted the tweet and/or corrected it in a follow up tweet.
False claims about vaccine-induced viral enhancement, although that was based on rapidly moving science and I'm truly curious if anybody could ever prove that vaccinated people lead to more virulent strains, in a general sense) https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/covid-19-vaccines-eff...
Here are the serious ones:
Claims vaccine causes fatal damage to children's organs: https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/child-vaccination-video-fai... "A viral gene will be injected... This gene forces your child's body to make toxic spike proteins. These proteins often cause permanent damage in children's critical organs," he said.
Distorted statements about the approval status of vaccines: https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/scicheck-researcher-distor...
I think from just generally reading what he has to say, he's positioned himself as antiestablishment and is actually saying things that could induce people into making poor decisions about vaccines and treatments. He cherry-picks studies and misinterprets them.
If you're a troll, I just wasted my time above.
If you're not convinced by the BS above, it seems unlikely you will ever change your mind and again, my time was wasted.
If this contributed in any way to a greater undertanding of Malone and Rogan, then maybe my time wasn't completely wasted.
If you read this far and noticed that I explicitly disincluded several items fact checkers cite about him, because I think they're not relevant to him being wrong, or because the statements are Not Even Wrong, or that some of his statements may even be correct though they disagree with the scientific establishment, then congratulations! You were paying attention. Have a golden apple.
Your assertion seems wholly immature without any explanation for your position.
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...
"Tom Brady wraps up an unprecedented NFL career. His TB12sports Twitter account wrote: “7 Super Bowl Rings. 5 Super Bowl MVPs. 3 League MVP Awards. 22 Incredible Seasons." Still at the top of his game, he had cited a desire to spend more time with family."
https://twitter.com/ap/status/1487527717562032130
The Twitter linked AP Story Now...
"Despite reports that he is retiring, Brady has told the Tampa Bay Buccaneers he hasn’t made up his mind, two people familiar with the details told The Associated Press.
It’s unknown when he’ll make an announcement, leaving his team guessing and fans hoping for one more run that seems unlikely considering his age and family situation."
https://apnews.com/article/tom-brady-retirement-reports-8ec4...
"AP sources: Despite reports, Tom Brady hasn’t made up mind"
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
What changes is him and Spotify making $$$, not whether his voice being heard or not.
"I'm not trying to promote misinformation, I'm not trying to be controversial," Rogan added.
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.
[1] https://www.popsci.com/health/fda-monoclonal-antibody-treatm...
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".
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?
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.
https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/robert-malone-mislead...
https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/joe-rogan-interview-w...
Looking at Parliament Hill where this "trucker" protest is happening, where some literally cite the crackpot on Rogan's podcast as gospel that the mRNA vaccines are bad.
That and Rogan basically put more fuel to the fire by saying 50,000 trucks are heading here, when it's mostly yahoos in coal-rolling pickups or RVs.
These people are pissing on the National War Memorial; berate and assault hotel staff for enforcing a Provincial mask mandate; barged into a homeless shelter to demand food, and assaulted the homeless and security guard; and a literal Nazi flag was flown.
Rogan knows he's courting controversy without regard of what it may do. Spotify is choosing money and views above all else.
I've deleted Spotify and closed my account. I know others who have cancelled their subscription. Their words are not going to reign in what was unleashed.
The idea of limiting the spread of ideas and hypothesis and research that is most controversial is that most people implicitly attach a confidence level to information based on how often and loudly it is repeated to them, or based on their existing bias, like a distrust for institutions or authority or a political party affiliation, etc.
This is true of most everyone, our subconscious does this assessment, and it takes a lot of effort to re-calibrate our confidence levels and assessments in ways that don't match 1:1 with "how hot of a topic it is, and how often we came in contact with it".
What happens then is that a lead such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine get attached in people's mind an innacurate confidence interval. The level of public discourse around them is outsized to the real raw factual data and the experimentation and theory that has been accrued and tallied till now.
When I then try to talk about it to someone who say succumbs to this bias, they'll say, what if it works? Why not explore it further? Why are "imaginary evil group" trying to silence and stop this? And you want to say, yes off course, it is being explored further, but there are also other opportunities being explored with already existing higher confidence in their success such as vaccines and masking. And if in the future the exploration of those lower confidence leads also proves to be fruitful then the current consensus will change and the current recommendations will update.
But this risk assessment process seems to confuse a lot of people. If any of those leads does turn up good later and consensus change, they then make people believe that those more controversial initially low confidence and more outlandish claims are therefore true and so now they will again be biased to have higher confidence on anything controversial, even though the reason for it being controversial at that time is the lack of raw data, experiment and theory behind it.
That creates a weird mismatch, and it's not following the scientific process. This is dangerous bias to have, and I believe it is important for all media when they share information to reflect more precise confidence intervals.
This starts by hearing and talking about things in proportion closer to the current confidence interval. So we should hear about one thing every day when it is high confidence, and only hear about something else once a month if it is lower confidence.
But because media is driven by money, you get a skewed ratio, where low confidence leads that are sexy, dreamy, have a lot of hope attached to them, or seem to have a good conspiracy story around them get published and promoted a lot more.
The second thing is media should be explicit about confidence intervals, Joe Rogan should mention how sure of these things are we? What amount of due diligence has happened? What is left unknown? How likely is the possibility this if a false lead? Etc.
So what some people can see as censorship, in my opinion is about having a responsability towards factual information, which includes current confidence and assessments.
Now I don't know about Joe Rogan, but if he for example had 10 podcasts all done with other scientists about vaccines, and then the one about ivermectin, that would already be a better representation of the factual confidence interval known at the time. And then if in each one of them, he'd clearly articulate or ask about how sure each statement is, which one is a potential lead waiting to be explored, and which are leads that have begun being explored and been reinforced, to what extent, what is left to be more certain, and how likely are they to be dead ends? Well I would say he's being responsible with the power he yields. Anything short of that he'd be less and less responsible and more and more a simple for profit willing to spread whatever information gives him the most power and weal...