![]() Many of the things we thought of as misinformation just a short while ago are now accepted as fact. ![]() Joe Rogan himself addressed the matter on Instagram, where he pledged to strive for balance between guests with mainstream and heterodox opinions in an effort to arrive at the truth. It is therefore apparent that those who would censor him would censor every man. The most incisive analysis I encountered on Twitter: “Rogan is an Everyman. Read: Liberation or folly? Your takes on artificial wombs “At a time of increasing tribalism and profound loss of public trust in our mainstream media and authority,” she writes, “Joe Rogan has come to represent something more: the terrifying power of normal people to like the things they like.” In The New Statesman, Kat Rosenfield wonders whether concerns about health misinformation are really the root of this controversy. A “win” would merely allow certain politically progressive artists to end their tacit association with a personality whose brand is the puncturing of liberal pieties. If the protest succeeds in getting him booted, he can simply go back to making his podcast available on other platforms or launch his own. What’s strange about this effort to deplatform Rogan is that his popularity preceded, and made possible, his deal with Spotify. Rumors about bigger artists … joining the exodus have been swirling for days, so far with no confirmations. Cooke criticized what he regards as the illiberalism of anti-Rogan critics at National Review: Like it or not, you’re voting with every click.” “Refusing to think about it doesn’t make you apolitical, just oblivious. Corporations respond to that above all else,” he wrote in his newsletter. “As the problems of misinformation/disinformation grow, efforts to allocate capital thoughtfully are among the few tools Americans have left to minimize the impact of bad actors. My former colleague James Hamblin, a medical doctor, defended “It’s Joe Rogan or me”–style ultimatums and consumer boycotts as useful and necessary tools in a free-market country and culture. Rogan’s show inside its app, gives the company more responsibility for his show than others it carries." Critics say that deal, along with the aggressive way Spotify has promoted Mr. The streaming service paid more than $100 million for exclusive rights to 'The Joe Rogan Experience' in 2020, making him the headline act for its growing podcast division. But Kevin Roose observes that unlike in other clashes between creators and tech platforms, “Spotify isn’t merely one of many apps that distribute Mr. And unlike, say, health information published in The Atlantic, with its fact-checkers and commitment to accuracy, no one trusts health information more because it was streamed through Spotify. Unlike in other “platforming” controversies, where critics object that a media organization is irresponsibly drawing more eyeballs to someone who is unworthy of them, or lending them undeserved credibility, Rogan built his audience before he went to Spotify––indeed, Spotify imposes greater barriers to listening to his show than previously existed.By way of comparison, if you combine the prime-time audiences of Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, you wind up with perhaps 5 million average monthly viewers. Rogan’s audience is massive––an estimated 9 million people stream each episode of his show.(The streaming company later published what it called “our long-standing Platform Rules.”) More recently, two iconic Baby Boomer recording artists from Canada, Neil Young and Joni Mitchell, told Spotify that they wanted their music removed from the platform. Last month, 270 public-health professionals criticized Joe Rogan, the comedian and MMA commentator, for what he and some of his guests have said about COVID-19, and urged Spotify to adopt a misinformation policy. Top of mind this week: the ongoing controversy surrounding the most popular podcast in America, The Joe Rogan Experience, currently hosted on the streaming platform Spotify. What are your thoughts, positions, insights, questions, or legal opinions on the subject?Įmail your answers to I’ll publish a selection of answers in Friday’s newsletter. Late last month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases about the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions policies, often called affirmative action, in institutions of higher education.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |